Chrome Renders Raggedy Type ?

Screen snap: http://tinyurl.com/hrrujsp

Actual link that I was browsing:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-...-s-bad-science

Can anybody speculate on why the type looks so raggedy?

This does not seem to be a bitmapped image because I can copy/paste text
from it into NotePad.

Something with fonts and my Windows 7 system?

Or maybe some artifact of the way The New Yorker Magazine builds it's
web page?
--
Pete Cresswell

On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 17:25:10 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)"
wrote:

Screen snap: http://tinyurl.com/hrrujsp

Actual link that I was browsing:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-...-s-bad-science

Can anybody speculate on why the type looks so raggedy?

This does not seem to be a bitmapped image because I can copy/paste text
from it into NotePad.

Something with fonts and my Windows 7 system?

Or maybe some artifact of the way The New Yorker Magazine builds it's
web page?

I looked at it with Chrome and Win10 and it looks like any typical web
page font to me.

On 3/9/2016 2:25 PM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Screen snap: http://tinyurl.com/hrrujsp

Actual link that I was browsing:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-...-s-bad-science

Can anybody speculate on why the type looks so raggedy?

This does not seem to be a bitmapped image because I can copy/paste text
from it into NotePad.

Something with fonts and my Windows 7 system?

Or maybe some artifact of the way The New Yorker Magazine builds it's
web page?


The body of text uses Adobe Caslon Pro. The initial "I", however, uses
Neutraface New Yorker Bold.

I think it is poor design to begin text with a sans-serif font and then
have the body of text use a serif font. If the first line did not begin
with "t’s a shame", I would not have thought the large vertical bar was
the letter "I".

--
David E. Ross

While many tributes to the late Supreme Court Associate Justice
Antonin Scalia now fill the news media, his legacy was not
necessarily positive. See my "What Price Order, Mr. Justice Scalia?"
at http://www.rossde.com/editorials/edtl_scalia_wrong.html.

(PeteCresswell) wrote:
Screen snap: http://tinyurl.com/hrrujsp

Actual link that I was browsing:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-...-s-bad-science

Can anybody speculate on why the type looks so raggedy?

This does not seem to be a bitmapped image because I can copy/paste text
from it into NotePad.

Something with fonts and my Windows 7 system?

Or maybe some artifact of the way The New Yorker Magazine builds it's
web page?

There's an article here.

https://www.dev-metal.com/fix-ugly-f...google-chrome/

I'm not going to try debugging it, but if I had to guess,
the newyorker.com site is micro-managing the page content
for Chrome, and has managed to select a webfont format with
a known problem.

Paul

On Wed, 09 Mar 2016 17:25:10 -0500, (PeteCresswell) wrote:

Screen snap: http://tinyurl.com/hrrujsp

Actual link that I was browsing:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-...-s-bad-science

Can anybody speculate on why the type looks so raggedy?

This does not seem to be a bitmapped image because I can copy/paste text
from it into NotePad.

Something with fonts and my Windows 7 system?

Or maybe some artifact of the way The New Yorker Magazine builds it's
web page?


Here is a side-by-side comparison of what you see vs. what I see in Chrome.
http://imgur.com/5OKZmag

1) You see raggedy type, I see smooth type.
2) The other obvious difference is the vertical position of the drop cap "I".

My screen-shot (above) is from Chrome 48.

Some wild speculation:

(a) Are you using an older version of Chrome?

(b) There is a Windows setting to enable or disable smoothing fonts.
Check how this setting is set on your computer.
Control Panel System Advanced system settings Performance Settings Visual Effects
[x] Smooth edges of screen fonts

Screen-shot: http://thewindowsclub.thewindowsclub...-8-273x400.jpg

(c) Are you using any Chrome extension (e.g. Stylish) to customise
the appearance of web sites?

Are you using a user stylesheet with Chrome?


--
Kind regards
Ralph

Per Ralph Fox:
Here is a side-by-side comparison of what you see vs. what I see in Chrome.
http://imgur.com/5OKZmag

1) You see raggedy type, I see smooth type.
2) The other obvious difference is the vertical position of the drop cap "I".

My screen-shot (above) is from Chrome 48.

Thanks!... That is pretty much what I was trolling for.

Sounds like it is my system - one way or another - and I will start
working your and others' scenarios.
--
Pete Cresswell

"(PeteCresswell)" schreef in bericht
...
Screen snap: http://tinyurl.com/hrrujsp

Actual link that I was browsing:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-...-s-bad-science

Can anybody speculate on why the type looks so raggedy?

This does not seem to be a bitmapped image because I can copy/paste text
from it into NotePad.

Something with fonts and my Windows 7 system?

Or maybe some artifact of the way The New Yorker Magazine builds it's
web page?
--
Pete Cresswell



I'm not going to click any link but I do recognise Chrome misbehaving te way
you describe recently. I was going to read my newspaper and letters were
jagged all over the page.

I also use a chromecast extention "play to Chromecast" which used to work
fine for missed TV programs. This doesn't work anymore. Messed it all up by
some "update", very disappointing!

And finally my Chrome settings were changed once AGAIN. I think I had to
change my setting back for the 10th time or so, to NOT save any passwords.
No idea wether this is malicious or just stupid...




--


|\ /|
| \/ |@rk
\../
\/os

Interesting comparison. I couldn't see the image at
your link, but I can see Ralph's. Your version looks
almost like an overly compressed JPG file. I've never
seen that kind of "debris ghosting" with any font in any
usage. And you don't have any other display problems?

I get frustrated with the general layout of pages.
Lately it seems to be trendy to target phone screens,
so there's giant text with giant spaces. (That New Yorker
text has a 2.8 line-height. 1.2 or 1.3 is plenty to make
reading easy.) Some of it is so big that I just go to
View - Style - No Style (Firefox. I don't use Chrome.)
Then I read the page 1998-style. It's boring and plain,
but at least it's clear. It also uses my default font,
which is Verdana. Heavily seriffed fonts are said to
be good for paper, but they don't help on display
screens: Excessive complication of letter shapes.

Linea Recta wrote:
"(PeteCresswell)" schreef in bericht
...
Screen snap: http://tinyurl.com/hrrujsp

Actual link that I was browsing:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-...-s-bad-science


Can anybody speculate on why the type looks so raggedy?

This does not seem to be a bitmapped image because I can copy/paste text
from it into NotePad.

Something with fonts and my Windows 7 system?

Or maybe some artifact of the way The New Yorker Magazine builds it's
web page?
--
Pete Cresswell



I'm not going to click any link but I do recognise Chrome misbehaving te
way you describe recently. I was going to read my newspaper and letters
were jagged all over the page.

I also use a chromecast extention "play to Chromecast" which used to
work fine for missed TV programs. This doesn't work anymore. Messed it
all up by some "update", very disappointing!

And finally my Chrome settings were changed once AGAIN. I think I had to
change my setting back for the 10th time or so, to NOT save any passwords.
No idea wether this is malicious or just stupid...

To preview the first link, change the URL to

http://preview.tinyurl.com/hrrujsp

Some of the other "link shortener" sites,
you place a plus on the end of the URL, like this

http://some.shortener/1234abcd # launch
http://some.shortener/1234abcd+ # preview link

and that is supposed to show a preview
of the link.

I use a Linux VM for link testing, to prevent
surprises. Since I know the "trick" to the
tinyurl one already, I don't need to use the
Linux VM for that one. Underneath that shortened
URL, is a link to picassaweb (Google picture
storage).

I usually reserve the full treatment, for individuals
who post and tell me "I think I got malware off this
site". I always love posts like that... Then I have
to put on the hip waders, the rubber gloves... and
carefully check. Including a virustotal scan, and
others. If anyone has a malware link, they should
change the URL in their posting to hxxp://
so that an unsuspecting reader won't click on it
and find it "activated".

Paul

In message , David E. Ross
writes:
[]
I think it is poor design to begin text with a sans-serif font and then
have the body of text use a serif font. If the first line did not begin
with "t’s a shame", I would not have thought the large vertical bar was
the letter "I".

I think some sans fonts are themselves poor design - certainly the ones
where lower-case L, upper-case I, and numeral 1 are all plain rectangles
of the same height.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Imagine a world with no hypothetical situations...

(PeteCresswell) wrote on 2016/03/09:

Screen snap: http://tinyurl.com/hrrujsp

Actual link that I was browsing:
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-...-s-bad-science

Can anybody speculate on why the type looks so raggedy?

This does not seem to be a bitmapped image because I can copy/paste text
from it into NotePad.

Something with fonts and my Windows 7 system?

Or maybe some artifact of the way The New Yorker Magazine builds it's
web page?

@font-face {
font-family: "adobe-caslon-pro";
font-style: normal;
font-weight: 400;
src: url("data:font/opentype;base64,d09GMgABAA...=");
}

The long string is (omitted where is the ellipsis), I believe, a base64
encoding of the font. Rather than point to an online reference of where
to find the font, the CSS element carries the font. Below describes
that font:

http://www.fonts.com/font/adobe/adobe-caslon

Do you have Google Chrome configured to NOT download fonts (temporarily)
so rendering a page can use that font? My eyes aren't keen enough to
discern if the font you show in your pic matches the page-specified
font. Some fonts are so close in traits that they almost seem to be a
superfluous duplicate. If the web browser or an add-on prevents font
download then the application has to use an approximate alternate, or
fallback font.

I don't use Google Chrome. In Firefox, I have it enabled to "Allow
pages to choose their own fonts, instead of my selections above [a list
of default fonts]". If I disabled that option, and because the Caslon
font is not installed in my instance of Windows, the app would have to
use a fallback font (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallback_font). For
fallback fonts, I elect "Default for Current Locale"; i.e., the fallback
font list is taken from the OS for the language currently selected for
the app. Since I do allow Firefox to temporarily download the page
specified font then the page shows using that font. You can't be sure a
page will look good or is even legible when using fallback fonts.

Do you have font smoothing enabled in the OS? You'll will probably want
that if your app has to use a fallback font (because it is configured
not to get the page-specified font or the local one is corrupted). What
default fonts are specified in Google Chrome (for when a page-specified
font is not retrieved or unavailable)? Could be you need to change
those to better/smoother fonts. In my Firefox (and probably its
defaults), it is configured to use: for proportional fonts - 16pt Times
New Roman for serif and 16pt Arial for non-serif; for monospace fonts -
13pt Courier New. And Firefox is configured to download page-specified
fonts (it's a temp download, not that they get installed) along with
font fallback enabled. And my Windows has font smooting enabled.

| The long string is (omitted where is the ellipsis), I believe, a base64
| encoding of the font. Rather than point to an online reference of where
| to find the font, the CSS element carries the font. Below describes
| that font:
|
| http://www.fonts.com/font/adobe/adobe-caslon
|
| Do you have Google Chrome configured to NOT download fonts (temporarily)
| so rendering a page can use that font?

I block fonts for security purposes. (There was an
issue with that just recently.) But it doesn't matter.
That page offered several fallback font options, ending
with serif. I suspect he's got a display issue.

On 3/10/2016 1:45 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , David E. Ross
writes:
[]
I think it is poor design to begin text with a sans-serif font and then
have the body of text use a serif font. If the first line did not begin
with "t’s a shame", I would not have thought the large vertical bar was
the letter "I".

I think some sans fonts are themselves poor design - certainly the ones
where lower-case L, upper-case I, and numeral 1 are all plain rectangles
of the same height.


That is true with many fonts but not with Trebuchet. That is why I use
Trebuchet in documents where I want to indicate a URI; the rest of the
document might be Georgia (supposedly easily read both online and in
hard-copy) or Verdana (which is good online).

--
David E. Ross

While many tributes to the late Supreme Court Associate Justice
Antonin Scalia now fill the news media, his legacy was not
necessarily positive. See my "What Price Order, Mr. Justice Scalia?"
at http://www.rossde.com/editorials/edtl_scalia_wrong.html.