One more quick view of where we are without font anti-aliasing at present...

This is a little outside the usual working condition, as it was a test for other purposes with a thin font, and white against blue doesn’t help either, but it emphasizes the condition of any more substantial fonts, the fuzzy view.

I do appreciate this is one of those taking a Qt dive to deal with, and will have its place in priorities vs. pote ntial effort, but for Scrivener Win 3 's review judgement when it does release, I would guess font appearance is pretty important.

And clearer makes us much more comfortable as writers, too, doesn’t it.

Please Note! I’m offering this as a linked image first, before a posted image, so you can click and download it, then view on your pc. That’s because it appears magnified, and also smoothed, when seen through the forum software.

The real and ragged shows better at correct size in Win Photo even though that also smooths – or more accurately yet, in your real image program.

Thus also, previous screenshots haven’t shown the extent of the actual viewed problem on ‘ordinary’ fonts, either…

Here’s the link, for the real view:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wbzs3mxmm00syav/blue-white-thin-font.png?dl=1

And here’s a posting; grotty, but not nearly as bad as the problem actually is.

Patient:: It hurts when I slap my face.
Doctor: Don’t slap your face
Patient: but I will still know it hurts.

The screen cap you provided is BELOW a standard HD screen.
Lowres screen + Very thin font + Terrible color choice = crappy looking text. Nott enough pixels to alias that though I can see it trying.
Odds are the font is designed to be printed at 300+ DPI NOT as a screen font for a LOW RES screen.that may be below 72dpi.
As Windows manages much of the Font rendering… Not sure what is expected here

Don’t use thin fonts on low res displays.

Keep in mind I agree font asthetics is important. Its one reason my 13 inch ultrabook has a 4K display. Not for movies but because Windows 10 finally does a decent job scalling things like fonts.

I agree with wordjoy, your screenshots mean nothing. If the screen resolution is low you can’t expect perfectly rendered fonts. Besides, do you use Scrivener under wine or something?

Scrivener under Wine works fairly well. Or did, last December when I last tested it.

Thanks, rwfranz – not aware what antialiasing tech applies under Wine – it may get along better…

@wordjoy @krastev, without comment on your approach, just facts:

  • Windows 10 latest everything, etc…
  • the screen resolution is normal. That’s not a full-screen capture, just the Scriv or Word pane/s. Full-screen is 1600x900.
  • please turn your attention to the fact that the forum auto-resizes images to whatever it feels like.
  • this is why I carefully explained and included the links to the original screen captures.
  • you might have thought a little about what I said, about the particular colors exacerbating the problem, as they will do
  • the purpose was to show the problem clearly, in any case, but I can do that better if I take another hour…,

Ok, I will do the same demonstration, but with settings that may seem more normal to you.

  • black type, white screen. I and many others don’t use this, as dark screens are much easier on the eye, of course.
  • I’ve used five more familiar manufacture, high quality fonts. They are in order
    = Brioso Pro (Adobe)
    = Adobe Jensen Pro
    = Garamond Premier Pro (Adobe)
    = Minion Pro (Adobe)
    = Calibri (Microsoft)
  • It’s worth noting that Calibri especially constructed to look ‘clear’ on screens - lots of solid pixels
  • I’ve done identical texts, on Beta 22 and Word, 12pt fonts, normal screen presentation (100%)
  • if you have knowledge of this, yes, screens don’t really show full point size unless you use magnification (72 vs 96px), but this is what you see with standard Scrivener and Word settings.

Now, I’ll do the same as I did before: push screenshots to the forum, but also give links so that in a decent graphics program, you can view actually what the screen shows, where the forum pics aren’t showing accurately – because they’ve been resized, and (badly) smoothed.

As a clue, the true size of the fonts on screen is actually pretty identical, Word or Scrivener.

What to look for (the problems, in overview)

  • In Word, the fonts are nice and solid, easy to read, all of them
  • In Scrivener, not so much…see for yourself, not solid, not easy to read
  • Calibri is thin, but more readable because it is essentially a screen font not so much in need of antialiasing
  • The serif fonts, as would be expected, are very spindly, fading in and out of apparent boldness (font ‘color’) across their sentences, the more so according to design styles
  • On Jensen and Minion, #s 2 and 4, the letters are evident in being mis-spaced, uneven, expected casualty of poor antialiasing (specifically, fundamentally not following hinting)

And I will say on the Scrivener team’s side for sure, that as we know, Qt, the framework otherwise helpful that Scrivener is built upon, has long had problems like this. I had thought they were cleaned up a few years ago when we first looked at this on old Scrivener. What can be done at present will no doubt take some focused effort to look into. The balance is in review perception, beyond what we long users may be able to adjust temporarily as workaround. As stated before.

The real images to download, Microsoft Word first so you see what the world is supposed to look like:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zdmpl7m390ul6zb/word-font-appearance.png?dl=1
https://www.dropbox.com/s/soqhxthn6b7bn18/scrivener-font-appearance.png?dl=1

When you look at these link downloaded images, in a proper graphics app, not a browser with its distortions, you’ll see how solid, readable and clear the MS Word view is. And the comparison.

Now app pane shots, where even though they are false through auto-sizing and browser smoothing, I suspect you’ll be able to see there’s quite a real difference, if not the fine and accurate points,

Microsoft Word again first:

Then Scrivener;

I did download your image.

1600 x 900 is still below average for several years. 1920x1080 would be standard and I would keep that below 20 inches for text work.

I have to say I keep hearing about QT. I have to wonder if that was a mistake from the start. because it keeps coming up as a reason things are not Finishing as fast, now poor text as well.

Too late now,
But one has to wonder if there was a better platform to build this on in Windows.

That said.
Make sure you have Cleartype tuned for your display.
If you have never tuned clear type. Type ClearType in the Windows 10 search box
Click Adjust Clear Type
Make sure it is on, and you run the tuner that lets your eye on your screen adjust font aliasing. If QT is not using Windows built in ClearType… its a poor platform for text app developent.

‘below average’ – come on…that is plenty of resolution for nice clear text. Shake of head at all this.

But the better fact is that I’ve proved a way to fix the problem. At the least, make a massive improvement in appearance.

I’ll put shortly that in its own post, to assure @tiho_d can see it after all the talk in here.

First, dinner.

QT may be the best available framework for the purpose, as it’s open source and does everything needed. Are there others? Yes. Are they the best choice for an application like this one? Meh. I don’t know what licensing arrangements they have. Some are rather expensive. Scriv 1.9.x was built using QT, and it worked fairly well. Scriv 2.9 actually works okay, but certain functions have issues.

I’ve used QT to build applications, back when I was learning to program, and it works fairly well. There are tricky bits, of course.

But the other question is, which framework translates best from the code for the Mac version? On the Mac, a lot of the stuff QT does is baked into the OS, and it isn’t in Windows.

There are other frameworks out there, some good, some not so good. (see http://www.atai.org/guitool/ for a (rather elderly) list).

And after perusing some of the alternatives mentioned on “Alternatives to” for QT, I’m having to conclude that QT is one of the best available, if not the best. But, obviously, it’s not perfect.

On another thread, it has been found by community discussion and testing that turning off QT Font hinting seems to work best on Windows 10 (probably any Windows with Cleartype turned on) it might be that two font hinting systems were fighting.

This is under Options> Editing

1 Like