Posts in category typography - page 6
A newer version of Envy Code R is available.
The last few days have been frantic ones putting the final touches to the next release of the Envy Code R typeface as I bring it closer to my idea of the perfect coding font.
Many glyphs have been redrawn, curves improved and a many additional characters and symbols added bringing the number of glyphs to 461 – enough to cover common European and US code pages including Windows/ISO 1250 & 1252 as well as MacOS Roman and a few others.
There was some interest in a bold variant and so once that was done I felt the urge to make an italic one too:
As a bonus I’ve created a variant that overcomes Visual Studio’s aversion to italics by marking the italic font as bold. Choose ‘Envy Code R VS’ in the Font and Colors part of Visual Studio’s Options and choose bold wherever you want italics.
Here’s a sample at 10 point/ClearType with my own color scheme:
A few things to note:
- The new glyphs for accented characters, ligatures etc. might not be correct, they’re new to me
- Bitmaps are missing so if you don’t use smoothing/anti-aliasing/ClearType stick to the prior PR4 release
- Optimal size: Windows 10 point, Java 13 point and Mac OS X 12.5 point but looks good at larger sizes too
- Some glyphs will be improved (96?&) but others can’t (WwMm@) as there are no more pixels to play with
- At some sizes individual letters aren’t the right height, e.g. u,v,x at 12 point (damn hinting)
Download of this older version no longer available.
Feel free to leave comments and suggestions here (or better yet blog about it!)
Envy Code R has been updated since this post.
I have been experimenting with Envy Code R over the last few months – everything from creating a bold version to delta hinting with Visual TrueType with mixed results.
Part of the problem is that at larger sizes the odd shapes and over-emphasized curves that I drew to make the font look great at 10-point with ClearType on makes it look awkward at larger sizes.
Last weekend, I went back to the drawing board, literally, to try and improve on the shapes without impacting too much on the 10-point size ClearType version. The result is as follows;
And for comparison, the old version:
Let me know your thoughts in the comments, even if it’s just to say your prefer PR6, Consolas or something else. Be sure to mention what size and whether you have ClearType on (or if you are using a Mac).
Jeff Atwood asked What’s Wrong With Apple’s Font Rendering? and as I answered in the comments it comes down to philosophy:
The primary difference is that Microsoft try to align everything to whole pixels vertically and sub-pixels horizontally.
Apple just scale the font naturally – sometimes it fits into whole pixels other times it doesn’t.
This means Windows looks sharper at the expense of not actually being a very accurate representation of the text. The Mac with it’s design/DTP background is a much more accurate representation and scales more naturally than Windows which consequently jumps around a lot vertically.
Jeff and Joel both wrote follow up posts agreeing that it is one of philosophy but both are of the opinion that the Windows pixel-grid approach is the better whilst our displays are only capable of low dots-per-inch (DPI).
What they don’t seem to appreciate is the compromise this causes.
Here is an example of Times New Roman on Windows (left) and Mac OS (right) scaled over whole point sizes with sub-pixel precision:
The two thing to note here arising from this “pixel-grid is king” approach are
- Windows does not scale fonts linearly as the rough line points out
- Windows scales the height and width but not the weight of the font
Neither of these may matter to a casual user but for professionals preparing material destined for high DPI (film or print) then it’s a world of difference. How can you layout a page on-screen and expect the same result on the page when the font isn’t the same width?
The issue is reminiscent of the “I hate black bars on wide-screen films” brigade who believe that the film should be chopped, panned, scaled and otherwise distorted from the artists original intention simply so that it fits better on their display.
Typography has a rich and interesting history developed and honed over centuries. It is a shame to misrepresent typefaces especially as the pixel-grid approach becomes less relevant as displays reach higher resolutions.
Some additional comparisons and a note that the gamma differences between Windows and Mac will affect how you see the “other” systems rendering on your machine.
Further update (21 August 2007)
Thanks to Daring Fireball and ZDNet we’ve had a few more great comments which I’ve summarized here:
George thinks the philosophy idea is wrong because “What percentage of Mac users sit around all day doing nothing but pre-press work?” but as Fred points out Microsoft’s desktop-user optimized rendering ends up on images and videos all over the web, thus escaping the environment for which it was crippled.
George also claims that Vista’s rendering is improved, I can’t vouch for that one way or another but from looking at his screen shots the difference there could simply be the contrast level as adjusted by the ClearType tuner.
Nathaniel believes that it’s not Microsoft’s job to manipulate a typeface and that if you want on-screen readability then choose a font designed for that such as Microsoft’s own Tahoma or Apple’s Lucida Grande.
I’d go further and say that Microsoft’s own aggression in sticking to the grid kills font choice at the regular reading size of 10/11 point by optimizing everything to a generic sans or serif look:
Mac OS X
James points to an article called Texts Rasterization Exposures that proposes a combination of using vertical hinting only and calculating horizontally to 256 levels and has some convincing screen-shots showing the benefits. Probably too late for Leopard or Vista SP1 though.
Linux vendor Red Hat have released a font family named Liberation under a GPL license.
The family consists of three typefaces known as Liberation Serif, Liberation Sans and Liberation Mono each in normal, italic, bold and bold italic variants. The fonts are not hinted in this initial release so may not look too great on-screen at some sizes. Red Hat expect to release better-looking hinted versions in the future. Having attempted hinting Envy Code R font myself they have my sympathy.
These new fonts are designed to be metric-compatible (and therefore interchangeable) with the standard Windows fonts of Times New Roman, Arial and Courier New intending to “Liberate” documents from Microsoft’s fonts. Bearing in mind Office 2007 pushes new typefaces as the default I’m not sure how successful this will be long-term.
Microsoft’s typefaces were designed to be metric-compatible with the classic Times Roman (1931), Helvetica (1957) and Courier (1955) typefaces in the first place so perhaps Red Hat would have been better off licensing or mimicking those instead.
Screen shots follow.
The Liberation fonts on Windows using ClearType alongside the Windows fonts they intend to replace. The free Bitstream Vera family equivalent is also shown (only Vera Sans Mono is metric-compatible).
Microsoft’s Windows fonts alongside Apple’s versions of the originals and the Liberation fonts again all rendered with Mac OS X and sub-pixel precision aliasing. Point sizes have been increased by 3pt to compensate for the difference in on-screen DPI.