Re: [isabelle] Isabelle2019-RC0: Fonts look blurry
On 4/5/19 9:07 AM, Makarius wrote:
> On 05/04/2019 01:38, Eugene W. Stark wrote:
>> I tried to download Isabelle2019-RC0 today, but there was some corruption in the tarball.
> The tarball should be OK -- I have tested it once again. Maybe your
> download was corrupted. For comparison, here are
> SHA256 checksums and byte sizes
Strange. I had gotten the correct number of bytes, but the SHA256 was invalid.
I made another download just now (from home, not in office where I did the other)
and I got a correct SHA256.
>> This comment is based on Isabelle_03-Apr-2019.
>> I don't normally complain about such things, but yes, the fonts are somewhat blurry.
> That is mainly a function of the font renderer by OpenJDK, but it is
> only relevant for very low-resolution displays (HD). The quality is
> better than before with non-legacy displays (UHD).
I would not consider the 2560x1440 display I am using to be a very low-resolution
legacy display and the quality is noticeably worse, so indeed relevant.
>> Beyond that, they are exquisitely ugly, especially the extra wide boldface font
>> in the Sidekick panel.
> The new fonts are based on the well-known DejaVu collection. In
> particular, there are now a proper Bold / Italic / BoldItalic fonts, not
> just interpolations by fontforge or the fontrenderer.
> You can check how it is meant to look by the updated Isabelle/jEdit
> On my regular UHD display, the 2019 versions looks very good, and the
> 2018 version looks tolerable, but somewhat bad. On an old HD display
> both look bad in different ways.
What I see does not show any large differences to the screenshots you posted.
I strongly dislike the boldfaced keywords in the Sidekick panel -- they are
too bold and too wide. The line spacing in that panel is also quite crowded,
IMHO. I prefer the Isabelle 2018 Sidekick to this one by quite a lot.
The line spacing in the main edit panel also appears slightly crowded, to my eye.
I don't know if it is just the difference in the font, or whether the line
spacing was actually reduced. I can tolerate that, but so far I don't like it.
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail (Mailman edition) and