diff --git a/docs/glyphs/glyphs-4.html b/docs/glyphs/glyphs-4.html index 4f07878ff..0bcc02cc1 100644 --- a/docs/glyphs/glyphs-4.html +++ b/docs/glyphs/glyphs-4.html @@ -1,12 +1,13 @@ - +
- - - -
+
Right-to-left algorithm 1: + + +
The changes to algorithm 2, as well as the inclusion of kerning + are left as an exercise to the reader. + + + ++ 5. Vertical layouts ++ +Laying out vertical text uses exactly the same processes, with the + following significant differences: + +
Here the algorithm: + + +
+ 6. WYSIWYG text layouts ++ +As you probably know, the acronym WYSIWYG stands for "What You See Is + What You Get". Basically, this means that the output of a document on + the screen should match "perfectly" its printed version. A + true WYSIWYG system requires two things: + +
It is clear that matching sizes cannot be possible if the computer + has no knowledge of the physical resolutions of the display device(s) it + is using. And of course, this is the most common case! That is not too + unfortunate, however, because most users really don't care about this + feature. Legibility is much more important. + +When the Mac appeared, Apple decided to choose a resolution of + 72 dpi to describe the Macintosh screen to the font sub-system + (whatever the monitor used). This choice was most probably driven by + the fact that, at this resolution, 1 point equals exactly + 1 pixel. However, it neglected one crucial fact: As most users + tend to choose a document character size between 10 and 14 points, + the resultant displayed text was rather small and not too legible + without scaling. Microsoft engineers took notice of this problem and + chose a resolution of 96 dpi on Windows, which resulted in slightly + larger, and more legible, displayed characters (for the same printed + text size). + +These distinct resolutions explain some differences when displaying + text at the same character size on a Mac and a Windows machine. + Moreover, it is not unusual to find some TrueType fonts with enhanced + hinting (technical note: through delta-hinting) for the sizes of 10, 12, + 14 and 16 points at 96 dpi. + +The term device-independent text is, unfortunately, often + abused. For example, many word processors, including MS Word, do + not really use device-independent glyph positioning algorithms when + laying out text. Rather, they use the target printer's resolution to + compute hinted glyph metrics for the layout. Though it + guarantees that the printed version is always the "nicest" it can be, + especially for very low resolution printers (like dot-matrix), it has a + very sad effect: Changing the printer can have dramatic effects on the + whole document layout, especially if it makes strong use of + justification, uses few page breaks, etc. + +Because glyph metrics vary slightly when the resolution changes (due + to hinting), line breaks can change enormously, when these differences + accumulate over long runs of text. Try for example printing a very long + document (with no page breaks) on a 300 dpi ink-jet printer, then + the same one on a 3000 dpi laser printer: You will be extremely + lucky if your final page count didn't change between the prints! Of + course, we can still call this WYSIWYG, as long as the printer + resolution is fixed. + +Some applications, like Adobe Acrobat, which targeted + device-independent placement from the start, do not suffer from this + problem. There are two ways to achieve this: either use the scaled and + unhinted glyph metrics when laying out text both in the rendering and + printing processes, or simply use whatever metrics you want and store + them with the text in order to get sure they are printed the same on all + devices (the latter being probably the best solution, as it also enables + font substitution without breaking text layouts). + +Just like matching sizes, device-independent placement isn't + necessarily a feature that most users want. However, it is pretty clear + that for any kind of professional document processing work, it + is a requirement. + + ++ +
|