I think the others who replied to this are missing the point -- he's complaining about the number of sites with fonts that look blurry, jagged, or just plain hideous on many text rendering engines (especially, but by no means limited to, Windows).
One could argue this is Microsoft's fault, and there's probably some credence to that, but it's kind of beside the point. Far too many sites seem to have been designed on OS X and not tested anywhere else, and it's an obnoxious, lazy, and frankly elitist practice that needs to end.
Another related syndrome are sites designed on professional-grade monitors, with no thought given to how they're going to look on the other 95% of screens. This kind of shit is like engineering a car in California and just assuming it will work well in February in Montreal.
Not having pretty font rendering must be so hard on the poor Windows minority, suffering under the stifling oppression of the Mac OS majority... Oh wait...
Seriously, if you want pretty font rendering, complain to Microsoft. The problem isn't that the sites are designed on Mac OS, it's just that Windows' font rendering sucks. It's horrific. We can't fix that. What is it you want us to do, put all text in images? That's been the traditional response to your platform's horrific font rendering.
Pragmatically-speaking, image rendering or choosing another font are the only way your site is going to look good on a Windows (or other, non-OSX) machine. You're correct in that the font-rendering used on Windows machines is geared toward different goals that that on Macs, but that fact doesn't make the web page look any better to the user using a PC.
And they're going to blame you for using a custom font, not Microsoft.
I don't understand the point of your sarcasm in the first line. The idea is that Mac users are overrepresented in the web-designer community vs. the user community. So in essence, there exist a significant number of websites that appear to have never been tested in non-OSX browsers, for it they were, it would be apparent to the designer that they look like shit in those environments.
The font rendering dysfunction on Windows is not limited to "custom" fonts, the fonts Microsoft includes with Windows look just as awful. If you think they look good, I submit that you're probably suffering from a bad case of Stockholm syndrome.
The point of my sarcasm is that Mac users were mocked for years by the Windows crowd when they complained about major compatibility problems and were entirely ignored by most of the tech industry.
I can't help but revel in the poetic justice, and note with great hostility the dichotomy. We're now called "obnoxious", "lazy", and "elitist" because we don't waste time working around Microsoft's dysfunction just so things that work perfectly will look exactly as Windows users wish they would.
I think properly-hinted fonts look better (or at least more readable) than OS X, and I did even when I used a MacBook as my primary machine from 2007-2010. It's not Stockholm syndrome, it's a different preference.
But to your "poetic justice" point, is this about revenge for perceived injustices, or about providing the best experience for users? Because the fact is that most sites are overwhelmingly viewed by Windows users. When it comes to professional work, you can't be making decisions with huge UX implications out of spite. Most people haven't even heard of ClearType, and shouldn't be caught in the crossfire of your bizarre crusade against it.
If you're unknowingly using fonts that look like shit in Windows because you're not testing, you're (at best) lazy and unprofessional. If you're knowingly using fonts that look like shit in Windows because you harbor a decade-old grudge, you're an childish asshole who should be out of work.
You can't have it both ways -- either the quality of font rendering is a matter of preference, or we're "childish assholes" because we refuse to meet some objective standard. Which is it? And if it's the latter, where can I find this objective standard?
My point of contention isn't which style of rendering you or I prefer, it's whether or not you're justified in ignoring (if not intentionally sabotaging) the UX of the vast majority of users because of said preference.
I never claimed there was any objective standard -- you did.
That kind of mindset is a lot easier to espouse when you (and a lot of the visitors to this site) are in one of the few industries that wasn't particularly affected by the recession, and for that matter is arguably in the midst of a bubble.
We're all lucky -- if your chosen profession (and, say, one that you invested 8+ years of expensive American college to get into) was an industry that had the air sucked out of it in 2008, you might not be so condescending.
I do get what you're saying, and I think there definitely is a type of person you're describing, but you're oversimplifying a measurably more complicated problem.
I have no idea how much you know about type design, but I get the sense that the vast majority of people disparaging Roboto don't actually know shit about typography, and are just parroting what's been said by a handful of bloggers (many of whom also aren't particularly well versed). If a lot of these guys were asked to rate a bunch of unnamed fonts without the benefit of the internet to tell them what they think about them, they would probably make some terrible font snob faux pas.
I'm not an expert of typography, but to my eyes, it's a nice, clean, readable screen font. So is the Droid font family. It's not my absolute favourite, but there are more pressing issues in the world.
This is actually a very educational article. To my layman's eyes, at least, which found Roboto a bit "off" or "wobbly" but couldn't figure out why that was exactly.
John Gruber is extremely well versed in typography. He talks at great length about typefaces in his podcast and has worked for Bare Bones Software on BBEdit, a well known text editor. I would tend to trust his judgements on this matter.
Gruber does seem to know a lot, thought I'm not sure that talking about type on your podcast or working for a company that develops a text editor exactly proves that. That said, he's clearly got a snarky agenda about Android, which makes me take anything he writes about it with a grain of salt.
What annoys me is not so much Gruber or other bloggers having an opinion, it's the followers who take what they write as fact. Roboto probably isn't a font for the ages, but it seems to do what it set out to do very well. The people who worked on it aren't idiots.
Android has its issues, but I'm sick of the little cabal of Apple writers who portray it and everything surrounding it as a trainwreck.
All I did was mention that I agreed with Gruber not that he swayed me one way or the other. I think the fonts in ICS along with the rest of the Android interface is just awful. And obviously saying that in a thread which would appeal to an android user would go over like a lead ballon. Just thinking for myself.
I'll put up good money that you couldn't tell the difference between Helvetica Neue and Roboto in a blind test. Calling a near clone font "awful" is just dumb, sorry.
It’s funny you say that, because what ultimately soured me on buying Apple products was my iPhone 3G being effectively bricked by the 4.0 update, two years after I bought it (and, theoretically, days after some other people bought it from AT&T).
Microsoft may rebrand stuff in weird ways sometimes, but they don’t often kill stuff off prematurely. I’d actually argue the opposite: that they often hang onto stuff for too long.
As to your examples, PlaysForSure was only really killed from the perspective of manufacturers, or if you heavily bought into the MSN Music Store. The Kin was an extenuating circumstance, but no doubt a huge fuckup. Zune may be getting a rebrand, but I’ve heard no reason to believe a Zune player won’t continue to work with Windows 8.
All you’ve really done is name three failures of a company that has hundreds of projects. One could do the same thing for Apple, Google, or almost any other tech company.
People have already given some good reasons why this article is nonsense (or at least unnecessarily reductionist), but what pissed me off about it the most is the underlying assumption you see in so many anti-Microsoft articles: that the only reason anyone uses Microsoft products is because they don’t know any better.
This is such a juvenile, condescending, and back-patting way to look at Microsoft, and I’m fucking sick of it. I prefer Windows, I prefer Office, and I prefer C#, Visual Studio, and ASP.NET MVC. I used a Mac as my primary computer from 2007-2010, and I used Linux from 2010-2011, and I ended up back on Windows by choice. I used an iPhone, I used Android, and I ended up Windows Phone by choice. I’ve programmed in Ruby (Rails and Sinatra), Python, JavaScript, Node.js, and am currently writing an app in ASP.NET MVC by choice. I’ve used OpenOffice, I’ve used Google Docs, I’ve used Evernote, and currently use OneNote, Word, and Excel (backed by SkyDrive) by choice.
Implying people using Microsoft stuff are just sheeple who haven’t seen the light yet is as fucking stupid as claiming that people only use Apple products because of marketing and design. I have no problem with people using Apple products, Linux, or anything, I just hate the anti-Microsoft circle jerk that certain subsets of those communities sustain themselves on.
As others have said, what Microsoft did was arguably worse, but I generally agree: Apple and Google are industry darlings, and because of this are getting away with things people would be crying bloody murder over if Microsoft did them.
I get the distinct sense that a lot of people don’t really care about web standards so much as they care about their favourite company controlling standards. If it were Microsoft who was forging ahead with new features, would the MacBook-wielding, Gmail-using technorati be so enthusiastic?
I’m not even entirely against the new -webkit- stuff, I just hate the hypocrisy from people who claim to be all for web standards, except for when there’s a shiny new feature that only works in Safari, Chrome, and iOS. Microsoft has arguably been doing the best job of respecting web standards since IE9, and they get very little credit for it.
I think you're right. Today I've been reading the exact opposite of what people were saying about IE a decade ago.
I just hate the hypocrisy from people who claim to be all for web standards, except for when there’s a shiny new feature that only works in Safari, Chrome, and iOS.
I'm right there with you. For a while I've been coming to realize that the standards never actually mattered for these folks, its just that "IE6 doesn't conform to standards" made a more convincing argument for firefox than the real reason which was "IE6 is a pain in the ass and I hate it."
Now the people who want the new hotness are realizing that the standards they tied themselves to have become an albatross. If they actually ever gave a shit about standards, they would have been pitching ideas about how to update the standardization process to work with today's implementation realities. They actually would have been doing it along the way, and we would have never ended up where we are now.
I may be taking this too far, but I think there’s more to it than IE. Many in the “hacker” community seem to wrap themselves in the flag of “open”, but only when it’s in their favour.
It’s the people who argue for a decentralized, open-source alternative to Facebook, but embrace Google+. It’s the people who explain how terrible it is to tie your business to a single vendor, but decide to build businesses on iOS. It’s the people who tell you they would never put any personal documents on the cloud, but embrace Dropbox. It’s the people who claim to support open, DRM-free data formats and think the Khan Academy is the future of education, but think iBooks textbooks are great.
Like I said, I don’t have a particularly strong attachment to open source and open data formats — I just hate the way people use openness and standards as a prop. Saying standards aren’t necessary when WebKit has neat new features is (loosely) analogous to only supporting democracy when the party you vote for wins.
Sure, ununionized labour would be more employable, but these would be lower-class jobs, not the middle-class jobs that the west of today was built on. Nobody’s going to be able to support a family at middle-class standards on $10-15 an hour.
For some reason, the broader socioeconomic discussion the western world should be having has been condensed to creating jobs. But jobs aren’t a binary thing; and they’re means to an end, not the end goal (an equitable society in which the average person can be a member of the middle class).
The article said that most of the high value componentry came from Germany, Japan and Taiwan. I'm not aware of these people working under slavish conditions. Could it be that the US companies don't have sufficient technical edge?
Um, 'middle class' is squarely in the $10-15/hr range in the US today. That's about $25-30k per parent, with 2 working parents. That's 'average' in most of the US.
I’m not in the position of supporting a family, but is that really enough to support a mortgage, car(s), daycare (if we’re assuming both parents are working), putting kids though university, buying supplementary insurance, etc?
I get the sense that “average” is no longer middle class unless you really loosen the definition of middle class.
First of all, copying is completely different from stealing, but we've been over that before.
Secondly, stores actually do deal with shoplifting--they euphemistically call it "inventory shrinkage" and just chalk it up as an expense. "Unauthorized" copying isn't even an expense!
Fair point — I was being a bit facetious — but the fact remains that if a critical enough mass of people steal/copy Windows, it’s no longer economically viable. Every user who hasn’t paid for it is being subsidized by those who have.
Windows may not be the best example since it’s so massively profitable, and sells a lot to enterprise customers and OEMs who won’t pirate it. That said, I suspect the business case for producing high-budget, non-mass-market consumer content (say, HBO shows) is starting to tip. How many people pirate Game of Thrones for every one that pays for it?
In the end, we live in a capitalist society — the people making software, movies, music, books, etc. have to get paid for the stuff be made.
So MS would announce that it is no longer making Windows, and companies would then have to decide whether they want to stay in business by moving to another OS or not. I'm sorry, but I think there is a STRONG argument that if something can be obtained easily for free, or worse can be obtained MORE easily for free, then trying to defend the model by making free illegal is much like trying to make people pay a wave tax or it's illegal for them to touch the water at the beach...
"Wave tax"... not bad. I've been trying to work out an analogy myself, flush-right law. Imagine it, we could set up a paradigm in which the plumber who installs a toilet includes a little gadget that makes sure you don't flush a toilet without buying a flush-right from him by authorizing a little payment. Call the technology a Effluent Rights Management (ERM) system. It would need to be complemented, of course, with some legislation making it illegal to circumvent ERM, etc, etc, wouldn't want flush thieves simply taking the devices off their toilets.
And there it is, an artificial market created through technology and legislation, just like the copyright market. I'm sure plumbers would be eager to point out the virtues of having such a system.
If there was legitimately no demand for these products, then sure, they should move on and make something else instead. But there is a demand for them — it’s just that many of the people consuming it are stealing it. This is what laws are there for.
Again, I know this analogy isn’t perfect, but what you’ve said is not all that different from telling a shop owner who was robbed that maybe he should do something else instead.
We're talking about large-scale sharing of movies and software, not 'stealing'. It isn't desirable or practical to have the government regulate the Internet and punish offenders to stop this sharing, so content owners are going to have to adapt.
A more suitable analogy would be to a bookstore owner who's struggling because of (legal) Kindle downloads. Sucks for him, but time marches forwards. Perhaps he should partially convert to a coffee shop or similar.
The word "stealing" is an emotive slogan, not a neutral or accurate description. You must realise that by using it you make yourself appear partisan. That diminishes the impact of any point you are trying to make.
Yeah, it's fine to steal from stores because they budget for it, it's fine to steal from people's homes because they have insurance, etc. Nobody loses!
Imagine if the company behind this was, say, Microsoft — I’m guessing there would be a lot less defense of propriety, DRM-laden educational material. Really, imagine an HN thread discussing a proprietary Microsoft-backed textbook platform. Besides the level of polish, what’s the fundamental philosophical difference?
Don’t get me wrong, this looks really neat, and I think this is a glimpse into the future of education. I’m just a bit sick of Apple getting a free pass on things that people would be up in arms about if they came from almost any other tech company.
I personally find the way 37signals promote themselves to be often distasteful, but I still pay for Backpack because it does what I need it to do, and almost nothing more.
Sure, some of the interface and features feel a bit dated, but no other similar service I've tried is as simple, elegant, and devoid of unnecessary, distracting, fiddly bullshit as Backpack. Honestly, is the fact that it's not a trend surfing web developer's wet dream preventing it from being a useful tool?
One could argue this is Microsoft's fault, and there's probably some credence to that, but it's kind of beside the point. Far too many sites seem to have been designed on OS X and not tested anywhere else, and it's an obnoxious, lazy, and frankly elitist practice that needs to end.
Another related syndrome are sites designed on professional-grade monitors, with no thought given to how they're going to look on the other 95% of screens. This kind of shit is like engineering a car in California and just assuming it will work well in February in Montreal.