

My attempts at compartmentalization have failed. There is only one inbox. - mapleoin
http://diveintomark.org/archives/2010/03/29/aka

======
barrkel
This is the last straw. Fashionable designers seem to prefer fonts that make
my eyes itchy. Does anyone know how to disable downloadable fonts in Firefox?

I've tried setting gfx.downloadable_fonts.enabled to false, but they're still
getting downloaded and used.

EDIT: A browser restart seemed to be necessary - flushing the cache and a full
page refresh wasn't sufficient. It looks like that about:config option does
work after all.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
What OS (and Firefox version) are you using?

It would be a shame to blame the font or the browser if it's your platforms
font rendering that's broken.

~~~
dagw
On Windows XP and firefox 3.5.7 the font is painful to read.

~~~
krakensden
It's also terrible on Chrome/Linux.

~~~
ZeroGravitas
It looks fine on _my_ Chrome/Linux but that doesn't really say much because
Linux fonts are so configurable.

I'd guess anyone following the Windows school of font hinting will have
problems in this brave new world of web fonts because they'll only look good
if someone with the requisite skills has spent a great deal of time hinting
them for the pixel sizes used.

If, like another commenter, you see non-core fonts as "thin" (or "spindly"
etc.) then this is probably the cause.

On Apple machines, or the way I set up Ubuntu machines (which the default
seems to get closer to as time goes by) they basically ignore that hinting
information, even if present and just pretend they're printing on a high pixel
density device and let anti-aliasing sort it out.

------
ZeroGravitas
Anyone aware of what he talked about on his blog that got him in trouble with
his work? (Which is what I think he's saying)

~~~
steveklabnik
I think he's referencing this post:
[http://diveintomark.org/archives/2010/03/08/enough-cries-
the...](http://diveintomark.org/archives/2010/03/08/enough-cries-the-future)

~~~
ZeroGravitas
That's the second thing he mentions, but the first is something he said on his
personal blog that might have affected his work and that he got in trouble at
work for, at least that's how I'm reading it.

------
tjic
First sentence of the post:

 _Fresh from being chastised for expressing my personal opinion, on my
personal blog and other strictly personal venues, about matters that may, or
may not, ever intersect the realm of the impersonal a.k.a. corporate, I take a
detour into the strictly, perhaps overly, personal, viz. how to talk to my own
children about the dangers of drugs that I myself have taken — both
medicinally and recreationally — and the many others that I have not, only to
receive emails and IMs via impersonal a.k.a. corporate media from strangers-
but-strictly-speaking-coworkers asking if everything is OK over there in
personal-land._

"impersonal a.k.a. corporate" ??

"strictly, perhaps overly, personal, viz...." ??

"impersonal a.k.a. corporate" - a SECOND time ??

"strangers-but-strictly-speaking-coworkers" ??

This tone of speech encapsulates everything that I hate about self-important
psuedo-intellectuals discussing literary "theory" in the English departments
of universities.

It's verbose, long-winded, and intentionally difficult to read - all in an
attempt to sound intelligent and deep, while actually covering up a paucity of
any original thought.

After that one "sentence", I stopped reading.

Clear writing is relatively easy, and expresses a respect for one's audience.

Long winded bull shit (like the above) expresses contempt for one's audience.

~~~
gwern
> Long winded bull shit (like the above) expresses contempt for one's
> audience.

You'd better never read David Foster Wallace, then, who basically invented
Mark's style there.

~~~
tjic
> You'd better never read David Foster Wallace, then

Sure I have.

I don't think much of his writing either.

