7 ms·
I actually hate the one on the right. I don't want my favicons to be necessarily readable, or a blur of colors like that.. they're ICONS. Visual REPRESENTATIONS
by ajkirwin 17y ago
I actually hate the one on the right. I don't want my favicons to be necessarily readable, or a blur of colors like that.. they're ICONS. Visual REPRESENTATIONS. Infact, most of the 'better' versions on that page sucked a lot more to my eyes.
- dchest 17y agoVisual REPRESENTATIONS can still be improved using subpixel antialiasing, even if there's no text on them.
- kristiandupont 17y agoAre you using an LCD monitor?
- ajkirwin 17y agoYes, I am.
- anigbrowl 17y agoHow good are your eyes? - I am curious about whether you have had them tested and if so what visual acuity score you received. It might very well be your vision is abnormally sharp and the colors are a distraction.
- ajkirwin 17y agoMy eyes are very good. Infact, even sitting at a distance of a few meet I can see individual pixels and sometimes even the subpixels.
- mmt 17y agoMe, too. The ones on the right appear as a blur of color. Anti-aliased fonts always, similarly, look color-smudged to me, so I make sure to turn off that "feature" completely, whenever I can. I suspect that, unlike some replies have implied, this isn't a defect in visual acuity (which could be the case, since the one eye I didn't bother to have laser surgery on is far from normally shaped), but, rather, an increase in sensor resolution. Might we have more cones? Perhaps our cones are distributed differently? Do we saccade [if you'll pardon the verbing] at a different frequency and/or to a different extent? If my dominant eye can focus the image (unassisted now, with spectacles pre-surgery), I tend to prefer smaller font sizes, even on a tight pitch like a 17" 1920x1200. I still wish Apple would come out with a 15" laptop with 1200 vertical pixels.