What David Turner said, with a few additions.
First, I'm obviously concerned about displaying PostScript and PDF documents, for which the goals of high-fidelity, accurate rendering and high-contrast, legible text are often in tension. These document formats, for better or worse, are deeply rooted in scalable font technology. Trying to use bitmap fonts, no matter if they're pretty, is not going to work well.
Second, as the resolution of screens goes up, the tradeoff between accuracy and contrast shifts in favor of (unhinted) antialiasing. At 200 dpi, which will be standard in a few years, the contrast of unhinted aa text is plenty good enough for just about everybody. The challenge is how to get there from here. One of the obstacles is the large installed base of software which is incapable of scaling with display resolution. It's a Catch-22: there isn't the pressure to fix the broken software until the displays become cheap, and the motivation isn't there to do high volume manufacturing of the displays until there is software that works with them. Microsoft is in a position to break through that, and if they do, I'll be quite grateful.
By the way, a really good place to start would be to make double-clocked pixel rates on CRT's work. Commodity video cards typically support pixel clocks in the 360MHz range. That'll handily run 2560 x 1024 (in other words, the standard 1280 x 1024 res double-clocked in the X direction) at 95 Hz. Of course, because of the shadow mask or aperture grille, CRT's can't actually display the full resolution. However, you still get the advantages of improved contrast and glyph positioning (spacing) accuracy. It's very easy to play with this - just double all the horizontal numbers in your XFree86 modeline, then run Ghostscript with a resolution such as -r144x72 or -r192x96.
A conversation between Jim Gray and Dave Patterson, via Tim Bray. Linger for a while at Tim's blog; it's one of the best reads out there.
I have two quantitative questions about bullshit:
- How does the bullshit level vary between types of communication
- How does the bullshit level vary between various topics of
otherwise similar intellectual content?
I was thinking about the latter question, especially, when responding to a rant by jwz about gamma correction. Gamma is not all that complicated or difficult, but a lot of people get it wrong, a huge fraction of what you find on the Web is bullshit, and you even see your share of kooks (and see Poynton's refutation).
A quick experiment using Google searches shows that it's a lot easier to find bullshit about gamma correction than, say, the structure of rhodopsin. The query "rhodopsin structure" yielded 9 functioning links, all of which appeared to be high quality and free of bullshit. The same search for "gamma correction" yielded 7 independent links, of which one was an ad for a product, and all of the remaining 6 had problems. The first hit is typical - it suggests that the nonlinearity between voltage and luminance in CRT's is a "problem" that needs to be "corrected", rather than a sound engineering choice for video systems. Their sample images are poorly considered, and reinforce this faulty notion.
Why is gamma correction so cursed? I think the main reason is that it doesn't belong to any discipline which is taught well in school, so there isn't a core of competent, respected people who know what they're talking about. Color science in general suffers from this problem. Even though color is a very basic part of everyday life, it intersects a wide range of academic disciplines, including physics, electrical engineering (particularly video), chemistry (less so these days now that digital cameras are replacing silver), psychology, computer science, and so on.
I use gamma correction as an example of a subject which needs good bullshit discrimination. How well does the web do this? Not very, at least measured by Google. There are some good resources on gamma out there, but they don't make Google's top 10, which presumably means that it's not popular to link to them. Do blogs do a good job? That's harder to answer because my own response skews things, but my sense is no.
Of course, I am thinking about a form of communication that seems to succeed in filtering out much bullshit: peer reviewed scientific publications. There are limitations, largely those of scope; for most important things that people care about, you can't find any scientific literature on the subject. Indeed, it would be very difficult to publish a paper about gamma correction in a prestigious journal, because it's a solved problem (in fact, television engineers got it right a long time ago, and it just took computer people to screw it up). The dollar cost of producing a peer-reviewed publication is also very high, but in many cases could be considered worth it.
Of course, it's possible that one of the big reasons that Poynter's Color FAQ is not a popular link target is the fact that it's in PDF format. Jakob Nielsen, in the above linked essay, argues that PDF has very serious usability problems as a format for Web pages. It is tempting because you have far more control over the aesthetics (and it works way better for printing), but overall I have to agree with Jakob.
The good news, I think, is that many of these usability problems are not inherent to the PDF file format, but can be fixed. Indeed, many of the complaints Jakob raises have to do with the awkward integration between the PDF viewer and the Web browser. Acrobat has its own UI, but in the free software world, there isn't any viewer whose UI is similarly entrenched. It shouldn't be hard to integrate a PDF engine into a Web browser, so that you can browse fluidly between HTML and PDF formats without caring all that much which is which.