[TonyTrapp]

As a 15+ years Firefox user: What is "very much off" about Firefox' font rendering? For me it's the opposite, Chrome's rendering looks completely off to me - thin and it looks like the ClearType effect is set to 11. On the other hand, Firefox' font rendering in that screenshot looks like native Windows font rendering to me.

[grrandalf]

Yeah same. I vastly prefer Firefox’s rendering on windows, Mac, and Linux to chrome’s. In fact that was the main reason I switched many years ago.

Something about chrome DIY’ing font rendering instead of using the platform’s when I last looked into this

Even Edge font rendering started looking way better — only after they switched away from chrome’s diy font rendering.

(Aside: IMO chrome on android is good but all others are bad at font rendering. Probably uses platform rendering on Android)

[rjmunro]

The problem with "very much off" for font rendering is that it is relative to what you are used to, not relative to any actual standard font rendering. If you've been using Firefox a while, Chrome will look off. If you've been using Chrome, Firefox will look off.

[TonyTrapp]

Maybe I am reading too much into the sentence but to me, "some people just don't notice or don't care" implies that there is something objectively broken about it that can be quantified.

[dataflow]

There is. I just posted a screenshot and explained it here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37231149

[unethical_ban]

"off" implies an error. Which browser does it correctly? Having used Vivaldi and Firefox in close succession I never noticed a difference.

[crazygringo]

No, "off" in this case merely implies different from what you're used to.

This is aesthetic preference, there's no such thing as "correct". It goes back to the old debate on Mac vs. Windows font rendering -- do you like pixel alignment or do you like letterform accuracy? There's no right answer.

[dataflow]

> No, "off" in this case merely implies different from what you're used to.

Kind of enough, but...

> This is aesthetic preference, there's no such thing as "correct".

"Correct" for the purposes of this discussion could be the normal OS rendering, and deviation from that is what would be "off"-ness.

[Dylan16807]

There's no right answer to that question, but Mac does render fonts too thin because of gamma issues, if I'm remembering right.

[dataflow]

> Firefox' font rendering in that screenshot looks like native Windows font rendering to me.

How?!

This is how example.com renders: https://i.imgur.com/MFo7ACg.png

Pay attention to how the word "illustrative" renders: https://i.imgur.com/lFJIEZG.png

See e.g. the boldness on e.g. the first "l"? Firefox's clearly has two very dark vertical strokes in adjacent pixels -- one black, one dark blue right next to it. Its rendering is substantially bolder than Windows's. I can understand if you personally prefer that, but how can you claim they look the same?!

[wildrhythms]

I see exactly what you're talking about (quite noticable on the 'a' characters) and I wish somebody could explain why Firefox is rendering like that, and if it's a Windows platform specific issue.

[dataflow]

Thanks. I've found it futile to argue with people about font rendering over the years. It's always like people are just in denial of reality. Which I feel is emblematic of how Firefox (and Linux, and lots of other libre software) lose desktop market share, IMO - by denying the reality everyone else sees.

[Zardoz84]

I had a work companion that was using Chrome rendering the text in a really ugly way on Windows. We never discovered why it was doing that. It only got fixed when the sys admin updated to Windows 10.