23 Nov
2004
23 Nov
'04
9:59 a.m.
Hello,
I noticed that a lot of the syntax highlight bundles use different
colours, and on top of that also other decoration such as underline and
italics.
My experience is that italics in most fixed-width fonts does not look
that good and is bad for readability.
The other thing is that the italics is mostly superfluous: the aim is to
differentiate text from surrounding text and most of the time, this is
already achieved by using a different colour and using italics as well
does not really help.
So I propose that authors of syntax highlight bundles use italics
sparingly and only if it really has extra value to use it.
How do other users feel about this? And does anyone else have tips for
increasing usability of syntax highlight bundles?
Jeroen.
23 Nov
23 Nov
1:10 p.m.
On Nov 23, 2004, at 10:59, Jeroen wrote:
My experience is that italics in most fixed-width
fonts does not look
that good and is bad for readability.
That's probably w/o anti-alias?
The other thing is that the italics is mostly
superfluous: the aim is
to differentiate text from surrounding text and most of the time, this
is already achieved by using a different colour and using italics as
well does not really help.
Except for people with low color perception or color-blindness.
How do other users feel about this? And does anyone
else have tips for
increasing usability of syntax highlight bundles?
More contrast!!! More style-change (i.e. bold/italic/underline)!!!
Personally I do have very low color perception, so for me the styles is
the main cue, which is also why the default (Objective-)C(++) files had
a light grey background which allowed for both black and white text :)
1:23 p.m.
On 23-11-2004 14:10, Allan Odgaard wrote:
Ah yes, I forgot about that. But turning this on only for that small
group seems a bit odd, that is, if I'm not the only with this opinion
about text-decoration.
heh :) I'm not against more contrast, I just don't really like the way
italics looks on screen.
But using bold or underline is fine with me.
Jeroen.
On Nov 23, 2004, at 10:59, Jeroen wrote:
Indeed, I don't like anti-alias at all, because it makes all the letters
look smudgy.
My experience is that italics in most fixed-width
fonts does not look
that good and is bad for readability.
That's probably w/o anti-alias? The other
thing is that the italics is mostly superfluous: the aim is
to differentiate text from surrounding text and most of the time, this
is already achieved by using a different colour and using italics as
well does not really help.
Except for people with low color perception or color-blindness. How do other users feel about this? And does
anyone else have tips for
increasing usability of syntax highlight bundles?
More contrast!!! More style-change (i.e. bold/italic/underline)!!!
Personally I do have very low color perception, so for me the styles is
the main cue, which is also why the default (Objective-)C(++) files had
a light grey background which allowed for both black and white text :) 
24 Nov
24 Nov
12:11 a.m.
On Nov 23, 2004, at 14:23, Jeroen van der Ham wrote:
On 23-11-2004 14:10, Allan Odgaard wrote:
What I'd really like to see is a consistent background color. Or rather
consistent colors and styles. It doesn't really matter very much which
styles or colors as long as they're consistent between syntax files.
Though I would prefer white background and just colors (no bolds,
underlines or italics).
Perhaps me and Jeroen should just have a shoot-out over this matter
since it seems to me as he has the same opinion as me, though his is
negated. ;)
Emil -- I blame any grammatical errors on my 4th grade English
teacher...
On Nov 23, 2004, at 10:59, Jeroen wrote:
heh :) I'm not against more contrast, I just don't really
like the way
italics looks on screen.
But using bold or underline is fine with me. How do other users feel about this? And does
anyone else have tips
for increasing usability of syntax highlight bundles?
More contrast!!! More
style-change (i.e. bold/italic/underline)!!!
Personally I do have very low color perception, so for me the styles
is the main cue, which is also why the default (Objective-)C(++)
files had a light grey background which allowed for both black and
white text :) 
4:33 a.m.
New subject: Color Consistency across Syntax Bundles (was: Italics in syntax bundles)
On Nov 23, 2004, at 2:11 PM, Emil Eriksson wrote:
What I'd really like to see is a consistent
background color. Or
rather consistent colors and styles.
HERE HERE!!! I'd really like to see an effort to develop consistency
across syntaxes as well.
It doesn't really matter very much which styles or
colors as long as
they're consistent between syntax files. Though I would prefer white
background and just colors (no bolds, underlines or italics).
I agree, although I have a proclivity for the dark background. My
proposal is that we create a LIGH & DARK version for all syntaxes that
are consistent across bundles AND some centralized way to edit them
that MAINTAINS that consistency. I know this is possible I just have NO
idea how to do it.
Perhaps me and Jeroen should just have a shoot-out
over this matter
since it seems to me as he has the same opinion as me, though his is
negated. ;)
Please do. Let's stir up the discussion on this. While I believe the
icon discussion is relevant, it had little do do with the application's
ease of use. Syntax color consitancy, however, could increase
Textmate's usability for those of us who commonly switch between
syntaxes.
-t
5:44 a.m.
New subject: Color Consistency across Syntax Bundles (was: Italics in syntax bundles)
On Nov 23, 2004, at 8:33 PM, Timothy Martens wrote:
Please do. Let's stir up the discussion on this.
While I believe the
icon discussion is relevant, it had little do do with the
application's ease of use. Syntax color consitancy, however, could
increase Textmate's usability for those of us who commonly switch
between syntaxes.
Keep in mind that Alan wrote this on October 7:
I think I'll do something similar to style sheets
for the next version
of the syntax highlight system (which will be a major upgrade, no ETA
yet though -- I can send a full description to this list for comments
when all details are settled) -- global names alone has the problem
that "string" may appear as a name in e.g. both HTML and the embedded
PHP (where they should probably differ in color), and/or that in some
languages, it does make sense to color strings differently than what's
generally wanted.
But style sheets a la CSS with selectors would probably be pretty
flexible. Initially we postponed this, because we figured it would
come off as too complex. But given the proper GUI editor, it'll
probably appear as a huge simplification for most ;)
Hopefully, that's still planned. I imagine the surprise demand for
printing used some development time that would otherwise have been
spent on it, though. :)
Chris
1:38 p.m.
New subject: Color Consistency across Syntax Bundles (was: Italics in syntax bundles)
On Nov 24, 2004, at 6:44, Chris Thomas wrote:
Hopefully, that's still planned. I imagine the
surprise demand for
printing used some development time that would otherwise have been
spent on it, though. :)
Yes, basically I've been flooded with “minor” stuff, and this can also
be a drain on the motivation -- but I'm releasing 1.0.2 shortly, and
after that I'll put most of the minor stuff on hold and start with the
major things I've been wanting to do even before the release.
6:03 p.m.
New subject: Color Consistency across Syntax Bundles (was: Italics in syntax bundles)
I totally missed that when it was on the list! That's excellent, sounds
cool!
--ndj
On Nov 24, 2004, at 12:44 AM, Chris Thomas wrote:
----------------------
noel(a)noeljackson.com
http://noeljackson.com
http://relevantly.com
----------------------
I think I'll do something similar to style
sheets for the next
version of the syntax highlight system (which will be a major
upgrade, no ETA yet though -- I can send a full description to this
list for comments when all details are settled) -- global names alone
has the problem that "string" may appear as a name in e.g. both HTML
and the embedded PHP (where they should probably differ in color),
and/or that in some languages, it does make sense to color strings
differently than what's generally wanted.
But style sheets a la CSS with selectors would probably be pretty
flexible. Initially we postponed this, because we figured it would
come off as too complex. But given the proper GUI editor, it'll
probably appear as a huge simplification for most ;)
Hopefully, that's still planned. I imagine the surprise demand for
printing used some development time that would otherwise have been
spent on it, though. :)
Chris
9:27 a.m.
On 24-11-2004 01:11, Emil Eriksson wrote:
What I'd really like to see is a consistent
background color. Or rather
consistent colors and styles. It doesn't really matter very much which
styles or colors as long as they're consistent between syntax files.
Though I would prefer white background and just colors (no bolds,
underlines or italics).
Quoting the wishlist on the wiki:
Global For/Background Color Setting By Jeroen van der Ham:
Your opinion and mine is not very far apart ;)
Perhaps me and Jeroen should just have a shoot-out
over this matter
since it seems to me as he has the same opinion as me, though his is
negated. ;)
If you look at my first email I said that I did not want all the
decorations in text if it is not really functional. But as Alan pointed
out: people who have low color perception don't have much use of
different colors and need the decorations to really tell things apart.
I think he has a point there, but I'm also thinking that this perhaps is
a minority group, which should have 'special' syntax highlight bundles
which fit their needs.
As for the syntax highlight bundles with different background colours,
I'm all for it. I really don't like white backgrounds while coding, so
first thing I do when using a default bundle is converting it to black
backgrounds ;)
Perhaps we should setup a collection point so that everyone can send in
their adapted versions of the syntax highlight bundles. This is of course
meant as a temporary solution while Alan sorts out a proper one ;)
Jeroen.
12:53 a.m.
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:23:04 +0100, Jeroen van der Ham <jeroen(a)je-ju.net> wrote:
On 23-11-2004 14:10, Allan Odgaard wrote:
Are you also using Monaco? Monaco looks particularly bad not
anti-aliased because it doesn't come in an italic version--the italic
is faked, and whatever's doing the faking doesn't do a very good job.
I find that Lucida Sans Typewriter is slightly better, though I do
wish Monaco at 12pt, and not anti-aliased (my favourite combination
for code) was more pleasing to the eye.
--M.
--
http://beebo.org
+44 78 2118 9049
On Nov 23, 2004, at 10:59, Jeroen wrote:
Indeed, I don't like anti-alias at all, because it makes all the letters
look smudgy. My experience is that italics in most fixed-width
fonts does not look
that good and is bad for readability.
That's probably w/o anti-alias?
9:14 a.m.
On 24-11-2004 01:53, Michael Stillwell wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:23:04 +0100, Jeroen van der Ham
<jeroen(a)je-ju.net> wrote:
You are right, the problem is with Monaco, other fonts do display the
italics better. But I must say that I really like the look of Monaco.
But my opinion of anti-aliasing still stands. I have no idea why anyone
would want anti-aliasing, because all the letters seem blurred. (Perhaps
they just want that
reading-the-newspaper-on-monday-morning-after-a-rough-weekend feeling
back when coding, I dunno)
Jeroen.
On 23-11-2004 14:10, Allan Odgaard wrote:
Are you also using Monaco? Monaco looks particularly bad not
anti-aliased because it doesn't come in an italic version--the italic
is faked, and whatever's doing the faking doesn't do a very good job.
I find that Lucida Sans Typewriter is slightly better, though I do
wish Monaco at 12pt, and not anti-aliased (my favourite combination
for code) was more pleasing to the eye. On Nov 23, 2004, at 10:59, Jeroen wrote:
Indeed, I don't like anti-alias at all, because it makes all the letters
look smudgy. My experience is that italics in most fixed-width
fonts does not look
that good and is bad for readability.
That's probably w/o anti-alias? 
1:39 p.m.
According to Jeroen van der Ham:
You are right, the problem is with Monaco, other fonts
do display the
italics better. But I must say that I really like the look of Monaco.
Bitstream Vera Mono has an italic version.
But my opinion of anti-aliasing still stands. I have
no idea why anyone
would want anti-aliasing, because all the letters seem blurred. (Perhaps
Well, I don't know how far your screen is from your eye but AA with Vera
Mono doesn't look blurred and is very nice (to each his/her own of course).
Most monospace fonts w/o AA look just... not right.
--
Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! -=- roberto(a)keltia.freenix.fr
Darwin snuadh.freenix.org Kernel Version 7.6.0: Sun Oct 10 12:05:27 PDT 2004
2:39 p.m.
On 24-11-2004 14:39, Ollivier Robert wrote:
Anti-Aliasing == Blurring.
Take a screenshot with the anti-aliased view and the non anti-aliased one
and zoom in.
But what is it that does not look "right" to you about the
non-anti-aliased view?
Jeroen.
According to Jeroen van der Ham:
Yes, it does, but it's not Monaco and looks slightly different, so what
are you saying here?
You are right, the problem is with Monaco, other
fonts do display the
italics better. But I must say that I really like the look of Monaco.
Bitstream Vera Mono has an italic version. But my opinion
of anti-aliasing still stands. I have no idea why anyone
would want anti-aliasing, because all the letters seem blurred. (Perhaps
Well, I don't know how far your screen is from your eye but AA with Vera
Mono doesn't look blurred and is very nice (to each his/her own of course).
Most monospace fonts w/o AA look just... not right. 
2:53 p.m.
Mono
doesn't look blurred and is very nice (to each his/her own of
course).
Anti-Aliasing == Blurring.
Take a screenshot with the anti-aliased view and the non anti-aliased
one and zoom in.
But what is it that does not look "right" to you about the
non-anti-aliased view?
2:56 p.m.
According to Jeroen van der Ham:
Yes, it does, but it's not Monaco and looks
slightly different, so what
are you saying here?
That you could change your font and get proper italics :-)
Anti-Aliasing == Blurring.
Take a screenshot with the anti-aliased view and the non anti-aliased one
and zoom in.
I know that but how many times do you zoom in on your screen? Some fonts
looks better in AA mode (and I think IMHO that Vera is one of them).
But what is it that does not look "right" to
you about the
non-anti-aliased view?
By "not right", I really mean "not nice" and "too square".
IMHO again.
--
Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! -=- roberto(a)keltia.freenix.fr
Darwin snuadh.freenix.org Kernel Version 7.6.0: Sun Oct 10 12:05:27 PDT 2004
3:30 p.m.
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Ollivier Robert wrote:
According to Jeroen van der Ham:
Another very nice monospace font to try is Anonymous
<http://www.ms-studio.com/FontSales/anonymous.html>. Though one probably
wouldn't like the anti-aliased italics there either, I'm afraid...
Yes, it does, but it's not Monaco and looks
slightly different, so what
are you saying here?
That you could change your font and get proper italics :-) By "not right", I really mean "not
nice" and "too square". IMHO again.
Yep. Harsh and unfriendly also work for me... I certainly wouldn't want
to spend an afternoon staring at them... But as a wise man once sang in
prime time, it takes diff'rent strokes to move the world.
William D. Neumann
<wdnx(a)unm.edu>
FWO to the Nth degree!!!
---
Dear Lord, please make me the kind of person
my dog thinks I am.
4:37 p.m.
All this talk about fonts, I use ProFont and it looks fantastic. I used to
use Monaco and other similar typefaces but they just couldn't cut it
(whether it was anti-aliasing problems or just not being able to really tell
what some characters were). ProFont totally fixed that.
I suggest that everyone at least give it a go for a while and see what they
think too. I believe there is even a link on the TM site for ProFont.
Mike
PS - I am in no way affiliated with the makers of ProFont, I just really
like it ;-)
On 11/24/04 2:14 AM, "Jeroen van der Ham" <jeroen(a)je-ju.net> wrote:
On 24-11-2004 01:53, Michael Stillwell wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:23:04 +0100, Jeroen van
der Ham <jeroen(a)je-ju.net>
wrote:
You are right, the problem is with Monaco, other fonts do display the
italics better. But I must say that I really like the look of Monaco.
But my opinion of anti-aliasing still stands. I have no idea why anyone
would want anti-aliasing, because all the letters seem blurred. (Perhaps
they just want that
reading-the-newspaper-on-monday-morning-after-a-rough-weekend feeling
back when coding, I dunno)
Jeroen.
_______________________________________________
textmate mailing list
textmate(a)lists.macromates.com
http://lists.macromates.com/mailman/listinfo/textmate On 23-11-2004 14:10, Allan Odgaard wrote:
Are you also using Monaco? Monaco looks particularly bad not
anti-aliased because it doesn't come in an italic version--the italic
is faked, and whatever's doing the faking doesn't do a very good job.
I find that Lucida Sans Typewriter is slightly better, though I do
wish Monaco at 12pt, and not anti-aliased (my favourite combination
for code) was more pleasing to the eye. On Nov 23, 2004, at 10:59, Jeroen wrote:
> My experience is that italics in most fixed-width fonts does not look
> that good and is bad for readability.
That's probably w/o anti-alias?
Indeed, I don't like anti-alias at all, because it makes all the letters
look smudgy. 
5:26 p.m.
I agree ProFont in anti-alias mode totally rocks. Although this typeface
does remind me of the days I spent programming on those awful Borland
C++/Pascal editors.
-Ed
On 24/11/04 11:37 am, "Mike" <mike(a)screenflicker.com> wrote:
All this talk about fonts, I use ProFont and it looks
fantastic. I used to
use Monaco and other similar typefaces but they just couldn't cut it
(whether it was anti-aliasing problems or just not being able to really tell
what some characters were). ProFont totally fixed that.
I suggest that everyone at least give it a go for a while and see what they
think too. I believe there is even a link on the TM site for ProFont.
Mike
PS - I am in no way affiliated with the makers of ProFont, I just really
like it ;-)
On 11/24/04 2:14 AM, "Jeroen van der Ham" <jeroen(a)je-ju.net> wrote:
On 24-11-2004 01:53, Michael Stillwell wrote:
_______________________________________________
textmate mailing list
textmate(a)lists.macromates.com
http://lists.macromates.com/mailman/listinfo/textmate On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:23:04 +0100, Jeroen van
der Ham <jeroen(a)je-ju.net>
wrote:
You are right, the problem is with Monaco, other fonts do display the
italics better. But I must say that I really like the look of Monaco.
But my opinion of anti-aliasing still stands. I have no idea why anyone
would want anti-aliasing, because all the letters seem blurred. (Perhaps
they just want that
reading-the-newspaper-on-monday-morning-after-a-rough-weekend feeling
back when coding, I dunno)
Jeroen.
_______________________________________________
textmate mailing list
textmate(a)lists.macromates.com
http://lists.macromates.com/mailman/listinfo/textmate On 23-11-2004 14:10, Allan Odgaard wrote:
> On Nov 23, 2004, at 10:59, Jeroen wrote:
>
>
>> My experience is that italics in most fixed-width fonts does not look
>> that good and is bad for readability.
>
> That's probably w/o anti-alias?
Indeed, I don't like anti-alias at all, because it makes all the letters
look smudgy.
Are you also using Monaco? Monaco looks particularly bad not
anti-aliased because it doesn't come in an italic version--the italic
is faked, and whatever's doing the faking doesn't do a very good job.
I find that Lucida Sans Typewriter is slightly better, though I do
wish Monaco at 12pt, and not anti-aliased (my favourite combination
for code) was more pleasing to the eye.
29 Nov
29 Nov
6 p.m.
On 23-11-2004 14:23, Jeroen van der Ham wrote:
Indeed, I don't like anti-alias at all, because it
makes all the letters
look smudgy.
I take this back. I (finally) received my powerbook last thursday and
anti-aliasing looks much better on this screen than it did on the screen
of my G5 at work.
Jeroen.
5984
days inactive
5990
days old
18 comments
13 participants
participants (13)
-
Allan Odgaard -
Chris Thomas -
Ed Wong -
Emil Eriksson -
Ian White -
Jeroen -
Jeroen van der Ham
-
Michael Stillwell -
Mike -
Noel Jackson -
Ollivier Robert -
Timothy Martens -
William Douglas Neumann