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.
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 :)
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.
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.
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.
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 :)
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 14:23, Jeroen van der Ham wrote:
On 23-11-2004 14:10, Allan Odgaard wrote:
On Nov 23, 2004, at 10:59, Jeroen wrote:
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 :)
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.
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 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
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
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.
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:
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
---------------------- noel@noeljackson.com http://noeljackson.com http://relevantly.com ----------------------
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.
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:23:04 +0100, Jeroen van der Ham jeroen@je-ju.net wrote:
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.
--M.
On 24-11-2004 01:53, Michael Stillwell wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:23:04 +0100, Jeroen van der Ham jeroen@je-ju.net wrote:
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.
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.
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.
On 24-11-2004 14:39, Ollivier Robert wrote:
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.
Yes, it does, but it's not Monaco and looks slightly different, so what are you saying here?
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.
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.
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?
I wonder if this aspect of the thread has run its course? "To each his/her own" does seem like a good maxim for an issue which is basically an aesthetic preference. Fortunately, a user can choose a font that pleases them, can choose whether it's anti-aliased, and even (thanks TM) specify how syntax highlighting works.
Ian
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.
On Wed, 24 Nov 2004, Ollivier Robert wrote:
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 :-)
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...
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@unm.edu
FWO to the Nth degree!!! --- Dear Lord, please make me the kind of person my dog thinks I am.
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@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@je-ju.net wrote:
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.
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@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/mailman/listinfo/textmate
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@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@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@je-ju.net wrote:
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.
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@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/mailman/listinfo/textmate
textmate mailing list textmate@lists.macromates.com http://lists.macromates.com/mailman/listinfo/textmate
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.
-
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