Skip past navigation, straight to the content

Monthly Archives: May 2007

Video and Screenshots from the Mix Panel

Microsoft has posted videos from the Mix sessions, which means you can view the video of our panel online. There’s also a WMV version you can download directly (roughly 80 MB).

Unfortunately, the production quality of the video isn’t very good. The video shows only the projection feed, which was fairly static except for about 25 minutes worth of demos by myself and Tom Bodkin. Also, the projector in the room was running at 1280 by 720 pixels, which was then (stupidly) stretched to a different aspect ratio for the video. I’ve included a few non-stretched screenshots from my demo below:

Indigo Demo - Front Page

Indigo Demo - Geico Ad

Indigo Demo - Most Popular

If you don’t feel like watching the video, Tim Anderson has written a good summary of the panel.

During the session, I showed a demo that myself and Roger Black (amongst others) have been working on in the past couple of weeks. It’s a rendition of the English-language version of Reporte Indigo, a Mexican online weekly magazine currently done in Flash. Our goal was to show some of the directions we see online reading experiences moving toward: richer, branded layouts that look good across a variety of screen dimensions, integrated media, richer advertisements, and continued increases in community-driven features. My big fat mouth has more to say about this area, but that will have to wait until another post.

UniformPanel

A few months ago, Nick Thuesen posted his SpanningStackPanel class, which is basically a cross beween UniformGrid and StackPanel. Around that time, I was working on a project that called for exactly that layout.

Unfortunately, Nick’s panel didn’t work in my application because he was modifying the Children collection in his code, which is a big no-no if you want to support databinding (e.g. in order to use it as the ItemsPanel within a ListBox). I ended up writing my own version, adding a few features that were required for the project.

At Mix, I promised Nick I’d post and get him the fixed source code. You can download the source (plus some basic tests) in the first version of the Fortes Panel Pack (currently “Pack” is a misnomer, since there’s only one — but I have a few more waiting to be packaged for external consumption).

Features / Release Notes:

  • All the features of Nick’s original
  • Support for data-bound children
  • Special support for Expander children: Detects collapsed Expander elements and treats them as fixed-size elements
  • Bug: Support for Expander within a Template does not lay out correctly on the first pass — see the DataBoundPanels.xaml file in the sample project. Resizing the window, or any other action that causes a relayout, fixes the issue. (I’ll fix it in the next release)

The Sad State of Online Advertising

While reading an article in today’s New York Times, I saw the following sleazy ad:

Paris Hilton Ad in NYTimes

How tall is Paris?

Answer correctly to receive your Pink Laptop

You’ve probably seen this genre of ad before, which offers free merchandise for a trivial task — of course, the ads always state that “Details Apply” in tiny text (I wonder how the FTC feels about these “details”).

As stupid as these ads are, they’re not much worse than the advertisements for escort services that you see in back pages of a free weeky — but you’d never see one of those next to a top story in the print edition of the New York Times!

Why not? Money, of course. A prominent ad in the print edition of the NYT is far too expensive to be purchased by the low-class advertisers — and even if it were cheap enough, the NYT’s higher-end advertisers (luxury companies such as Tiffany’s, who spend a lot of money to consistently advertise in the paper) would never allow their brand to be anywhere near an ad like that.

But it turns out that Tiffany’s and other high-end advertisers don’t advertise on the web — because there’s no appropriate online advertising surface out there for them. This missing business causes two side-effects:

  1. The scummy advertisers aren’t priced out of the market
  2. The Times, faced with low-revenues in their online edition, can’t be as choosy when it comes to advertisers

Broader Markets are Good

One could mis-interpret my previous statements and say that I’m an advertiser snob, looking to price out the little guy. This, of course, is false. Even with way less than ten percent of the advertising market, the Internet has brought more advertisers into the market — this is undoubtedly a good thing.

Large publishers, like the Times, can (and should) still cater to the little guy. Unlike the print version, an online edition need not display the same advertisement for all readers in perpetuity. A digital publication can sell limited run, or niche-targeted advertisements at a lower total cost and higher visibility than they could in the one-size-fits-all print edition. In fact, I’m certain they already do so.

Publishers like the Times have to start being picky and demanding a certain level of quality from their advertisers. In the print world, it’s clear that advertisements are part of the content (look at any fashion magazine if you’re in doubt) — this attitude needs to extend to the digital realm.

Moving toward a better future

At Mix, I showed some sketches of what online Magazines can become. Roger Black and I are working to create higher-end content experiences that won’t dilute the brand of luxury advertisers. Rest assured, you won’t be asked to punch a monkey.

It’s still early, so all I have to show are sketches — but there’s a lot of room for improvement in this space! I’m a bit surprised by the state we’re in today, because so many of today’s mistakes come from ignoring the lessons learned during decades of print publishing. Of course, digital is a different medium than print, which means that we need new plenty of new paradigms in order to succeed — but that just makes it all the more exciting!

Update: Other Voices

After writing this post, I found P.J. Onori’s excellent (and similarly-titled) article The Sorry State of Online Advertising — which I recommend. He makes similar points (and posted them first, so he wins):

I would argue that the sheer number of advertisements some of these sites have on their site is evidence that the current ad model is not working. Instead of thinking of more original, symbiotic and user-friendly forms of advertising, most site creators have subscribed to the “more ads means more revenue” philosophy. This current relationship between the site creator and advertisers is much like a building landlord and a renter. Space is offered to the advertiser and other than the exchange of money, there is little to no relationship between the two. Under this model, the landlord attempts to rent out all the space to whoever offers money. The problem with this model is that if the landlord just rents out rooms to anyone without any discernment, the landlord’s property could be quickly destroyed by the renters. Meanwhile, the apartment building is in shambles and no one is interested to look at the space, much less rent it. Similarly, if a website does not carefully choose its advertisers, the web site could shortly be a ghost town. An interest in short-term gains can ultimately disenfranchise a site’s users to the point that they do not come back. Guess what, advertisers are going to drop you like a bad habit once you are not giving them what they want - click-throughs and revenue.

Another article worth reading is The Devil & Online Advertising by Darius A Monsef IV. Here’s an excerpt:

Do you know why you only see those terrible, low-budget ads on your local television stations? Because it costs too much for those guys to hock their “Super-Mega-One-Day-Only-Sales-Extravaganza!” on national television. When the price point to advertise online is in the pennies per CPM, then you’re going to end up with low-quality advertisers.

Font Rendering Across Rich Platforms

Although I used to work for Microsoft on the WPF team, I’m not tied to the platform. WPF and its alternatives (Flash, HTML, Apollo, Silverlight) each have advantages and disadvantages and choosing between them depends on your requirements. Since I’m doing a lot of work around reading experiences, I thought it was a good time to go back and re-evaluate the existing choices.

In this post, we’ll look at how each platform renders fonts at 9, 10, 12, and 14 points — sizes commonly used for reading. I’ve used three fonts:

  • Verdana: The old standby, installed on many systems.
  • ITC Cheltenham: A serif frequently used in newspapers.
  • Gotham Rounded: A sans-serif that I happen to like.

For no good reason, I’ve placed the results in alphabetical order. First up is Flash.

Flash

Up until a few years ago, Flash used to render fonts poorly at small sizes. Most authors worked around this limitation by changing the type of anti-aliasing used when displaying fonts. Flash provides two anti-aliasing options, one for readability and the other for animation. Additionally, Flash also allows the author to disable anti-aliasing altogether, and use aliased bitmap fonts. Flash 8 introduced a new rendering engine that vastly improved the quality of small-type text.

At small sizes, the readability setting is (unsurprisingly) far superior to the animation setting. Here’s a sample of the readability anti-aliasing for Verdana at 10 point:

10pt Verdana in Flash readability setting

For the same font and size, the animation setting is quite ugly:

10pt Verdana in Flash animation setting

Although it creates clearly more readable results, the readability smoothing creates a strange coloring affect that can be pretty noticeable at small sizes. Here’s Gotham Rounded at 9pt:

9pt Gotham Rounded in Flash readability setting

On my monitor, the effect is subtle, but noticeable — I see a bit of color around the edges of the letters.

Flex / Apollo

Apollo (through Flex) has two different font rendering engines — one of which seems to be shared with Flash (the documentation is a little vague here, so feel free to correct me if I’m wrong). The other rendering engine has access to installed fonts, and is recommended for small type sizes — however the quality is quite bad. From my simple tests, it seems that the fonts are always aliased, producing the jaggy look seen below:

10pt Verdana in Flex

This aliased look is acceptable for some fonts, such as Verdana, that have reasonable bitmap representations at small sizes. However, for many fonts the result is unacceptable, such as this sample of Cheltenham at 10 point (from Flash set to bitmap, not Flex):

10pt Cheltenham, Bitmap mode in Flash

Except for extreme cases, it looks like it’s best to use the Flash font rendering system when writing an Apollo (or Flex) application. (Once again, I’m under-educated in the Apollo and Flex realms, feel free to drop some knowledge in the comments)

HTML

On my machine, the Firefox and Internet Explorer 6 both rendered extremely similar results. The Firefox rendering is shown below:

10pt Cheltenham in Firefox

The lack of subpixel positioning destroys the serif font at small sizes. You can see the effect at larger sizes as well — here is Cheltenham at 14 point:

14pt Cheltenham in Firefox

You can see the strange letter spacing in the first line — compare “Marketing” and “cross” to see the difference.

The sans-serif fonts fared better in the browser, with Verdana doing particularly well as it was specifically tuned for on-screen use.

Internet Explorer 7 uses ClearType for its font rendering, and should therefore produce results that are nearly identical to WPF.

Silverlight

Silverlight is the least mature of the platforms (since Apollo leverages both Flex and Flash). The 1.1 Alpha version that I tested unfortunately does not support for the Adobe CFF font format — meaning I was unable to test Cheltenham or Gotham Rounded. Silverlight doesn’t use the ClearType algorithm used by WPF, instead it uses gray scale anti-aliasing with gamma correction. The results are generally good, with the clear weakness being at small sizes. Here is Verdana at 9pt in Silverlight:

9pt Verdana in Silverlight

At this small size, Verdana looks a bit fuzzy. The effect is less noticeable at 10 point, but still there.

WPF

All text in WPF is rendered with ClearType — developers have no way of opting out of this (actually, there is a way, but it’s pretty awkward and not really well known). The quality of text at small sizes is impressive, here’s Gotham Rounded at 9pt in WPF:

10pt Cheltenham, Bitmap mode in Flash

It’s slightly fuzzy and a bit gray, but overall a bit better than the flash version.

Verdict

Overall, the results are pretty good. The only engine with poor results is the native Flex engine, but with support for Flash, there’s a clear, easy to use alternative at your disposal.

Although the browsers work quite well with standard web fonts (and any other specifically tuned for small sizes), they are not an acceptable choice for traditional print fonts — especially Serif faces (Internet Explorer 7 being the exception). Considering the lack of cross-browser font-embedding, this probably isn’t a problem for most.

Silverlight is still a baby in this space, and it shows (there’s currently no way to set line height, for example). The anti-aliasing looks pretty good at larger sizes, but is noticeably fuzzy at smaller sizes. Although it’s better than what most browsers provide, it still has a way to go before catching up to Flash and WPF.

The final two contenders are Flash and WPF — and it’s a close call when it comes to rendering. Here are three side-by-side samples for WPF and Flash. The first is Verdana at 9 point (all samples show Flash with readability anti-aliasing):

WPF vs. Flash for Verdana 9 point

Although the Flash version has a nicer color, the WPF wins by a hair here, for being a bit smoother and less blurry (look at the “B” in “Branding” in the Flash version, third line from the bottom). Let’s move on to Gotham Rounded at 9pt:

WPF vs. Flash for Gotham Rounded 9 point

Once again, Flash has stronger lines that WPF, but it’s uneven and has a bit of color fringing. Finally, let’s look at Cheltenham at 12 point:

WPF vs. Flash for Cheltenham 12 point

This time, WPF is a bit darker than Flash. This one is really a toss-up and depends on personal preference. Flash is a bit sharper, but the WPF version is smoother and more consistent.

Overall, I think WPF has the edge when it comes to font rendering, although it’s quite close and could easily come down to user preference.

Next Steps

This analysis is a bit rough, there’s a bunch on my to-do list here, including:

  • Testing FlashType in Flex and Apollo
  • Testing non-CFF fonts in Silverlight
  • IE 7, Mac OS, and Ubuntu screenshots
  • More fonts

Also, the font rendering is just one aspect of a user’s reading experience. Obviously layout, performance, installation, and many other factors come in to play here. Subscribe to feed to make sure you don’t miss the next installments.

Raw Results

If you’re interested, here are the screenshots from each test application, in PNG format: fontrendering.zip (Zip, 500K)