Everybody knows that books are special. Books require special “formatting”. And special E-Readers, of course, which will – via small nasal attachments – give you that special new book smell, too. (Don’t believe it? It’s already available as an aerosol.)

Just remember that what “everybody knows” is useless information. And upon close inspection, usually flat-out wrong or at least outdated.

From Joe Clark:

I’ve been re-reading Joe Clark’s article Web Standards For E-Books on AListApart and you should, too.
Other posts of interest would be these, on Joe C’s blog:
Travis J. Nichols’ ‘Ugly Stick’
Retraining Readers Of An Industry Organ

From Joe Golton:

Joe Golton’s blog is called “Filter Joe” and his passion is filtering information – finding ways to tame the information beast and get what you need without the crap. Joe’s latest post is a hands-on report about just what kinds of information can be viewed without hassle on the Kindle.
Can You Read Anything On The Kindle? …Almost, With Google Reader

Related posts:

1. To Kindle Or Not To Kindle
2. E-Book Formats: The Mad Scramble
3. Read An E-Book On An E-Reader With E-Ink On E-Paper, Today!

I haven’t been reporting much on developments in the e-reader biz lately. Simple reason: I can’t keep up and I don’t think it pays at this point to even try. I’m enjoying the shake out, though.

The mad scramble is being driven by two factors:
1) Screen technology has gone mobile in a big way – with the Kindle, Nook, iPad, iPhone, Android, and so forth and so on.
All the stuff you could possibly have the time to read can now travel with you. And if that isn’t enough, even more stuff you’ll never ever have the time to read can be sent wirelessly to you.
2) These screens do provide a satisfying reading experience. And they are getting better all the time.

The New iPhone’s “Retina” Display

I checked out the new iPhone with it’s ultra-sharp Retina display the other day and it was amazing, really. As an iPhone user, I was very skeptical about it being worth the hassle and expense of an upgrade, but to these tired old eyes, it definitely is. I’ve simply never seen a display with text as crisp and sharp at small sizes as I saw on the new iPhone. I did a side-by-side comparison with my current phone and all I could say was, “Wow”. The next day I was using my wife’s iPad for something and I couldn’t help but try to imagine what it would be like if the iPad had the same quality screen as the new iPhone. Wow++. Only a matter of time, I suppose.

E-Reader? Got One. It’s Called A Browser.

And so, everybody’s scrambling to establish themselves as the dominant platform or format or application, or something or other for the burgeoning market for “books onscreen”.

Here’s a simple fact that, for me, stands out: All day long I read from an application called a browser. You’ve heard of them, right? Internet Explorer, Firefox, Chrome – those guys. But yet, when it comes to paper books that have been ported onscreen, I’m being asked to use some other application called an E-Reader.

Why? What’s wrong with this picture? Are the words in a paper book different than the words on a blog?

As you ponder this question, check out the free browser-based Ibis Reader. (Yes, for the iPhone/iPad it’s an app. A matter of screen real-estate, I suppose. When will mobile Safari support full-screen mode?)

I’m also keeping an eye on Blio, new e-publishing software that seems to be a little different from the rest of the pack, but we’ll see when it soon debuts.

Wanna e-publish? Jeffrey Zeldman posted a nice, brief roundup with some juicy links a couple of days ago.

Related posts:

1. Read An E-Book On An E-Reader With E-Ink On E-Paper, Today!
2. The Look That Says Book – On AListApart
3. Readable Web At AnEventApart, Boston

Dr. Kevin Larson, Microsoft’s in-house readability maven, gave an interactive lecture at MIX 10 in Las Vegas.

Don’t know what an “overshoot” is? Tired of having to stay awkwardly silent at parties while those in the know discuss the “Stroop Effect”?
Then this one’s for you.

It’s an hour and ten minutes long – I still haven’t watched all of it – but seriously, if you’re into fonts and the problems of rendering text onscreen, it’s worth the time. And if the topic of readability interests you but you are new to it, it’s a nice introduction.

The Art, Technology, And Science Of Reading

Dr. Kevin Larson – aka “Kevlar” – Struts His Science Of Readability Stuff At MIX 10

Related posts:

1. Screen Resolution And Readability: What You Should Know
2. New Javascript Tool Takes Aim At Web-Site Readability
3. Three Advances In Screen Typography

The term “hinting” – as it relates to @font-face font-linking – is getting thrown around quite a bit lately.

But what is “font hinting”, exactly?

LCD Grid At 30X

Wikipedia says:

Font hinting is the use of instructions to adjust the display of an outline font so that it lines up with a rasterized grid. At small screen sizes, hinting is critical for producing clear, legible text for human readers.

OK, but what does that mean? Well, as you can see from the illustration at right, a typical LCD flat-panel computer screen uses pixels made up of three RGB sub-pixel stripes. Font hinting is about using this grid to display letter forms that look right to the human eye.

with the objective being to get it looking right to the human eye, the outline must be fitted to that same grid of colored luminescent stripes.

For example, here is the outline of a lower case “m” followed by examples of what it would look like before hinting is applied and after hinting is applied.

The rough “grid-fitting” shown in Fig 2 requires many small modifications to achieve the smooth yet well-defined rendering of the letter shown in Fig 3.

TTF versus OTF CFF: The Font Wars 2.0

When I first began experimenting with @font-face, I quickly learned that there were differences in general between fonts formatted using Microsoft’s TrueType as opposed to Adobe’s OpenType Compact Font Format (CFF). CFF fonts that looked fine in a PDF specimen sheet, and fine when rendered onscreen with Flash or Cufón, were displaying strangely when linked directly using @font-face – with the rendering of text at smaller “body” sizes almost always unacceptable. And then I was informed, accurately as it turned out, that CFF fonts were less costly to produce than TTFs. And then I noticed that folks from Adobe were unmistakably miffed that CFF fonts rendered so erratically in Windows. Totally confused, I turned to font designer John Hudson of Tiro Typeworks, a specialist in custom fonts, for answers. Thankfully, he took pity and wrote up a great explanation. What follows is an expanded and revised version of John’s original response:

John Hudson On TT Versus CFF Hinting

-John Hudson is the co-founder, along with Ross Mills, of Tiro Typeworks, specialists in custom fonts for corporate clients. He is the designer of the “ClearType” font Constantia and, more recently, of the somewhat experimental Gabriola, a font that utilizes some of the more advanced features of OpenType. Both fonts ship with Windows.

Related posts:

1. Three Advances In Screen Typography
2. Ten Great Free Fonts Cross-Browser: A Case Study In @Font-Face
3. Web Fonts At TypeCon 2009

[This is the first post in a two-part series:]
I’ve been following the moves and counter-moves surrounding the implem­ent­ation of font-linking in web browsers for a long time.

Here’s what appears to me to be happening :

Apple and Microsoft are trying to cut a deal. The deal will include a solu­tion to font-linking that’s acceptable to Microsoft and the font in­dustry at large, and also Apple will license Microsoft’s ClearType fonts in addition to the “Web Safe” fonts like Georgia and Verdana they already license. Apple will include the font-link­ing solution in the next version of Safari which, since Safari is based on open-source WebKit, also puts it into WebKit. From there, Google will a­dopt it for their own WebKit-based browser, Chrome. Micro­soft will in­clude it in the next version of IE alongside EOT.

Once this de-facto standard is set, Mozilla will go along and include it in Fire­Fox. Opera will have no choice but to follow. This implementation, what­ever form it takes – a new file format, a special header, whatever – will then ulti­mately be a­dopted as a formal standard by the W3C.
Why do I think this?

Well, before moving on to the reasons, here’s a quick recap of…

The Story Of Web Font Embedding So Far

Font “linking” or “embedding” for HTML pages refers to the CSS3 @font-​face rule that allows web pages to “carry along” with them their own specific fonts, separate and apart from the fonts installed in the local operating sys­tem. This is done by including a link to the URI where the font-file is located within the page’s Cascading Style Sheet.

Microsoft’s Internet Explorer browser has supported this kind of font linking for over ten years. However, IE only supports linking to files created in its own proprietary Embedded OpenType (EOT) format. Labeled by many as a “DRM” format, EOT files are font files specially created and tied to a domain name through light encryption. And, importantly, they are not installable as font files within Windows or any other operating system currently in use.

Why did Microsoft create EOT? Well, mainly because these features act as a deterrent against unlicensed distribution. Microsoft has a big investment in fonts. Without some protection against casual downloading, obtaining an in­stall­able font-file is as easy as 1) viewing the source HTML of the web page, and 2) typing the URL to the font file in the address bar of the browser. The font is then yours. In other words, downloading a re-usable font file would be nearly as easy as right-clicking an image and selecting “Save Image As”.

What has created great urgency is that this scenario of easy “drive-by piracy” has emerged in reality. First, Apple implemented font linking to installable TTF and OTF files in their Safari browser. Next, Mozilla decided to follow suit with FireFox 3.5. Lastly, Opera 10 Beta, just released, also supports link­ing to TTF files. (Early tests show OTF support missing.)

As you can imagine, font-makers are greatly alarmed by this. And these font-makers include major software companies with big investments in fonts like Microsoft and Adobe. To them, the situation is unacceptable.

Last year, in an effort to prevent this scenario, Microsoft submitted EOT to the W3C for consideration as a standard. They also made it clear that they were not pushing EOT as an end-all/be-all solution but were open to any sug­gestions as long as it provided a platform for licensed fonts.

As Chris Wilson, then Platform Architect for the Internet Explorer team, wrote at the time:

“I’ve been clear on this to the CSS WG, so I suppose I should be here too – we (Microsoft) should NOT support direct TTF/OTF embedding, un­less 1) there is some check that the font intended that use to be allowed, which I don’t think there currently is (as it needs to refer to the license agreement), AND 2) other browsers also implement a system that actual­ly ENABLES commercial fonts – those that are allowed to be embedded, but cannot be legally placed directly on a server – to be used. As I also stated to the WG – I don’t personally even care that much if that system is EOT as it is today; I’d be okay with building a new system if the details of EOT were a sticking point. But I want to use commercial fonts on my web pages, I want that to work interoperably across browsers, and I want to not have to violate my license for the fonts I use (and get sued for it) in order to make that happen. A solution that only works for freeware fonts is not a solution.
Is that too much to ask?”

In response to this, a working group to evaluate the proposal was formed and on October 23rd of 2008, a meeting took place. In the face of objections by John Daggett of Mozilla and Håkon Wium Lie of Opera, it became clear the proposal was going nowhere. To those unfamiliar with the inner workings of the W3C, the minutes from that initial meeting can be an eye-opener.

Chips On The Table: Stakes Are High For Both Sides

Apple Needs Microsoft’s “Web Safe” Fonts
Ever wonder how the handful of fonts used in web pages today just happen to be installed by default in both Windows and Mac? It’s no accident. Apple licenses those fonts from Microsoft. And sooner or later, the licensing term will be up. This is bargaining leverage for Microsoft. Failure to renew is not an option for Apple. Negotiating a new spec that enables commercial font-linking in Safari is simply an extension of an existing licensee/licensor relationship that already exists. The lines of communication are already in place.

Apple Needs Microsoft’s ClearType Fonts
As web accessibility expert and typophile Joe Clark wrote back in 2005, it makes a lot of sense for Apple to license the Cleartype fonts. But screen technology has changed greatly in the last four years and today the situation is more critical. Apple needs these fonts to update not only the Mac but the iPhone, which has become a substantial platform for E-Books. The need for high quality, scalable screen fonts is great.

Broad Historical Precedent
Copyright squabbles like this are usually settled between the parties involved. The W3C is a standards organization; it’s not where you go to negotiate a cross-licensing deal. Submitting EOT for review was good Public Relations, but given the “free and open” philosophy of many of the WQC’s members, it was always a long shot. Personally, I was greatly surprised by Safari’s support for linking to “raw” installable font files like TTF and OTF. Given Microsoft’s position on the issue, it was a slap in the face. But if you look at it as a move in light of upcoming negotiations which would soon be taking place anyway, it makes a lot more sense. To the extent that Micro­soft’s interests as a font-maker coincides with others like Adobe, LinoType, and Bitstream, it’s more than likely they will line up behind.

The Alternative “Nuclear” Option Is Very Unappealing
There could be a big, expensive, legal fight over this. Microsoft, joined by Adobe and others in the font industry, could sue Apple and Mozilla for “contributory infringement” along the lines of MGM Studios vs. Grokster.
But this would invite a possible public relations disaster. And because it’s a browser issue as much as a fonts-as-intellectual-properties issue, there may be further anti-trust considerations at work. Plus this area of copyright law is still very shaky. It’s hard to tell which way the winds might blow.

There is evidence this route has been considered, however. Back in 2006 font maker Ascender Corp. was commissioned by Microsoft to do an ex­haust­ive survey of existing font sets available on the web. It’s nearly 1700 pages long. Why? You could take a statistical sampling and come to the same conclusions. Most of the fonts available on the web suck. But viewed in the light of possible legal action, Ascender’s study is exactly the kind of detailed documentation one would undertake to prove that there was, at present, no “substantial non-infringing use”. The argument being that an unrestricted font-linking mechanism within a browser is good for little else but infringing copyrighted materials. As a researcher and web guy, I’m grateful the information was compiled. But I’m sure it’s true purpose was as legal fodder and I wouldn’t be surprised if it was initiated at the request of Microsoft’s IP attorneys in the course of reviewing possible legal options.
This is the only explanation for the Ascender survey’s existence that ever made any sense to me.

Coming Next: More Behind The Scenes Info And An Analysis Of Ascender/Microsoft’s New Proposal For A Web Font File Format…

[Update: Bill Davis of Ascender Corp. informs me via blog post on Typophile, that Apple's licensing of the ClearType fonts is an issue quite separate and apart from any involving font-linking. And that Apple has been and remains free to license or not license these fonts at any time.]

Related posts:

1. Apple And Microsoft In Talks On Fonts, Part II
2. A Future Without Flash: Microsoft and Apple Nail The Coffin
3. Apple And Microsoft’s ClearType Fonts: A Leading Typographer Asks A Question

I’m confused. My Kindle is really an iRex 1000S. And when people ask if it’s an E-Book, I say “Yes”, but I really think “No”.
E-this. E-that. E-gads, what does it all mean?
Here’s my current dictionary for the world of digital books:

E-Book

An E-Book is not the hardware device with a screen that you hold in your hands. An E-Book is software. An E-Book is the digital file that holds the text and images that comprise the “book”. A PDF, for example. This distinction makes for clearer usage I think. So, in my head at least, that’s the way I’ve set it up.
In other heads, the terms “E-Book” and “E-Reader” are likely to get shuffled around and used interchangeably for some time.

E-Reader

An E-Reader is a hardware device on which you read E-Books. The Kindle is an E-Reader.
But if the history of brand names is any guide – to add to the confusion – ”Kindle” might quickly go from referring to a specific product to categorical catch-all, meaning simply, “E-Reader”. No matter what the manufacturer.
“Is that a Kindle?” Yeah, it’s an iRex Kindle. But the screen’s a little smudged, got a Kleenex? Thanks, you proved my point.

E-Ink

This term, I wish, would just go away. It does a lousy job of describing what it’s trying to describe. Where do you put a device that uses E-Ink to make sure it doesn’t leak accidentally and send you running to the dry-cleaners? Is my laptop display using Liquid Crystal Ink? And where can you buy E-Whiteout? Staples doesn’t have that, it seems.
Please move to the DO NOT USE column.

E-Paper

“E-Paper” does, nicely, describe the appearance of the kind of screens to be found on the Kindle and similar devices. This one’s a keeper.

The evolution of language is a fascinating sport where everyone gets to play.
About a month ago, I was flying from Florida to New York. Before takeoff, the flight attendant stopped by my seat, and said, “I’m sorry, sir, but you’ll have to turn off your book.” And then she grinned, leaned down a bit, and added, “You know, I just love getting to say that!”
I knew exactly what she meant.

Related posts:

1. E-Book Formats: The Mad Scramble
2. NYTimes Drops Microsoft For Adobe With Version 2 Of The NYTimes Reader
3. Two Joes On The State Of E-Books

I share a home office with my wife. We trade: she provides a constant reminder of the frustration that computers cause most ordinary humans and I provide desktop support. And I am, actually, a certified systems engineer with lots of experience configuring workstations. And for that I was well-paid. So my wife gets a bargain and I don’t ever forget that there is no such thing as a User Interface too simple – a daily reminder I wish I could transmit brain-to-brain to a lot of web developers and designers out there.
My wife has a big Samsung LCD screen that feeds off a Sony laptop running Vista. Ever since we got it, it has never looked right. Fuzzy. I remember playing around with the desktop settings a few times to get the icons and icon text bigger (but still fuzzy) and chalking up the overall lack of sharpness to the largeness of the screen. The resolution was set at 1440 x 900 – inherited from the laptop’s built-in display, probably. I don’t think I even tried jacking it up further because I assumed that everything would become unusably small.
“Damned computers”, I thought to myself. After all, back in the day, plenty of CRT’s looked like hell because in the end, big but a little fuzzy beat out less fuzzy but extremely small. So I let it go.
Then, about a week ago I posted a review of screen-readability guru Bill Hill’s article about screen resolution and how it is so often set wrong.
But not by me, no, never. Couldn’t happen. I’m a systems engineer, right? I’m sitting pretty.
Then a few days later, a light in my brain flashed on.
I walked over to my wife’s screen and, sure enough, when the resolution in Vista’s Display settings were bumped up in line with the screen’s “native resolution” – in this case 1680 x 1050 – everything sharpened up beautifully. And without getting unusably small.
This little episode makes me suspect that a lot of the complaints about Windows Vista have come from it’s having been introduced at about the same time the migration to LCD screens was picking up steam along with the move to laptops where, if a desktop display was also used and it was wide-screen, it was likely to inherit the settings of the physically smaller laptop display. Not knowing about any other options, people simply accepted whatever settings appeared.
A headache in the making, absolutely. It makes you wonder why there wasn’t or isn’t a wizard that pops up to walk people through the options when a new display screen is detected.
But of course experts like me wouldn’t need it. Truly, there is no substitute for experience.

Related posts:

1. Screen Resolution And Readability: What You Should Know
2. Screen Readability Talk At MIX 10
3. Three Advances In Screen Typography

In one of his first posts since leaving the company, co-creator of Microsoft’s ClearType display technology, screen-readability expert, Bill Hill, explains on his blog The Future Of Reading why “high resolution” doesn’t necessarily mean a sharper, clearer, and more readable experience. (Disclosure: nudged into writing on the subject by me, Bill graciously sent an advance copy for comment and review.)
He writes:

Confusion over what’s commonly referred to as “screen resolution” causes headaches for computer users – literally. People all over the world are having a computing experience that’s nowhere near as good as it could or should be because their displays are wrongly set.

Wrongly set? How? What can I do about it? Well, Bill goes on, and with a little history lesson in computer display technology thrown in along the way, he explains the what, why, and how to fix. (Hint: If you’re using a flat-screen LCD display, set the screen resolution properties in Windows as close as possible to the “native resolution” of the screen.)
Changes in hardware – especially display technology like LCD and more recently, E-Ink or E-Paper, play a big role in making the web a more readable place. And it’s a topic we’ll be returning to time and time again.
It was only a few years ago that reading at the computer meant squinting in the glare of a blinky TV-like CRT display – “hulking brutes” as Bill calls them – brutes we all came to know, and now can’t wait to say goodbye to in favor of lighter-weight, low-power, Liquid Crystal Displays. But LCD is a very different technology from CRT – as Bill points out – and it will take a few more years for even those who consider themselves technically savvy to get the hang of tweaking their systems to take full advantage of these new screens. Operating System and software application design have some catching up to do, too.
But go get a jump on it now. If you’re not absolutely sure you’re getting the sharpness and clarity you thought you bought and paid for with that shiny new widescreen LCD, reading Bill’s article will be time well-spent.

Related posts:

1. Screen Resolution And Me: Clarity Begins At Home
2. Screen Readability Talk At MIX 10
3. Three Advances In Screen Typography