Tuesday, June 19, 2007

IE vs Safari



I just finished reading THIS article. It is about the difference in text rendering between Windows and MacOS. It was very enlightening. This is one of those things that I wondered about kind of subconsciously but never really took time to research or ask questions about. Why does the web look like crap in IE on a Windows PC? Why does it look so elegant and beautiful in Safari on a Mac? The way Apple and Microsoft have chosen to render text on their respective platforms is the reason. And, I think it says a lot about these two companies and where they have come from and where they are headed. Now that Safari is available for Windows you can see the difference side by side in a direct comparison. (see pic above) Apple went to great lengths to bring the Mac way of rendering text to Windows so the web experience in Safari for Windows wouldn't suck like IE. Read the article if you want a technical explanation. Here is a little snippet that kind of summarizes the whole thing.

"Apple and Microsoft have always disagreed in how to display fonts on computer displays. Today, both companies are using sub-pixel rendering to coax sharper-looking fonts out of typical low resolution screens. Where they differ is in philosophy.

Apple generally believes that the goal of the algorithm should be to preserve the design of the typeface as much as possible, even at the cost of a little bit of blurriness.

Microsoft generally believes that the shape of each letter should be hammered into pixel boundaries to prevent blur and improve readability, even at the cost of not being true to the typeface."

The article mentions that when you poll people about which they prefer they choose what they are familiar with. Windows users prefer the Windows rendering and Mac people the Mac rendering. This makes sense to me, but still blows my mind. There is a principal involved here that I wholeheartedly believe in. People will accept the environment they are placed in for the most part. Unless it is too painful they will stay and be loyal to that environment their entire lives and be perfectly happy with it. Even if it is inferior to something else relatively easy to obtain. I on the other hand demand better, bigger, faster, in almost everything I come in contact with. It causes me a lot of pain because my expectations are usually way too high. In this particular case I cannot imagine why when placed side by side one would not choose the superior and typographically true Apple rendering.
I'm sure there are opposing views out there but I just won't listen to any. I am an Apple elitist. So there.

4 Comments:

At 6:55 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Amen...are you telling me that this gorgeous blog, Clariticity, would look even better on safari? Cool...show me!

 
At 9:54 AM , Blogger Unknown said...

IMO, the real problem lies in an ambiguous HTML spec that allows for such varying interpretations of the data flow. The entire spec should be tightened up so that there's less room for interpretation.

And regarding the platforms, you and I know what our individual preferences. I would think that yours is probably based on your perceived quality of the Mac OS, and mine's based on the installed base. In my experience with web app testing, there is always a limitation of QA resources for testing, which is why my recommendation centers on the installed base. With IE6/7 with approx. 85% of the installed base, and FF with approx 12-15% of the installed based, it doesn't make much sense to use signficant resources to add Safari compatibility when it has 2-4% of the installed base.

So, for me, it's more a matter of resource allocation and the time economics. Safari may render the data stream in a way that's more appealing to you, but there just isn't a big enough installed base to justify the allocation of DEV, QA, PM and System resources to that platform.

However, it should be interesting to see what the release version of Safari for the Windows and Linux platforms will look like. FF already has a VERY big lead in the race for 2nd place and it's unclear if there's room for more another contender for Browser King.

 
At 11:27 AM , Blogger Mike said...

"but there just isn't a big enough installed base to justify the allocation of DEV, QA, PM and System resources to that platform."

Apple is probably hoping the iPhone will change that just a bit...

Don't think most users care or even notice the difference. It's the techies downloading alternate browsers (other than IE). Now if Apple bundles Safari with iTunes & QT... ??

Bottom line... the SNOB is correct THIS TIME. Safari wins the beauty contest.

 
At 12:20 AM , Blogger Kevin said...

In this case I feel you have to look a little past the numbers. Safari being a 'standards' based browser can be a very good place for testing.
In a decidedly negative way of looking at things you are right. In my experience IE6/7 are responsible for approx. 95% of the browser specific bugs that we find for our projects. It is way out of line even with it's market leading 78% share. Firefox is a non starter. It's market share will dwindle now and besides it is a fugly browser. Only people I know that really like FF are the Linux crowd.
One good thing that will probably come from this is that it may well force MS to improve their less than stellar browser. That will be good for us all.
What we are witnessing now is history. We are in the middle of it and it is sometimes hard to see when you are in the middle of history how big it really is. What I feel we are in the middle of is the beginning of the long slow decline of Microsoft. Let's talk in 5 years and see where browser and OS market share is. I have a feeling it will be a lot different than it is now. My prediction?
Linux = 25%
Windows = 45%
Mac OSX = 30%

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home