A small argument developed in the studio the other day over the issue of presenting clients with visuals using Anti-Aliased text. After the dust had settled and the bodies cleared away, it became apparent that the debate was a classic one of best versus worst case scenarios.

To explain: fonts look much better on screen when anti-aliased, a process which operating systems perform automatically to smooth the edges of graphics and text to prevent flicker and jagged edges. As ever, Wikipedia has a much more comprehensive article on font rasterization than I could ever describe. Some designers might not even be aware that the pixel nightmare known as Non Anti-Alias text even exists (especially if using a Mac, as Apple’s OS has always had a pretty solid system for dealing with fonts). However when designing for the web you need to be aware that older browsers don’t offer Anti-Alias *cough* IE6 *cough* and will present all text as basic rasterizations. This is just one of the (many) hazards of producing online work, you have little control on how it will be viewed.

However when a website/emailer etc. is being designed, any visuals a client will see will be flat graphics, or maybe simple click-throughs, so the designer has total control over how any text will be displayed. The question then is this: Is it better to present a visual of the work as you would LIKE it to be seen, or to prepare them for the worst by showing them how it will render with Non Anti-Alias text?

For me the decision comes down to the context it’s being presented in. For pitch or speculative work I think it’s necessary to show your type at its best, make everything appear as in a perfect world, where everyone uses Firefox and Typekit has a global reach. However once you get down to the nitty, gritty, hashing out of usability of a site/page, being prepared to accept that sometimes things will be beyond your control and the client needs to be made aware of this, might be the best course of action.

Tags: web typography