Re: Tick Reduction

[Stefan Kangas <stefankangas@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 774 bytes --]

Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:

> Looks good to me too, but this reminded me of one thing: Emacs (by
> default) chooses a variable-pitch font that is markedly smaller than the
> monospaced font, in my experience, and you can see the same in your
> screenshot.  So I have this in my .emacs:
>
> (set-face-attribute 'variable-pitch nil :height 130)
>
> I think we should look into that, because the height discrepancy between
> those two fonts is disturbing -- see the "(see also M-x apropos)" line
> in your screenshot.

Here is my analysis.

First, take a look at the below screenshot.  The monospace text uses
Bitstream Vera Sans Mono, and the variable width "M" and "s" on the
sides use Bitstream Vera Sans.  Both are the same size as reported by
`C-u C-x ='.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 301 bytes --]


Both the upper-case and lower-case characters have the same x-height.
Yet they look as if they have different sizes when on the same line
together (and are not immediately next to each other).

I also took these screenshots of the first line, one with an added red
line to make things even clearer:


[-- Attachment #3: mono-vs-prop.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 4397 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #4: first-line.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 9947 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #5: first-line-red.png --]
[-- Type: image/png, Size: 12614 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #6: Type: text/plain, Size: 1221 bytes --]


I believe the reason why we get the visual impression that the monospace
font is larger than the proportional, even though they take up as many
vertical pixels, is because it takes up more horizontal space.

Such visual illusions are not entirely uncommon in typography, and the
normal solution is to forget about aligning things "mathematically" or
with a ruler.  (Doing that would be counter-productive when the key
thing is what it looks like to a human reader and not to a machine.)
Instead, you simply eye-ball it.  There's no way around it.

So my conclusion is that Emacs does things "right" here, in the sense
that it doesn't do any adjustments: it just presents the font at the
specified font size.

We probably should make some adjustments to be more appealing to a human
reader, but the tricky part is what exactly to do.  Making the variable
width font slightly larger would work on my machine, but it won't work
if the chosen fonts have different x-heights.  (Eli's report was
illuminating: he seems to have the exact opposite problem from what we
have both observed.)

What, if anything, does TeX do about this?

Does harfbuzz, or something else, provide us with a way to know the
x-height of a character?