[whatwg] Enabling LCD Text and antialiasing in canvas
senorblanco at chromium.org
Tue Feb 12 14:56:49 PST 2013
On Fri, Nov 23, 2012 at 6:04 PM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012, Jeremy Apthorp wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Jeremy Apthorp <jeremya at chromium.org
> > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> > >> On Fri, 13 Jan 2012, Jeremy Apthorp wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > I'd like to draw non-antialiased lines in a <canvas>. Currently it
> > >> > seems that the only way to do this is to directly access the pixel
> > >> > data.
> > >> >
> > >> > Is there a reason there's no way to turn off antialiasing?
> > >>
> > >> What's the use case?
> > >
> > > Pixel-art style games.
> > Specifically: even with the new image smoothing stuff in place for
> > drawImage, a 1:2 diagonal line will still be anti-aliased (only the
> > antialiasing will look silly scaled up to 2x).
> Do you have an example of a game where lines are drawn using a line API
> without antialiasing, then scaled up? Most "pixel art" games I've seen
> tend to use bitmaps for that kind of thing.
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, Justin Novosad wrote:
> > For many types of apps, DOM-based rendering is uncompetitively slow
> > [so we should make text rendering in canvas more controllable]
> This seems like something we should fix, not something we should work
> around by having people use canvas instead. Using canvas has all kinds of
> terrible side-effects, like reducing the likely accessibility of the page,
> making searcheability much worse, etc.
> Also, do you have any metrics showing the magnitude of this problem on
> real-world sites that might consider using canvas instead?
> > If LCD text were enable-able, authors would have to be mindful of a
> > number of caveats in order to avoid rendering artifacts.
> Do we have any reason to believe the majority of authors would make the
> right decisions here?
> (The main reason we haven't provided control over things like antialiasing
> is that many authors tend to make terribly bad decisions.) (Before anyone
> gets offended, by the way: that you are reading this almost guarantees
> that you are above average in terms of authoring ability.)
> On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 9:37 PM, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> > We'd have to define what happens when you use subpixel antialiasing
> > "incorrectly", because we can be pretty sure authors will use it
> > incorrectly and expect to get interoperable behavior.
> That's certainly true.
> > Mozilla supports a "mozOpaque" attribute which makes the canvas buffer
> > RGBX (initialized to solid black) and enables subpixel antialiasing for
> > most text drawing. That might be enough to address your use-cases.
> I haven't specified this; if other vendors intend to implement this let me
> know and I can spec it. I'm not sure it's worth it though.
[blowing the dust off this thread]
Folks on the Chrome team are looking into implementing this attribute, and
would be interested in seeing it spec'ed.
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012, Robert O'Callahan wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 14, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Justin Novosad <junov at chromium.org>
> > >
> > > Are there precedents for exposing features with documented caveats?
> > > (excluding caveats that were discovered after the fact)
> > Yes, and many of them have been extremely problematic, because Web
> > authors will ignore the caveats.
> Right. I'd really like to avoid adding more if we can help it.
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012, Justin Novosad wrote:
> > There is a recent improvement in Chrome called "deferred 2D canvas
> > rendering" (enabled by default as of Chrome 23). It is a mechanism that
> > records 2d canvas commands during JS execution, and only executes them
> > for real when the render buffer needs to be resolved (draw to screen,
> > getImageData, toDataURL, etc.). If you want to check it out, the guts
> > are in Skia: SkGPipe is a sort of FIFO for graphics commands,
> > SkDeferredCanvas is a wrapper that manages the GPipe and automatically
> > flushes it and applies some command culling optimizations.
> > So to come back to the problem of with and without subpixel AA buffers:
> > if rendering is deferred, the non-AA buffer would never get rasterized
> > (and possibly never even allocated), unless it needs to be. Obviously
> > there are practical limitations, for example we cannot store an
> > unlimited stream of recorded commands, so if the canvas draws
> > indefinitely without ever being cleared, at some point we have to
> > rasterize the non-AA buffer just so that we can safely discard the
> > recording data. Also, if at record time the necessary conditions for
> > subpixel AA are not met, perhaps we just forget about it.
> > I admit this is a complex solution for implementors, but it makes the
> > management of subpixel-AA safety transparent to web authors.
> I think it'd be reasonable (for some definition of reasonable that
> relates to whether it's compatible with the spec, anyway) for implementors
> to do this today, without having to expose any control to the author.
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Fred Andrews wrote:
> > The canvas that scripts draw into could be over-sized with the UA down
> > sampling this to fit the target size and taking into account the
> > sub-pixel screen layout when doing so.
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2012, Justin Novosad wrote:
> > Obviously, that would be costly (x3 pixels), but I think it is a very
> > realistic solution and relatively low hanging fruit. The over-sizing of
> > the canvas would have to be handled under the hood by the UA though,
> > because it depends on LCD component ordering and orientation, which
> > means querying the OS/display driver. A lot of the kinks with the
> > over-sized canvas approach have already been ironed out for solving the
> > problem of High-DPI support ( put/getImageDataHD ), and I like the idea
> > of unifying the two. Implementing this would mostly be a matter of
> > adding per color component compositing of canvases. Also, the pixel
> > aspect ratio would have to be taken into account for line drawing.
> getImageDataHD() requires that the pixels be square, but so long as that
> is taken into consideration (e.g. by dropping down to square pixels if the
> author calls putImageDataHD()) I think this could probably be made to work
> within the spec's current requirements.
> > Regarding the concerns about accessibility, I think the problem can be
> > solved by using HitRegions with labels.
> Oh it _can_ be solved. That's not the problem. Accessibility is not about
> what is _possible_, it's about what actually _is_. Most authors,
> realistically speaking, aren't goin to be using hit regions sufficiently
> for us to declare victory here.
> > Come to think of it, there should be an option to make the UA do this
> > automatically: create a HitRegion with a label every time text is drawn
> > to a canvas.
> I considered doing that, but it gets really fiddly when you're doing
> things like text that fades over multiple frames. In the end I decided
> that the magic wasn't worth it, as it would likely screw up more often
> than it would actually help.
> Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
> http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
> Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg