The problem with the fonts is more than just aesthetics. It's about gamma correction.
For various reasons, the brightness of an RGB color value is not linear. This means that a checkerboard of white/black pixels will not look the same from afar as solid 50% gray. The correct shade is something like ~75%.
When anti-aliasing crisp details such as letters, this is incredibly important. Without gamma correction, there will be a noticeable change in brightness when a shape lies between pixels vs when it is pixel-aligned.
I think this is why Linux geeks tend to be vehemently opposed to anti-aliasing; they don't realize the rendering method they're using is crap.
Re:Introduction to Gnome 3
by yesimahuman on Wednesday January 19, 2011 @12:28AM
(#2118750)
> but much yet less usable in the process
Based on what metrics and evidence? I think it does a good job making me more efficient.
Focus groups produced the interface overhaul to Windows Vista and 7. Rather than building on an existing, successful interface, they decided to be more mac-like, and managed to make the interface prettier but much yet less usable in the process.
I agree, gnome fonts are yuck. Even in the screenshot on the frontpage the fonts look awful - both in the text document and the dropdown menu headings.