Maybe even a classic article...

"The raster tragedy at low resolution
or: why correct math looks wrong on screen and how to fix it"

<http://www.microsoft.com/typography/tools/trtalr.htm>

I do hope the beginning is not too concise for some non-technical people!
I'd be glad to try to help clarify.

The basic form of a TrueType or PostScript glyph is the outline; to render
it, it's filled with pixels, so to speak. That's somewhat simplistic,
though. Unless I'm really confusen, the basic glyphs in both types of
fonts (and OpenType, a combination and extension of the two, afaik) are
stored as the locations of the control points; font-design tools render
the outline defined by those control points.

Not explicitly stated, iirc, is that pixels can't be repositioned slightly
to improve appearance, and they are not likely to be, in the near future,
if ever.

Remember 640 by 480 DOS character-cell screens, where you could see every
pixel, because the screen resolution (in dots/inch)[1] was so coarse? Or,
better yet, those arrays (such as 7 by 9 per monospaced char.) of bright
dots for electronic displays?

Present-day screens are still an array of much more-closely-spaced dots,
and text is rendered as a variety of graphics, so to speak; it uses the
same internal process that's used to render images.

[1] Yes, I know dots/inch is not the usual measurement for monitors. It is
useful, though. Better than 100 dpi (or close) is quite nice, and probably
uncommon. (Better number, anyone?)

Happy hinting!

--
Nicholas Bodley /*|*\ Waltham, Mass.
The curious hermit -- autodidact and polymath
Freedom from hypocrisy is a very good idea.