Visible on a phone, though the why is not clearly seen because that's not how you compare such poor quality pics - you need to flip back & forth, preferably zoomed (a common fail of most of these kind of blogs is not to do that). Then you can see the deficiencies on the left and the reason why it's so thin - in letters like 'i' the vertical bar is semi-transparent, not solid

If you look at the non-highlighted black text, in the new version - the text is darker. I agree it's minor, but it's definitely darker.

https://developer.chrome.com/static/blog/better-text-renderi...

Note: I'm not affiliated to Chromium in any way.

https://imgsli.com/MzQ4OTEw A before/after image slider. Sadly, not pixel perfect, but a small upgrade for comparison UX.

To me the one on the right looks slightly darker/bolder, but not qualitatively better. The stems on the letter "m" in "<meta" in lines 2 and 4 are badly hinted (smeared/mushy looking), and drawn differently even though they're in the same horizontal position in both lines.

Right side looks slightly better on a 1440p 27" oled, text has better contrast.

The text is just higher contrast, if you pull out a color dropper tool or zoom way in on the text you can see the after image has darker text

The text looks fatter / darker on the right

Whoah, for me the left looks unreadably blurry... but it sounds like that's only me? If other people saw it I have a hard time believing they wouldn't mention such a significant difference and just talk about "I stems" instead.

It's a very subtle difference but noticeable in the anti-aliasing.

I don't have Windows right now, so I haven't tested if the change's closer to Firefox - but Firefox always had some heavy antialiasing on Windows, which I wasn't a fan of.

wild, it's obvious to me even in miniature and even more at 1x size, and I don't even have my glasses on