on text size...

[Jonathan N. Little]

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

Meantime, perhaps Spartanicus would care to write to Iiyama and lecture
them in corresponding terms about their CRT displays, since, according to
them, their Visionmaster Pro 454 19" display (e.g HM903DTB) supports
resolutions (their term) up to 2048x1536. (Corresp. display area given as
366x274mm, for those who are calculating in the margin). Not that it
matters, but I wasn't going that far with mine.

Not sure what kind of voodoo formula was used to get that resolution but
Iiyama's own specs for the monitor show a more realistic 1920 x 1440. On
a 19" that would make text very small.

My 19 SyncMaster maxes at 1600 x 1200, but I run it at a more
comfortable 1280 x 960 and keeps my aspect true for design work.

 

[Spartanicus]

Many people are confused about the issue of resolution on CRT monitors,
they think that by increasing the Screen Area setting, the resolution
follows suit. For colour CRT monitors this is only true up to a certain
point. Colour CRTs use a mask and phosphor clusters known as "dots",
these dots have a physical dimension referred to in specifications as
"dot pitch" [1]. A few examples: 0.24mm dot pitch = ~105PPI max
resolution, 0.27mm dot pitch = ~94PPI max resolution.

As an aside, I used to actually quite like the effect of a CRT at
resolutions above what the dot pitch said it could handle. So long as it
didn't bring down the refresh rate, the low-GPU fake antialiasing in games
looked fine

Fair enough if you prefer to trade in a certain loss of definition for
an aesthetic effect.

Hmmm... what is the current state of vector interfaces? I think I read
somewhere GNOME uses lazy rasterised SVG for all icons etc. I might have
been reading about a future version, mind.

I'm not particularly familiar with GNOME and the likes. To solve the
problem on Windows would require a fundamental change in the OS, and
many of the applications that run on it. Vector based UI elements could
impose a resource penalty. Given the backward compatibility problems, I
can imagine that OS developers are not eager to change to such a system.
The benefits would only really become evident with future hardware. That
said, I occasionally use a Dell laptop with a 147PPI resolution screen,
and these are already really uncomfortable to use due to this issue.

Maybe future very high res screens are where Opera will gain greater use,
because it can zoom the bitmapped parts as well as increase the text size.

Apart from the OS UI elements, the effect of high resolution screens on
bitmapped content should also be considered. It may become necessary to
integrate high quality image resizing into the OS to handle the variety
of output resolutions. To get the benefit content providers such as web
authors may need to provide oversized bitmapped content, or make bitmaps
available in multiple sizes.

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

Alan J. Flavell wrote:

Not sure what kind of voodoo formula was used to get that resolution

I read it directly off Iiyama's technical data for the model in question,
consulted from their web page alongside my news posting window. There is
no mistake. Their URL is a boggleworthy query string secreted in a
frameset, or I would have cited it. Well:

http://www.iiyama.co.uk/pages/conte...HEET&PARAMS2=0&PCAT=1&PTUBE=&PROD=2248&PAGE=0

On a 19" that would make text very small.

1.0em was the size that I wanted it, and very readable. That's the whole
point, otherwise I wouldn't have done it.

 

[Jim Higson]

Fair enough if you prefer to trade in a certain loss of definition for
an aesthetic effect.

The question is moot now I have a TFT, but in games I sometimes miss the
less-than-square pixels of my CRT.

I'm not particularly familiar with GNOME and the likes. To solve the
problem on Windows would require a fundamental change in the OS, and
many of the applications that run on it. Vector based UI elements could
impose a resource penalty. Given the backward compatibility problems, I
can imagine that OS developers are not eager to change to such a system.
The benefits would only really become evident with future hardware. That
said, I occasionally use a Dell laptop with a 147PPI resolution screen,
and these are already really uncomfortable to use due to this issue.

I don't know if this would be such a big thing. The icons I use are all
prerasterised SVG anyway (see
http://www.kde-look.org/content/show.php?content=8341) and a decent image
rendering library should be able to gloss over the difference in image
formats, even for formats as diverse as PNG/SVG.

I don't know if the Windows icons are vector, but they're redrawing them for
Vista anyway, and are probably using vector tools. Vector rendering isn't
really any slower when you use the GPU anyway, see
http://www.cairographics.org/introduction for an interesting read on this.

Apart from the OS UI elements, the effect of high resolution screens on
bitmapped content should also be considered. It may become necessary to
integrate high quality image resizing into the OS to handle the variety
of output resolutions. To get the benefit content providers such as web
authors may need to provide oversized bitmapped content, or make bitmaps
available in multiple sizes.

Rather than provide one version for mobile devices, one for normal and one
for high-res, I think I'd rather just give the client a gzipped SVG. That
way any dot pitch, present and future is supported.

Maybe by the time these displays are common, SVG support will be also.

 

[dingbat]

a lot of the very beautiful
pages on CSS Zen Garden have text at 80% or smaller.

Body copy goes at 1em / 100%, no exception. Anything else is up to the
user.

From what I can tell,
this is because browsers (IE especially) have the default text size set to
be quite large.

IE users should be beaten with sticks until they stop it.

For IE users on the Mac, put nails in the sticks.

The "font-size:80%" phenomenon seems to be a larger problem among web
designers

You mis-spelled "dezyner"




You _CANNOT_ design a web site with unusably small text in the body
copy, even if it makes the design look prettier. The web coder just not
have this as an option - all you have is the choice between "Make my
site usable by default" and "Irritate my users by making them adjust
something until it is readable".

 

[Spartanicus]

I don't know if the Windows icons are vector

As supplied with the OS Windows icons usually contain 2 bitmap images,
16x16 and 32x32. In addition many Windows applications draw their own UI
using bitmaps.

, but they're redrawing them for
Vista anyway, and are probably using vector tools.

The source format doesn't really matter in this context. What matters is
what the end format is, and if it's viable to have a vector rendering
engine continuously active to render the UI.

To cope with potentially future significantly varying screen resolutions
it would suffice to have the OS generate appropriately sized bitmaps for
example from a vector image base once. I'm not sure if there is a
compelling benefit to having a vector rendering engine painting the UI.

Vector rendering isn't
really any slower when you use the GPU anyway, see
http://www.cairographics.org/introduction for an interesting read on this.

On the modern desktop systems the resource usage would probably not be a
problem. I doubt if that also applies to mobile platforms.

Rather than provide one version for mobile devices, one for normal and one
for high-res, I think I'd rather just give the client a gzipped SVG. That
way any dot pitch, present and future is supported.

I referred to bitmaps such as jpeg photo realistic images used as
content on web sites, vector formats are not an option there.

 

[Alan J. Flavell]

IE users should be beaten with sticks until they stop it.

Hey, they have *paid* Bill to set that size for them!! If there's a
reason to beat them with sticks, it's /not/ for having the wrong text
size - but for the /other/ thing.

But seriously; if you were a distributor of OSes to the general public,
wouldn't *you* also err on the large side? At least then you have some
confidence that most users can read it, even if some of them will rate it
as too large.

Even Bill seems to be vulnerable to the belief that, if the users don't
like it, they could find their way to the "View> Text Size" menu to change
it. As you may have noticed elsegroup today, not everyone trusts them to
be able to do that, though :-{ (not me, Guv).

At risk of stating the obvious, a flexible design should be able to adapt
to those who consented to having text larger than they really wanted,
without doing harm to those who've made "the choice" (i.e 1.0em =
preferred body text size). So don't worry about it, it's just another of
those expected variations in browsing situation.

good luck

 

[Toby Inkster]

Hmmm... what is the current state of vector interfaces? I think I read
somewhere GNOME uses lazy rasterised SVG for all icons etc.

GNOME icons can come in serveral formats, including XBM, PNG and SVG.

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

I read it directly off Iiyama's technical data for the model in question,
consulted from their web page alongside my news posting window. There is
no mistake. Their URL is a boggleworthy query string secreted in a
frameset, or I would have cited it. Well:

http://www.iiyama.co.uk/pages/conte...HEET&PARAMS2=0&PCAT=1&PTUBE=&PROD=2248&PAGE=0






1.0em was the size that I wanted it, and very readable. That's the whole
point, otherwise I wouldn't have done it.

Had the wrong suffix on the model number, they do list the ...TB as
2048x1536. I still say on a 19" monitor at that resolution unrealistic,
everything will be minuscule. At about 145 PPI a Windows 16x16 icon will
be only just a tad over a 1/10 of an inch! Now on a 24" or maybe on a
21" monitor....

 

[rf]

Had the wrong suffix on the model number, they do list the ...TB as
2048x1536. I still say on a 19" monitor at that resolution unrealistic,
everything will be minuscule. At about 145 PPI a Windows 16x16 icon will
be only just a tad over a 1/10 of an inch!

Which is why most programs that *require* such resolution (high end CAD and
such[1]) will provide up to 64x64 versions of their icons and toolbars
(allowing the user to choose) and why Windows supports such things as user
definable font size[2]. It's also why browsers have an easy way to change
the user font size.

The technology supports such resolutions. The software does. Why should we
not use it?

[1] Ever tried to use a very high end CAD system on, say, a 1027x760 screen?
Very tedious and annoying. I have my three screens set to 1600x1200 and I
*still* run out of desktop

[2] Just tell Windows to use, say, 200 DPI and suddenly all text uses twice
as many pixels in each direction[3]. If any "program" does not notice and
support this different DPI setting then that program is broken.

[3] 200DPI on a 1600x1200 screen is twice as easy to read as 96 DPI on
exactly the same screen set to 800x600, yet the text is roughly the same
physical size.

Cheers
Richard.

 

[Toby Inkster]

Ever tried to use a very high end CAD system on, say, a 1027x760 screen?

I can't imagine that many people even *have* such a screen to test things
on. That said, VMWare allows you to create a virtual screen for the guest
OS of any resolution you want, and the Linux/UNIX version of vncserver
allows you to run an X server at any size you want, as does Xnest.

[3] 200DPI on a 1600x1200 screen is twice as easy to read as 96 DPI on
exactly the same screen set to 800x600, yet the text is roughly the same
physical size.

But also the graphics become itty-bitty.

 

[rf]

I can't imagine that many people even *have* such a screen to test things
on.

Heh, 1027x760 indeed

That said, VMWare allows you to create a virtual screen for the guest
OS of any resolution you want, and the Linux/UNIX version of vncserver
allows you to run an X server at any size you want, as does Xnest.

I had a notebook once that did that. Worse than horizontal scrollbars on a
browser. Made me dizzy!

I could *not* imagine using my CAD package on such a virtual screen. Hmmm,
how to draw a line from here to way over there? The "there" is way off the
edge of the physical screen.

[3] 200DPI on a 1600x1200 screen is twice as easy to read as 96 DPI on
exactly the same screen set to 800x600, yet the text is roughly the same
physical size.

But also the graphics become itty-bitty.

True. That's why I have a screen over there --->
at 800x600, in case I just may happen to want to look at a graphic. If I
want a really close look then magnifier is only a click away

Cheers
Richard.

 

[Toby Inkster]

I had a notebook once that did that. Worse than horizontal scrollbars on a
browser. Made me dizzy!
I could *not* imagine using my CAD package on such a virtual screen.

I was actually meaning virtual screens that are *smaller* than the real
screen (though larger ones are possible too). That way one can achieve the
desired 1027x760 screen on, say, a 1280x1024 screen.

 

[rf]

I was actually meaning virtual screens that are *smaller* than the real
screen (though larger ones are possible too). That way one can achieve the
desired 1027x760 screen on, say, a 1280x1024 screen.

Ah, I see

Cheers
Richard.

 

[callen]

The IBM T221 was discontinued. Viewsonic and Iiama are still making
their copies of the same monitor, though.