Resolution indpendence

[olafBuddenhagen at gmx.net]

Hi,

On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 05:19:47PM +0100, Glynn Clements wrote:
> olafBuddenhagen at gmx.net wrote:

> > First of all, we do usually have two information points: Resolution
> > and display size. From these, I think we can make a pretty good
> > guess at the viewing distance/angular resolution -- no need for an
> > enormous database.
> 
> You can make a guess, and you don't need a database. But you do need
> to allow the user to override your guess.

Yes of course: the estimated effective resolution is only a default
value, which the user can override when desired. I actually wanted to
mention that in the previous mail, only forgot about it :-(

> > For one, while I do not agree with Glynn that for today's typical
> > resolution it's *only* the pixel grid matters,
> 
> I never said that.
[...]
> For someone with poor eyesight and who only uses good (high-dpi)
> monitors, it's likely that the pixel grid will never be a factor. For
> someone with reasonable eyesight and a poor (low-dpi) monitor, the
> pixel grid may always be the limiting factor.

I don't see how this statement is different from what I wrote...

Anyways, I don't believe it is a matter of either one or the other being
*the* limiting factor. Both are relevant -- with low resolutions, mostly
the pixel grid, while with higher resolutions (relative to screen size),
it's increasingly more the physical size.

> Any calculation based solely upon physical dimensions and pixel
> dimensions is going to be a starting point at best. You cannot
> determine the user's visual acuity and, at least initially, you cannot
> determine the priority which they attach to text density.

It's really only about useful defaults -- that's why I was talking about
a "typical" user. Obiously, some users will want to adjust the value to
their liking.

> If someone is using primarily graphical applications, where the only
> text is the UI (menu bar, status bar etc), using a larger font isn't
> going to significantly affect the amount of information they can get
> on screen (i.e. the size of the application's "canvas").
> 
> OTOH, if someone's primary application is a text editor, a 20% larger
> font will result in 20% fewer lines (and columns) of text on screen.
> Consequently, they are more likely to care if you choose a font which
> is any larger than is strictly necessary.

I very much doubt that people working with a lot of text will generally
prefer smaller fonts. I'd rather suspect the opposite...

Anyways, I don't really see how this is related to what I wrote about.

-antrik-