Resolution indpendence

[Daniel Stone]

On Mon, Jun 30, 2008 at 07:40:37PM +0100, Steven J Newbury wrote:
> I really don't understand this argument.  Surely this is only the case
> because most people use 1024x768:
> [ http://www.onestat.com/html/aboutus_pressbox51_screen_resolutions_internet.html ]
> 
> Yes, that's right, most people set the resolution of their display to a
> value lower than the display hw optimimum so that text (and image) sizes
> are what they are accustomed to. Most(!) people work around the fact the
> 96dpi hack by adujsting the resolution!

Also because Windows is generally terrible at autodetecting these
things, but yes.

> I'm sorry, but computers *should* act in accordance with rigid priciples
> otherwise what's the point?  That's why we have standards, no?

Depends on whether the rigid principles are in opposition to general
expectations or not.

> This just makes no sense.  If the true DPI is 220 on a decent size
> screen, text at 12pt will be unreadable by most if the system DPI is
> fixed to 96!  It will only give the expected (readable) result by either
> setting a lower screen resolution or by using the true DPI to render the
> text!

Right, because all 220 DPI screens are usually viewed from long
distances, right? Except that the vast majority of higher-density
screens are used in mobile devices, hence my example of the
770/N800/N810 having forced the reported DPI to be artificially low.

Cheers,
Daniel
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20080630/871b0850/attachment.pgp>