Resolution indpendence

[Felix Miata]

On 2008/06/30 19:40 (GMT+0100) Steven J Newbury apparently typed:

> On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 21:03 +0300, Daniel Stone wrote:

>> No, because everyone except desktop publishers deals in a standard,
>> well-understood set of point sizes, which they expect to translate at
>> about 96dpi, instead of maybe reallyreallytiny or LUDICROUSLY BIG.

> 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 ]

That "most" use 1024x768 is an assertion not universally held. e.g. contra:
http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2008/June/res.php where the assertion is 46%,
considerably less than half, and shrinking at a fairly rapid pace now that
non-widescreen displays are scarce in the marketplace
<http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2007/June/res.php>.

> 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!

Where exactly to you see that people are not using native resolution on their
LCD (HW optimum) displays? I don't know of any myself. The results stunk when
I sampled myself.

That anyone still uses a sub-optimum setting on a CRT will soon be an
anachronism if it isn't already. People trying to get rid of CRTs that have
been replaced with LCDs have a hard time ridding themselves of the old by
doing anything other than junking them, even perfectly serviceable 19s.

IOW, the future is people for the foreseeable future, until an average
somewhere around 200-300 is reached, will be more or less locked into using
whatever the native resolution, and thus PPI/DPI/dot pitch, happen to be.
-- 
"Where were you when I laid the earth's
foundation?"		       Matthew 7:12 NIV

 Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/