Resolution indpendence

[Florian Mickler]

Hi!

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 21:03:50 +0300
Daniel Stone <daniel at fooishbar.org> 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.
> 
[..]

> Look, I'm happy that you care about this stuff.  Really, because we
> need more people to tell us that we're screwing up and going wrong.
> But please trust me that real people don't feel that way.  They see
> 'size 12' (something readable), rather than '12pt' (however many
> inches). Nothing that exists today works at all with high-density
> displays -- the Nokia tablets still just always smash the DPI to 96
> or so, because surprisingly you have NO ROOM ON YOUR SCREEN AT 220DPI
> BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS REALLY BIG AND JUST IMAGINE THIS BIT IS TAKING
> UP THIRTEEN LINES RATHER THAN JUST BEING IN CAPS.  It's ridiculous.
> 

But suppose you have a 3"x3" Display (some mobile device) with  900x900
pixels ... you can't really hold it that near to your eyes (because of
your nose) so that you are able to read your "easily readable" 12pt text
because of our beloved 96 dpi assumption ...



> Cheers,
> Daniel

Respectfully,
Florian
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg/attachments/20080630/a414cabe/attachment.pgp>