Resolution indpendence

[Steven J Newbury]

On Mon, 2008-06-30 at 15:17 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
> 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>.
> 
Even using your stats it's still the largest miniority.  Is it a
surprise that people wouldn't use a 4:3 resolution on a 16:10 monitor?
Notice that in your stats, there is no breakdown of 16:10 resolutions
(probably most of the 10% unknown), so who's to say which 16:10
resolutions are used from that?

Yet, from the stats I referenced :

3rd spot (8.23%) goes to 1280x800 which is for all intents and purposes
equivalent to 1024x768 for widescreen monitors.

> > 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.
Anecdotal, I'd admit, but most of the people I know for whom I
personally didn't have anything to do with setting up their home system.
I think the results stink too, but there you go.
> 
> 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.