|
|
Posted by Spartanicus on 06/08/05 18:56
"Alan J. Flavell" <flavell@ph.gla.ac.uk> wrote:
>> That conflicts with your unreserved endorsement of Verdana as a user
>> font.
>
>"Unreserved"? Let's not go overboard ;-) I haven't chosen it
>myself...
"perfectly fine choice" with no mention of the problems that are likely
to result from that choice sounds like an unreserved endorsement to me.
>But I'm sure it's a perfectly fine choice for an individual to make in
>the privacy of their own browser, and *at a size of their choosing*
Not if that choice of size is anything less than what the user would
chose for a serif font. Verdana is a "perfectly fine choice" as an
author font also, provided that it isn't sized at anything less than
100%, but we all know that people rarely do that. A similar thing
happens when users configure Verdana as a user font.
>> >But considerable improvements have been made both in display
>> >resolution and in rendering technology, so it's undergoing a
>> >changeover, the way that it seems to me.
>>
>> Increasing screen resolution causes yet more issues.
>
>Indeed it does, but solutions are inevitable, since the problem is
>increasingly widespread.
The topic was most people finding serif fonts not pleasant to look at on
the average screen, that issue isn't on the increase.
>MS already offers a half-cocked solution
>with lots of ifs and buts - presumably they'll be improving it over
>time.
What are you trying to achieve with this obscurity?
>> Current mainstream OSs use bitmapped UI widgets, these shrink on a
>> higher resolution screen. As a result the number of screens on the
>> market with a resolution higher than ~100PPI is very limited. I've
>> used a 148PPI laptop, using it was a royal pain due to this problem.
>
>As one data point, my office PC works at about 135dpi.
That's most unusual if it's not a laptop.
People using CRT monitors often calculate the PPI value based on a the
physical screen dimensions and the desktop screen area setting in the
OS. It's easy to make a mistake with that calculation since the
resolution of a CRT has an upper limit imposed by the granularity of the
phosphor clusters.
>But font size (on a www-compatible browser) isn't the same as
>bitmapped images and widgets.
No-one is claiming that it is, you suggested that screen resolution was
increasing and that therefore the problem of displaying serif fonts @
body size was getting better. I see no substantial increase in screen
resolution (in PPI) in new screens. I pointed out that current OSs using
fixed size bitmapped widgets is one of the reasons why.
--
Spartanicus
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|