On Monday 02 March 2009 6:03:52 am Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> Chris Cheney wrote on 28/02/09 21:08:
> >
> > On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 12:38 +0100, Markus Hitter wrote:
> >...
> >> I can understand this is difficult to get swallowed. For 40 (or more)
> >> years now, the rule was 1 pixel = 1 dot on the
Olá Ryan e a todos.
On Sunday 01 March 2009 17:57:05 Ryan Hayle wrote:
> On 01/03/09 10:29, (``-_-´´) -- BUGabundo wrote:
> > no no... after i got HUGE fonts, i reset the DPI to 96 (looked
> > better) and then on certain apps, i just increase the font size
> > (like kmail or firefox).
> > Guess i'
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Cheney wrote on 28/02/09 21:08:
>
> On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 12:38 +0100, Markus Hitter wrote:
>...
>> I can understand this is difficult to get swallowed. For 40 (or more)
>> years now, the rule was 1 pixel = 1 dot on the screen. A picture,
>>
On 01/03/09 10:29, (``-_-´´) -- BUGabundo wrote:
> no no... after i got HUGE fonts, i reset the DPI to 96 (looked
> better) and then on certain apps, i just increase the font size
> (like kmail or firefox).
> Guess i'll have to reset my font size and just try to increase the
> DPI to a nice value.
Olá Chris e a todos.
On Friday 27 February 2009 17:27:22 Chris Cheney wrote:
> > Hi have a 13" at 1280x800 (DPI 112 according to xorg log) and I have to
> > increase mine, but I dont see as good as I used to.
>
> It seems strange that you needed to increase the font size when your DPI
> setting
Am 28.02.2009 um 22:08 schrieb Chris Cheney:
> Also where is a 100x100 image not displayed as such?
On a printer, for example. If application designers would map
pictures to a printer the same way they currently map it to the
screen, users would likely call them insane. Now try to imagine a
Am 28.02.2009 um 19:52 schrieb Mackenzie Morgan:
> On Saturday 28 February 2009 6:38:04 am Markus Hitter wrote:
>> I can understand this is difficult to get swallowed. For 40 (or more)
>> years now, the rule was 1 pixel = 1 dot on the screen. A picture,
>> 100px x 100px in size used to use exactl
Op zaterdag 28-02-2009 om 15:08 uur [tijdzone -0600], schreef Chris
Cheney:
> Pt is point which was defined long before computers came into wide use.
> It was finally officially defined as 1/72 of an inch in 1959 but had
> been in that general range of size since at least the 1700s.
Actually, 1/72
On 2009/02/28 12:38 (GMT+0100) Markus Hitter composed:
> ... with resolution independent rendering,
> ... "px" is just a measurement unit,
> just like "in" or "mm". Once the software gets this, it's perfectly
> fine for web developers to ask for a "12pt" font.
No it won't, because pt, like
On 2009/02/28 13:09 (GMT-0600) Ryan Hayle composed:
> Here is what my 15.4" 1920x1200 screen looks like:
> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/23230352/Screenshot.png
> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/23230847/bold%20font.jpg
> I think I have perhaps been persuaded by the argument that the font size
>
On 2009/02/28 19:23 (GMT-0500) Mackenzie Morgan composed:
> On Saturday 28 February 2009 5:12:11 pm Felix Miata wrote:
>> Even if all existing systems had accurate DPI, web designers would still
>> have no more business using pt for sizing web page text than they do px.
>> They should only be usi
On 2009/02/28 19:21 (GMT+0100) Nicolò Chieffo composed:
> Ok, I understood now.
> Anyway the default look of ubuntu in my screen is really ugly.
You'll have to define "ugly" in detail to get a meaningful response.
> Is it possible to adapt the font to the screen DPI (automatically)?
You'll have
On Saturday 28 February 2009 5:12:11 pm Felix Miata wrote:
> Even if all existing systems had accurate DPI, web designers would still
have
> no more business using pt for sizing web page text than they do px. They
> should only be using em to size text, with the option to size other things
in
> %
On 2009/02/28 15:08 (GMT-0600) Chris Cheney composed:
> Agreed that px should go away entirely in HTML
> ... an abomination that it
> was ever allowed into the HTML specification at all
WRT fonts at least, HTML never had px. All HTML had and has for font sizing
is em, though it isn't cal
On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 12:38 +0100, Markus Hitter wrote:
> This is likely all true, but with resolution independent rendering,
> it no longer applies. In the future, "px" is just a measurement unit,
> just like "in" or "mm". Once the software gets this, it's perfectly
> fine for web developers
On 28/02/09 11:34, Nicolò Chieffo wrote:
> I wanted to do a check. I booted the alpha 5 livecd on 2 laptops:
> a 15.4" with 1280x800
> and my 14.1" with 1440x900
>
> The result is strange, since the 2 laptops render the font in 2 different
> ways.
>
> The first looks really good (and now I've unde
On Saturday 28 February 2009 6:38:04 am Markus Hitter wrote:
> I can understand this is difficult to get swallowed. For 40 (or more)
> years now, the rule was 1 pixel = 1 dot on the screen. A picture,
> 100px x 100px in size used to use exactly 100 x 100 dots on screen.
> Now, this is no long
Ok, I understood now.
Anyway the default look of ubuntu in my screen is really ugly.
Is it possible to adapt the font to the screen DPI (automatically)?
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/
On 2009/02/28 18:34 (GMT+0100) Nicolò Chieffo composed:
> I wanted to do a check. I booted the alpha 5 livecd on 2 laptops:
> a 15.4" with 1280x800
> and my 14.1" with 1440x900
> The result is strange, since the 2 laptops render the font in 2 different
> ways.
> The first looks really good (and
I wanted to do a check. I booted the alpha 5 livecd on 2 laptops:
a 15.4" with 1280x800
and my 14.1" with 1440x900
The result is strange, since the 2 laptops render the font in 2 different ways.
The first looks really good (and now I've understood why lots of
people here are saying that the defau
Am 27.02.2009 um 19:29 schrieb Felix Miata:
> On 2009/02/27 10:47 (GMT-0600) Ryan Hayle composed:
>
>> On 27/02/09 10:09, Chris Cheney wrote:
>
>>> Fortunately most web designers are smart enough not to use px for
>>> fonts.
>
> I'm not so sure it's reached 50% yet, particularly for shopping
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 13:55 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2009/02/27 10:09 (GMT-0600) Chris Cheney composed:
>
> > On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 02:55 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
>
> >> These may not be the best around, but even if they're off by 50%, the real
> >> world still hasn't been anywhere near c
On 2009/02/27 10:09 (GMT-0600) Chris Cheney composed:
> On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 02:55 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
>> These may not be the best around, but even if they're off by 50%, the real
>> world still hasn't been anywhere near constant for the past 5 years:
>> http://www.w3schools.com/browsers
On 2009/02/27 10:47 (GMT-0600) Ryan Hayle composed:
> On 27/02/09 10:09, Chris Cheney wrote:
>> Fortunately most web designers are smart enough not to use px for fonts.
I'm not so sure it's reached 50% yet, particularly for shopping carts. For
those that have changed away, most have not switched
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 16:28 +, (``-_-´´) -- BUGabundo wrote:
> Olá Mackenzie e a todos.
>
> On Thursday 26 February 2009 18:59:28 Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> > I have a 1280x800 13" screen, and the fonts look fine to me.
>
> Hi have a 13" at 1280x800 (DPI 112 according to xorg log) and I have t
On 27/02/09 10:09, Chris Cheney wrote:
> Fortunately most web designers are smart enough not to use px for fonts.
Have you tried to browse the web much with Firefox set to a high DPI?
Maybe it's just way more noticeable for me at 150dpi, but at least half
the sites I visit look terrible! There
Olá Ryan e a todos.
On Thursday 26 February 2009 19:50:06 Ryan Hayle wrote:
> but you will need to measure it yourself to be 100% sure. Just divide 1280
> and 800 by the width and height (in
> inches), respectively, to get your DPI values.
$ xdpyinfo |grep resolution
resolution:112x112
Olá Mackenzie e a todos.
On Thursday 26 February 2009 18:59:28 Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> I have a 1280x800 13" screen, and the fonts look fine to me.
Hi have a 13" at 1280x800 (DPI 112 according to xorg log) and I have to
increase mine, but I dont see as good as I used to.
--
Hi, I'm BUGabundo
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 02:55 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2009/02/26 21:12 (GMT-0600) Chris Cheney composed:
>
> > On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 21:08 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
>
> >> On 2009/02/26 19:15 (GMT-0600) Chris Cheney composed:
>
> >> >> On 26/02/09 14:31, Felix Miata wrote:
>
> >> >> Real-w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nicolò Chieffo wrote on 26/02/09 21:01:
>
> For all of you who does not have a 121 DPI laptop, and said that the
> font size is good as it is, make sure to have a look at my screenshots
> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/23152437/8pt.jpg
> http://launchp
2009/2/26 Chris Cheney :
> [...] personally I think they are already fine [...]
I don't agree. Having fonts as displayed in
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/23152448/10pt.jpg is clearly not right
and would make, IMHO, a awful first impression.
--
Siegfried-Angel Gevatter
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss m
Marius Gedminas [2009-02-27 15:11 +0200]:
> (I assume you meant "many")
Whoops, yes.
> Since the X server uses EDID-reported physical size to determine the
> DPI, it's at least as precise as basing the font size on DPI alone, no?
Oh, is that really so? I had assumed that the monitor reports its
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 09:53:06AM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
> Thus I think we should not (only) base the font size on dpi, but
> rather on the physical size of the screen. Does anyone know whether
> the reported (EDID) physical size of the monitor is reliable on may
(I assume you meant "many")
>
Chris Cheney [2009-02-26 14:04 -0600]:
> For the netbook and higher end (and newer) laptop case where dpi can be
> up to 150dpi users will see a definite increase in size of the fonts.
> The size of the fonts will now be the proper size according to what they
> claim to be. The font size could be s
On 2009/02/26 21:12 (GMT-0600) Chris Cheney composed:
> On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 21:08 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
>> On 2009/02/26 19:15 (GMT-0600) Chris Cheney composed:
>> >> On 26/02/09 14:31, Felix Miata wrote:
>> >> Real-world DPI has been steadily increasing from release to
>> >> release.
>
On 2009/02/26 22:04 (GMT-0600) Ryan Hayle composed:
> On 26/02/09 20:43, Felix Miata wrote:
>> I think your majority is a majority of young people. We're not talking
>> extremely here. Scientific studies (hard to find, but they're out there) have
>> shown that most people (not a group skewed to t
to, 2009-02-26 kello 13:59 -0500, Mackenzie Morgan kirjoitti:
> On Thursday 26 February 2009 1:44:13 pm Nicolò Chieffo wrote:
> > which resolution have you got?
>
> It's not just the resolution.
"Resolution" tends to be a bad word for these things. I'd suggest "pixel
count" for number of pixels o
On 26/02/09 22:26, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> Er...what? If it's a high dpi, and they specify 10px, then it'd be really
> really tiny. But weren't you complaining that text is too big?
>
Two different issues, sorry for the confusion. The 16 pt default is
overridden by specifying e.g. 16px, wh
On Thursday 26 February 2009 11:04:13 pm Ryan Hayle wrote:
> Did this study take DPI into account though? I agree that most people
> (myself included, until recently) think of 10pt as a minimum, but only
> because it looks so small on Windows. It seems really odd for me to be
> setting 7.5pt f
On 26/02/09 20:43, Felix Miata wrote:
> "Visually impaired" is most older users, which you will probably be someday,
> and and shouldn't be equated to handicap. They don't necessarily consider
> themselves impaired. Many have the money for the better stuff, and aren't
> pleased to pay more for an i
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 21:08 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2009/02/26 19:15 (GMT-0600) Chris Cheney composed:
>
> >> On 26/02/09 14:31, Felix Miata wrote:
>
> >> Real-world DPI has been steadily increasing from release to
> >> release.
>
> > I don't see this to actually be the case. Even with l
On 2009/02/26 17:33 (GMT-0600) Ryan Hayle composed:
> Yes, and DPI will continue to increase. This should result in sharper
> fonts, NOT larger or smaller fonts. That's the whole point of this
> effort. We need a sensible default which looks good "out of the box" on
> the majority of systems
On 2009/02/26 19:15 (GMT-0600) Chris Cheney composed:
>> On 26/02/09 14:31, Felix Miata wrote:
>> Real-world DPI has been steadily increasing from release to
>> release.
> I don't see this to actually be the case. Even with laptops it seems
> that ~ 130 dpi is the maximum that most manufacturer
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 17:33 -0600, Ryan Hayle wrote:
> On 26/02/09 14:31, Felix Miata wrote:
> > On the contrary, preference is about the difference between acceptable and
> > unacceptable.
> >
>
> There are two separate issues here. You seem to be arguing that the OLD
> size is too small, a
On 2009/02/26 17:33 (GMT-0600) Ryan Hayle composed:
> It seems to me like there might possibly be another issue here. At
> high DPI, it seems as if the font rendering engine makes larger fonts
> (by that I mean 10pt) appear more "bold" than they should (in my
> opinion). Is this the intended
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 00:45 +0100, Nicolò Chieffo wrote:
> They are png. I renamed them to jpg by mistake
Oh, goody then :)
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discu
They are png. I renamed them to jpg by mistake
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 17:33 -0600, Ryan Hayle wrote:
> which is
> evident in this screenshot:
>
> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/23152448/10pt.jpg
Nothing at all is evident in screenshots that are saved as jpg to show
font issues. It's impossible to distinguish font rendering compression
artefact
On 26/02/09 14:31, Felix Miata wrote:
> On the contrary, preference is about the difference between acceptable and
> unacceptable.
>
There are two separate issues here. You seem to be arguing that the OLD
size is too small, and want it to be larger. Fair enough--but that is a
separate issu
The DejaVu Sans is the default font
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
On 2009/02/26 22:01 (GMT+0100) Nicolò Chieffo composed:
> For all of you who does not have a 121 DPI laptop, and said that the
> font size is good as it is, make sure to have a look at my screenshots
> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/23152437/8pt.jpg
> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/23152448/10pt.jpg
For all of you who does not have a 121 DPI laptop, and said that the
font size is good as it is, make sure to have a look at my screenshots
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/23152437/8pt.jpg
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/23152448/10pt.jpg
Did your opinion change?
Thanks
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss maili
On Thu, 26 Feb 2009 18:29:06 +0100
Nicolò Chieffo wrote:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-control-center/+bug/310353
> This discussion was started becaus Sebastien Bacher asked for it.
>
> -
>
> Hello, now that the default DPI is asked to X, it's no more '96' as it
> used t
On 2009/02/26 12:54 (GMT-0600) Ryan Hayle composed:
> The point is not to alienate any users, or even to reduce the visible
> size of the font. The problem is not just a matter of "preference".
On the contrary, preference is about the difference between acceptable and
unacceptable.
> The prob
On 26/02/09 14:04, Chris Cheney wrote:
> I think we should select some sensible defaults, personally I think they
> are already fine, without making it too small to be readable. Users with
> exceptionally good eye sight, or who are sitting much closer to their
> screen, can make the fonts even smal
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 21:15 +0100, Siegfried-Angel wrote:
> 2009/2/26 Chris Cheney :
> > [...] personally I think they are already fine [...]
>
> I don't agree. Having fonts as displayed in
> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/23152448/10pt.jpg is clearly not right
> and would make, IMHO, a awful first
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 15:05 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2009/02/26 20:08 (GMT+0100) Nicolò Chieffo composed:
>
> > Yes. Currently the most spread resolution is:
>
> > 1280x800 (in 15") what is the DPI? (how can I evaluate the DPI of a
> > monitor?)
>
> 1-You can calculate it. Divide the inch
On 2009/02/26 13:59 (GMT-0500) Mackenzie Morgan composed:
> I have a 1280x800 13" screen, and the fonts look fine to me.
1280x800 on 13" is ~116 DPI. That produces a specified default 10pt font that
is in actuality 6.2pt (72/116*10), because 1pt is 1/72". That's about half
the size my mother and
On 2009/02/26 20:08 (GMT+0100) Nicolò Chieffo composed:
> Yes. Currently the most spread resolution is:
> 1280x800 (in 15") what is the DPI? (how can I evaluate the DPI of a monitor?)
1-You can calculate it. Divide the inches your display measures (~12.7" wide)
into the screen resolution (1280px
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 18:29 +0100, Nicolò Chieffo wrote:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-control-center/+bug/310353
> This discussion was started becaus Sebastien Bacher asked for it.
>
> -
>
> Hello, now that the default DPI is asked to X, it's no more '96' as it
> used to
On 26/02/09 13:08, Nicolò Chieffo wrote:
> Yes. Currently the most spread resolution is:
>
> 1280x800 (in 15") what is the DPI? (how can I evaluate the DPI of a monitor?)
>
You're probably at ~100 DPI, but you will need to measure it yourself to
be 100% sure. Just divide 1280 and 800 by the
On 26/02/2009, at 19.32, Felix Miata wrote:
> Terrible. Users who find the default too large should have no
> trouble using
> the tool to make fonts smaller. Those with the opposite problem may
> not be
> able to see to make a change.
Perhaps it would be possible to ship an optional theme th
On 2009/02/26 19:44 (GMT+0100) Nicolò Chieffo composed:
> which resolution have you got?
High. (Several of those found in this chart): http://fm.no-ip.com/auth/dpi.xhtml
--
"Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your
mouths, but only what is helpful for building
others up."
Can you execute
xdpyinfo |grep resolution
and attach the output?
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
Yes. Currently the most spread resolution is:
1280x800 (in 15") what is the DPI? (how can I evaluate the DPI of a monitor?)
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discus
On Thursday 26 February 2009 1:44:13 pm Nicolò Chieffo wrote:
> which resolution have you got?
It's not just the resolution. It's also the screen size. A 1024x768 12" v. a
1024x768 20" screen will have different DPIs. Obviously, the larger screen
will have fewer pixels per inch.
I have a 1280
On 26/02/09 12:32, Felix Miata wrote:
> Terrible. Users who find the default too large should have no trouble
> using
> the tool to make fonts smaller. Those with the opposite problem may not be
> able to see to make a change.
>
> Windoz defaults to 8pt, and that's way too small even when set to la
which resolution have you got?
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
On 2009/02/26 18:29 (GMT+0100) Nicolò Chieffo composed:
> A default value of 8 should be ok, in my opinion
> What do you think of this change?
Terrible. Users who find the default too large should have no trouble using
the tool to make fonts smaller. Those with the opposite problem may not be
abl
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-control-center/+bug/310353
This discussion was started becaus Sebastien Bacher asked for it.
-
Hello, now that the default DPI is asked to X, it's no more '96' as it
used to be in intrepid. This means that if I have a 1440x900
resolution, my DPI
70 matches
Mail list logo
