On Sun, 2009-10-11 at 03:55 +0200, Remco wrote:
> I'm not saying that Ubuntu shouldn't be accessible by default. I think
> that would be a great idea. But accessibility settings have a strong
> impact on the user experience. One size certainly doesn't fit all. And
> this particular accessibility se
On Sun, Oct 11, 2009 at 03:21, Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2009/10/11 00:03 (GMT+0200) Remco composed:
>
>> On this setup, with the correct DPI set, 10pt looks *huge*. 9pt is
>> still too much for my tastes. 8pt feels very natural.
>
> And without leaning forward you can touch the screen with your elb
On 2009/10/11 00:03 (GMT+0200) Remco composed:
> On this setup, with the correct DPI set, 10pt looks *huge*. 9pt is
> still too much for my tastes. 8pt feels very natural.
And without leaning forward you can touch the screen with your elbow too,
right? And over 55? :-) I can't even come close wit
On 2009/10/10 21:01 (GMT+0100) Conn composed:
> Indeed. My laptop's LCD screen should be using 91dpi, but it uses 96dpi by
> default:
> c...@inspiron:~$ xdpyinfo | grep -e "\(resolution\|dimensions\)"
> dimensions:1024x768 pixels (286x214 millimeters)
> resolution:91x91 dots per inch
I think the whole problem with different monitors is solvable by using the
native DPI instead of hard-coding 96 and then using a sane font size which
would then be the same in size across all monitors (in physical millimeters,
as opposed to physical dots on screen). I think 8 pt at native DPI is a
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 22:01, Conn wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
>> Ditto. If those are in fact 9pt and not 8pt something is unusual on your
>> comparison XP. Windows UI fonts have usually been ridiculously small
>> (8pt),
>> but I have encountered the use of 9pt i
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
> You're making your comparison in the wrong environment: 1024x768. Generally
> at that resolution fonts and other objects are larger than at the higher
> resolutions new systems and displays average. 1024x768, which on a 15" (the
> largest that
(My apologies Ethan & Felix, I sent to your personal e-mails and not the
list. Re-sending to the list).
On Sat, Oct 10, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Ethan Baldridge <
et...@superiordocumentservices.com> wrote:
> Conn said:
> - Fonts currently look over-sized on the default configuration (96dpi,
> 10pt, subpi
Conn said:
- Fonts currently look over-sized on the default configuration (96dpi, 10pt,
subpixel smoothing & slight hinting)
This is the problem I believe. Why is the default always 96dpi instead of the
correct information from the EDID?
$ xdpyinfo | grep -e "\(resolution\|dimensions\)"
dimen
Just my $0.02: I'm using a 125 DPI monitor and I don't find fonts at 9
pt too small. In fact, Windows's "ridiculously small fonts" seem just
a bit small to me, but definitely legible enough. But that's a matter
of taste; I just like my user interfaces compact, I'm a freak that
way.
However, DejaVu
On 2009/10/10 07:20 (GMT+0100) Conn composed:
> I am proposing that for the Karmic Koala release, we set all font sizes
> (application, document, desktop, window title and fixed width) to 9pts, for
> the following reasons:
B, hisss, thumbs down.
> - Fonts currently look over-sized on the def
Hey folks,
I am proposing that for the Karmic Koala release, we set all font sizes
(application, document, desktop, window title and fixed width) to 9pts, for
the following reasons:
- Fonts currently look over-sized on the default configuration (96dpi, 10pt,
subpixel smoothing & slight hinting) i
12 matches
Mail list logo
