Hi Frank, Then what about thunderbird. Do we still want to use: Proportional: Serif 11pt Monospace: Deja Vu Sans Mono 10 pt for it?
CCed Brian Lu cause he is the maintainer of thunberbird. Regards, Jedy On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 10:03 -0700, Frank Ludolph wrote: > After a little further investigation I will agree with the change Ginn > suggests. When I set the default size to 16 in both Windows and > OpenSolaris they appeared to render the same pages at about the same > size. I believe that when I orginially did the evaluation I had > changed the default minimum size in my Windows Firefox and so the > comparison was invalid. I was, in fact, indirectly trying to address > Ginn's concern about rendering. > > I am using Windows and, to a lesser extent, Mac as visual guidelines > to determine the default font settings for OpenSolaris. The reason for > this is that many users will use OpenSolaris within Virtual Box on > those systems and it is more comfortable for users if fonts and icons > appear to be closely matched in size when switching between the two. > It will also seem more "correct" for users who use multiple computers > with a variety of systems. > > For those who may be wondering, I did check that both systems were set > for rendering at the same pixel resolutions, both dpi and overall > screen resolution. Many LCD/laptop users whose systems are set to > 96dpi may find the font sizes a bit small (both Windows and > OpenSolaris) due to the higher dpi of laptop and some LCD displays. > They might want to adjust the dpi to about 120. > > So Calum, can we adjust the UI Guidelines for FireFox default to 16pt? > > Thanks everyone, > > Frank > > > Ginn Chen wrote: > > Hi Frank, > > > > > > In OpenSolaris 2008.11 UI spec, it defines Firefox default font as > > "Deja Vu Serif: 14pt". > > I don't think we should do that. > > Because IE, Safari, Firefox all use 16pt as default, so web > > developers would test their pages with this setting. > > If we use a smaller font, it may break the layout of some pages. > > Yes, it's the fault of the web developers, they should specify the > > font size to make sure it won't happen. > > But the reality is not all the web developers would test their pages > > with different settings. > > So I think we'd better keep align with others. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Ginn > > > > > > On Aug 12, 2008, at 4:00 PM, Frank Ludolph wrote: > > > > > Hi Jedy, > > > > > > I'll reply since I was the one that suggested the sizes... > > > > > > Be sure to distinguish the system font sizes (8 pt) from the font > > > sizes for Thunderbird and Firefox. The latter are larger. What are > > > you using to read emails. > > > > > > I agree that the sizes sound quite small, but the default GNOME > > > default fonts look very, very large compared to the defaults on > > > Windows and Mac. The sizes shown in the UI spec provide > > > approximately the same appearance as those desktops. To arrive at > > > them I ran 2008.05 under virtualbox on Windows XP in an alternate > > > workspace and switched between Windows and OpenSolaris workspaces. > > > To test the system fonts I used preferences panels, menus, file > > > manager windows, etc. As a cross check I set the same sizes on a > > > bare metal install on a laptop. > > > > > > This applies of course to roman character sets. Asian fonts may > > > require something else? > > > > > > The same techniques were used to set the icon sizes. > > > > > > BTW, my eyesight is now quite poor. I find the suggested sizes to > > > be legible though occasionally a size too small for my old eyes. > > > > > > Frank > > > > > > > > > Jedy Wang wrote: > > > > Hi Calum, > > > > > > > > Are you really sure that default font size for GNOME is 8 pt? This size > > > > is really small and make it very hard to read mails. > > > > > > > > Developers of firefox also think 14/12 is too small for the browser. And > > > > according to their feedback, most browsers use 16. > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > > > > > Jedy > > > > On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 17:41 +0100, Calum Benson wrote: > > > > > > > > > Since we didn't quite get around to implementing the UI spec for > > > > > 2008.05, we've recently been tweaking it a bit for 2008.11 (and have > > > > > actually assigned people to make it happen this time...) > > > > > > > > > > <http://opensolaris.org/os/community/desktop/uispecs/indiana-uispec/> > > > > > > > > > > Comments welcome... it hasn't really changed too much since what we'd > > > > > > > > > > planned for 2008.05, bar a bit more panel reshuffling (to try and > > > > > achieve a functional split of "actions and status" on top and > > > > > "windows > > > > > and workspaces" on the bottom), and some minor changes to accommodate > > > > > > > > > > upstream changes in GNOME 2.24. > > > > > > > > > > Cheeri, > > > > > Calum. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > desktop-discuss mailing list > > > > desktop-discuss at opensolaris.org > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > indiana-discuss mailing list > > > indiana-discuss at opensolaris.org > > > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss > > > > -------- > > Ginn Chen > > Software Engineer, Browser Team > > Sun Microsystems, Inc. > > Phone: x82869 / +86-10-62673869 > > Fax: +86-10-62780969 > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > indiana-discuss mailing list > > indiana-discuss at opensolaris.org > > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > indiana-discuss mailing list > indiana-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
