Benjamin Scott <dragonh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 2:50 PM, Bill McGonigle <b...@bfccomputing.com> wrote: > > On 03/29/2010 09:34 PM, Benjamin Scott wrote: > > > "Yes, this means you'll be a better programmer if you get > > > a bigger monitor." > > > > FWIW, I got a 24" LCD display for this reason, but it turns out to be > > slightly too large. I have to turn my neck to see the entire screen. > > Increase the distance between the screen and your eyes. HHOS.
Or just relegate the extra, `dead' space to displaying something that's useful way out in the periphery like that; the only example that I can offer-up is LavaPS <http://www.isi.edu/~johnh/SOFTWARE/LAVAPS/>, but maybe there are others by now; I've always loved the whole `calm computing' idea--maybe now is a good era for it to be revived. Alternately, find a better use for the margins *and* move back some :) > Something which I've long thought should be done but which no > mainstream OS GUI I've seen does well is increasing screen resolution > to increase quality of rendering while keeping the human information > density per inch around the same. Practial upshot: Fonts and window > trim and the like rendered at a high DPI to improve their legiability, > while keeping text and widget sizes big for the many people who have > poorer eyesight. I know plenty of people who can't make out anything > at a resolution much higher than 1024x768. We've got these huge LCD > panels and tons of graphics horsepower being used for word processing > and spreadsheets; I've found that GNOME and Xorg handle this perfectly well: I'm writing this using a 145-DPI LCD, with my fonts being specified as "8 points". They do, in fact, measure ~2.8 mm despite the pixel-density being 50% higher than normal (and the pixels being 50% smaller). The raster graphics all over the web, on the other hand--which are almost all designed with a 96-DPI expectation and published in formats that don't even make provisions for being *able* to provide that information-- do, of course, end up rendering smaller than their creators intended. BUT: since the size that their creators intended is often `HUGE!', it balances :) Am I missing something? I remember Windows insisting that `pixels per point' was some fixed ratio, when I last used it some 10+ years ago... and being infurated by it because my GNU/Linux machines got it right even back then. I wouldn't be surprised if Windows still failed at font-sizing (along with Gamma and all sorts of other things), but I would have at least expected the Macintosh people to get this right. > it'd be nice to put that to use making things easier to read. Yes, it is :) -- "Don't be afraid to ask (λf.((λx.xx) (λr.f(rr))))." _______________________________________________ gnhlug-discuss mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
