On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 10:56:08 +0100, David Olofson wrote: > On Monday 09 December 2002 21.00, Paul Davis wrote: > > ps. just how big is a 19" lookalike going to be? > > Well... While XMMs looks very tiny in 2048x1536 even on a 22" screen, > all text is still completely readable. (Yes, this monitor produces a > pretty sharp image.)
Yes, this is one of my reasons for thinking that specifying it in pixels is OK. I have a 1600x1200 15" display and I can use xmms on it fine. > If so I would suggest 624 x 64 for a 1U 19" window. The ratio is > 1:9.75; just half a pixel away from 19":1U on the height. 624 gives > you some room for window borders even in 640x480, and height > shouldn't be an issue as long as units stay below 7U. 64 is also a > nice figure for 1U, IMHO. :-) Those sound like nice numbers, I'd have though 800x600 was a reasonable minimum screen size. Go on then, whose running at 640x480 ;) > Hmm... Looking at that and thinking about an exact replica of my > JV-1080 implemented in that size, the display would be just fine - > but the text under the buttons would be *really* small. The Windows UIs I've seen have not been copies of modern equipment, they've been simplified, or copies of older equipment that had larger legends and less busy interfaces anyway. The only things in my rack that wouldn't work at this res are the reverb (it has tiny program numbers on a rotary encoder - but you wouldn't represent it that way, you could have another number display), and the mixer, which is like 12U. A lot of modern rack equipment has been trying to cram loads of UI into a small space, I dont think theres any point copying that, just simple, intuative or familar interfaces. I'd expect most computer UIs to be 2U. - Steve
