On Thu, 2006-02-02 at 17:56 -0800, Andy Ross wrote: > Zan Lynx wrote: > > Font size isn't the point (hah) of DPI. DPI should reflect the > > *REAL* DPI of your display. > > This is one of those ideas that looks great on paper, but falls down > in practice. > > > With a correct DPI setting, a 72 point headline onscreen should be > > exactly the same size as the same headline printed on paper. > > Which 99 times out of 100 is *not* what the user wants! Under most > circumstances, users expect that running the same application with the > same data will result in the same on-screen presentation. They > certainly don't expect that their web site layouts will look different > on their 100dpi desktop monitor vs. their 147dpi laptop, when both are > exactly the same 1920x1200 resolution. See the complaint that started > this thread -- NVIDIA starts reporting a correct DPI for a very > high-pitch screen and everything goes wacky. > > Are there meaningful real-world uses of the DPI setting? Sure. > Scaling the display automagically ain't one of 'em.
That's exactly how *I* use it, and it works exactly the way that I want. Web pages are a case of web designers who don't know or care about what they're doing as long as it looks right for them. If they did it right, they would use "20px" instead of "10pt" when they need a font that fits into a fixed-pixel size container. All of Gnome works fine with a 150 DPI. The wonders of automatic control layout. If nVidia instead reported a fixed 75 DPI--no matter what the real DPI was--the problem would only be reversed, as people who can't read 8pt text at 150 DPI are forced to zoom into the web pages. -- Zan Lynx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ LinuxR3000 mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pcxperience.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/linuxr3000 Wiki at http://prinsig.se/weekee/
