-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Chris Cheney wrote on 28/02/09 21:08:
On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 12:38 +0100, Markus Hitter wrote:
...
I can understand this is difficult to get swallowed. For 40 (or more)
years now, the rule was 1 pixel = 1 dot on the screen. A picture,
100px x
Olá Ryan e a todos.
On Sunday 01 March 2009 17:57:05 Ryan Hayle wrote:
On 01/03/09 10:29, (``-_-´´) -- BUGabundo wrote:
no no... after i got HUGE fonts, i reset the DPI to 96 (looked
better) and then on certain apps, i just increase the font size
(like kmail or firefox).
Guess i'll have
On Monday 02 March 2009 6:03:52 am Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
Chris Cheney wrote on 28/02/09 21:08:
On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 12:38 +0100, Markus Hitter wrote:
...
I can understand this is difficult to get swallowed. For 40 (or more)
years now, the rule was 1 pixel = 1 dot on the screen. A
Am 28.02.2009 um 19:52 schrieb Mackenzie Morgan:
On Saturday 28 February 2009 6:38:04 am Markus Hitter wrote:
I can understand this is difficult to get swallowed. For 40 (or more)
years now, the rule was 1 pixel = 1 dot on the screen. A picture,
100px x 100px in size used to use exactly 100
Olá Chris e a todos.
On Friday 27 February 2009 17:27:22 Chris Cheney wrote:
Hi have a 13 at 1280x800 (DPI 112 according to xorg log) and I have to
increase mine, but I dont see as good as I used to.
It seems strange that you needed to increase the font size when your DPI
setting
On 01/03/09 10:29, (``-_-´´) -- BUGabundo wrote:
no no... after i got HUGE fonts, i reset the DPI to 96 (looked
better) and then on certain apps, i just increase the font size
(like kmail or firefox).
Guess i'll have to reset my font size and just try to increase the
DPI to a nice value.
DPI
Am 27.02.2009 um 19:29 schrieb Felix Miata:
On 2009/02/27 10:47 (GMT-0600) Ryan Hayle composed:
On 27/02/09 10:09, Chris Cheney wrote:
Fortunately most web designers are smart enough not to use px for
fonts.
I'm not so sure it's reached 50% yet, particularly for shopping
carts. For
I wanted to do a check. I booted the alpha 5 livecd on 2 laptops:
a 15.4 with 1280x800
and my 14.1 with 1440x900
The result is strange, since the 2 laptops render the font in 2 different ways.
The first looks really good (and now I've understood why lots of
people here are saying that the
On 2009/02/28 18:34 (GMT+0100) Nicolò Chieffo composed:
I wanted to do a check. I booted the alpha 5 livecd on 2 laptops:
a 15.4 with 1280x800
and my 14.1 with 1440x900
The result is strange, since the 2 laptops render the font in 2 different
ways.
The first looks really good (and now
Ok, I understood now.
Anyway the default look of ubuntu in my screen is really ugly.
Is it possible to adapt the font to the screen DPI (automatically)?
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
On Saturday 28 February 2009 6:38:04 am Markus Hitter wrote:
I can understand this is difficult to get swallowed. For 40 (or more)
years now, the rule was 1 pixel = 1 dot on the screen. A picture,
100px x 100px in size used to use exactly 100 x 100 dots on screen.
Now, this is no longer
On 28/02/09 11:34, Nicolò Chieffo wrote:
I wanted to do a check. I booted the alpha 5 livecd on 2 laptops:
a 15.4 with 1280x800
and my 14.1 with 1440x900
The result is strange, since the 2 laptops render the font in 2 different
ways.
The first looks really good (and now I've understood
On Sat, 2009-02-28 at 12:38 +0100, Markus Hitter wrote:
This is likely all true, but with resolution independent rendering,
it no longer applies. In the future, px is just a measurement unit,
just like in or mm. Once the software gets this, it's perfectly
fine for web developers to ask
On 2009/02/28 15:08 (GMT-0600) Chris Cheney composed:
Agreed that px should go away entirely in HTML
... an abomination that it
was ever allowed into the HTML specification at all
WRT fonts at least, HTML never had px. All HTML had and has for font sizing
is em, though it isn't
On Saturday 28 February 2009 5:12:11 pm Felix Miata wrote:
Even if all existing systems had accurate DPI, web designers would still
have
no more business using pt for sizing web page text than they do px. They
should only be using em to size text, with the option to size other things
in
%,
On 2009/02/28 19:23 (GMT-0500) Mackenzie Morgan composed:
On Saturday 28 February 2009 5:12:11 pm Felix Miata wrote:
Even if all existing systems had accurate DPI, web designers would still
have no more business using pt for sizing web page text than they do px.
They should only be using em
On 2009/02/28 12:38 (GMT+0100) Markus Hitter composed:
... with resolution independent rendering,
... px is just a measurement unit,
just like in or mm. Once the software gets this, it's perfectly
fine for web developers to ask for a 12pt font.
No it won't, because pt, like mm and px,
Op zaterdag 28-02-2009 om 15:08 uur [tijdzone -0600], schreef Chris
Cheney:
Pt is point which was defined long before computers came into wide use.
It was finally officially defined as 1/72 of an inch in 1959 but had
been in that general range of size since at least the 1700s.
Actually, 1/72
Chris Cheney [2009-02-26 14:04 -0600]:
For the netbook and higher end (and newer) laptop case where dpi can be
up to 150dpi users will see a definite increase in size of the fonts.
The size of the fonts will now be the proper size according to what they
claim to be. The font size could be
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 09:53:06AM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote:
Thus I think we should not (only) base the font size on dpi, but
rather on the physical size of the screen. Does anyone know whether
the reported (EDID) physical size of the monitor is reliable on may
(I assume you meant many)
Marius Gedminas [2009-02-27 15:11 +0200]:
(I assume you meant many)
Whoops, yes.
Since the X server uses EDID-reported physical size to determine the
DPI, it's at least as precise as basing the font size on DPI alone, no?
Oh, is that really so? I had assumed that the monitor reports its dpi
2009/2/26 Chris Cheney cche...@ubuntu.com:
[...] personally I think they are already fine [...]
I don't agree. Having fonts as displayed in
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/23152448/10pt.jpg is clearly not right
and would make, IMHO, a awful first impression.
--
Siegfried-Angel Gevatter
--
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Nicolò Chieffo wrote on 26/02/09 21:01:
For all of you who does not have a 121 DPI laptop, and said that the
font size is good as it is, make sure to have a look at my screenshots
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/23152437/8pt.jpg
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 02:55 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
On 2009/02/26 21:12 (GMT-0600) Chris Cheney composed:
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 21:08 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
On 2009/02/26 19:15 (GMT-0600) Chris Cheney composed:
On 26/02/09 14:31, Felix Miata wrote:
Real-world DPI has been
Olá Mackenzie e a todos.
On Thursday 26 February 2009 18:59:28 Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
I have a 1280x800 13 screen, and the fonts look fine to me.
Hi have a 13 at 1280x800 (DPI 112 according to xorg log) and I have to
increase mine, but I dont see as good as I used to.
--
Hi, I'm BUGabundo,
Olá Ryan e a todos.
On Thursday 26 February 2009 19:50:06 Ryan Hayle wrote:
but you will need to measure it yourself to be 100% sure. Just divide 1280
and 800 by the width and height (in
inches), respectively, to get your DPI values.
$ xdpyinfo |grep resolution
resolution:112x112
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 16:28 +, (``-_-´´) -- BUGabundo wrote:
Olá Mackenzie e a todos.
On Thursday 26 February 2009 18:59:28 Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
I have a 1280x800 13 screen, and the fonts look fine to me.
Hi have a 13 at 1280x800 (DPI 112 according to xorg log) and I have to
On 2009/02/27 10:47 (GMT-0600) Ryan Hayle composed:
On 27/02/09 10:09, Chris Cheney wrote:
Fortunately most web designers are smart enough not to use px for fonts.
I'm not so sure it's reached 50% yet, particularly for shopping carts. For
those that have changed away, most have not switched
On 2009/02/27 10:09 (GMT-0600) Chris Cheney composed:
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 02:55 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
These may not be the best around, but even if they're off by 50%, the real
world still hasn't been anywhere near constant for the past 5 years:
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 13:55 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
On 2009/02/27 10:09 (GMT-0600) Chris Cheney composed:
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 02:55 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
These may not be the best around, but even if they're off by 50%, the real
world still hasn't been anywhere near constant
DPI is set to 121.
This is really a good thing because now fonts look exactly the same on
every monitor, not depending on the resolution.
I have to say that the gnome default font size (which is 10) is too
big. it looks really huge!
A default value of 8 should be ok, in my opinion
What do you think
On 2009/02/26 18:29 (GMT+0100) Nicolò Chieffo composed:
A default value of 8 should be ok, in my opinion
What do you think of this change?
Terrible. Users who find the default too large should have no trouble using
the tool to make fonts smaller. Those with the opposite problem may not be
able
which resolution have you got?
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
On 26/02/09 12:32, Felix Miata wrote:
Terrible. Users who find the default too large should have no trouble
using
the tool to make fonts smaller. Those with the opposite problem may not be
able to see to make a change.
Windoz defaults to 8pt, and that's way too small even when set to large
On Thursday 26 February 2009 1:44:13 pm Nicolò Chieffo wrote:
which resolution have you got?
It's not just the resolution. It's also the screen size. A 1024x768 12 v. a
1024x768 20 screen will have different DPIs. Obviously, the larger screen
will have fewer pixels per inch.
I have a
Yes. Currently the most spread resolution is:
1280x800 (in 15) what is the DPI? (how can I evaluate the DPI of a monitor?)
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
Can you execute
xdpyinfo |grep resolution
and attach the output?
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
On 2009/02/26 19:44 (GMT+0100) Nicolò Chieffo composed:
which resolution have you got?
High. (Several of those found in this chart): http://fm.no-ip.com/auth/dpi.xhtml
--
Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your
mouths, but only what is helpful for building
others up.
On 26/02/2009, at 19.32, Felix Miata wrote:
Terrible. Users who find the default too large should have no
trouble using
the tool to make fonts smaller. Those with the opposite problem may
not be
able to see to make a change.
Perhaps it would be possible to ship an optional theme that
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 21:15 +0100, Siegfried-Angel wrote:
2009/2/26 Chris Cheney cche...@ubuntu.com:
[...] personally I think they are already fine [...]
I don't agree. Having fonts as displayed in
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/23152448/10pt.jpg is clearly not right
and would make, IMHO, a
On 26/02/09 14:04, Chris Cheney wrote:
I think we should select some sensible defaults, personally I think they
are already fine, without making it too small to be readable. Users with
exceptionally good eye sight, or who are sitting much closer to their
screen, can make the fonts even smaller
On 2009/02/26 12:54 (GMT-0600) Ryan Hayle composed:
The point is not to alienate any users, or even to reduce the visible
size of the font. The problem is not just a matter of preference.
On the contrary, preference is about the difference between acceptable and
unacceptable.
The problem
'96' as it
used to be in intrepid. This means that if I have a 1440x900
resolution, my DPI is set to 121.
This is really a good thing because now fonts look exactly the same on
every monitor, not depending on the resolution.
I have to say that the gnome default font size (which is 10) is too
For all of you who does not have a 121 DPI laptop, and said that the
font size is good as it is, make sure to have a look at my screenshots
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/23152437/8pt.jpg
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/23152448/10pt.jpg
Did your opinion change?
Thanks
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss
On 2009/02/26 22:01 (GMT+0100) Nicolò Chieffo composed:
For all of you who does not have a 121 DPI laptop, and said that the
font size is good as it is, make sure to have a look at my screenshots
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/23152437/8pt.jpg
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/23152448/10pt.jpg
The DejaVu Sans is the default font
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
On 26/02/09 14:31, Felix Miata wrote:
On the contrary, preference is about the difference between acceptable and
unacceptable.
There are two separate issues here. You seem to be arguing that the OLD
size is too small, and want it to be larger. Fair enough--but that is a
separate issue.
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 17:33 -0600, Ryan Hayle wrote:
which is
evident in this screenshot:
http://launchpadlibrarian.net/23152448/10pt.jpg
Nothing at all is evident in screenshots that are saved as jpg to show
font issues. It's impossible to distinguish font rendering compression
artefacts.
They are png. I renamed them to jpg by mistake
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
On Fri, 2009-02-27 at 00:45 +0100, Nicolò Chieffo wrote:
They are png. I renamed them to jpg by mistake
Oh, goody then :)
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
On 2009/02/26 17:33 (GMT-0600) Ryan Hayle composed:
It seems to me like there might possibly be another issue here. At
high DPI, it seems as if the font rendering engine makes larger fonts
(by that I mean 10pt) appear more bold than they should (in my
opinion). Is this the intended
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 17:33 -0600, Ryan Hayle wrote:
On 26/02/09 14:31, Felix Miata wrote:
On the contrary, preference is about the difference between acceptable and
unacceptable.
There are two separate issues here. You seem to be arguing that the OLD
size is too small, and want
On 2009/02/26 19:15 (GMT-0600) Chris Cheney composed:
On 26/02/09 14:31, Felix Miata wrote:
Real-world DPI has been steadily increasing from release to
release.
I don't see this to actually be the case. Even with laptops it seems
that ~ 130 dpi is the maximum that most manufacturers are
On 2009/02/26 17:33 (GMT-0600) Ryan Hayle composed:
Yes, and DPI will continue to increase. This should result in sharper
fonts, NOT larger or smaller fonts. That's the whole point of this
effort. We need a sensible default which looks good out of the box on
the majority of systems.
On Thu, 2009-02-26 at 21:08 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
On 2009/02/26 19:15 (GMT-0600) Chris Cheney composed:
On 26/02/09 14:31, Felix Miata wrote:
Real-world DPI has been steadily increasing from release to
release.
I don't see this to actually be the case. Even with laptops it
On 26/02/09 20:43, Felix Miata wrote:
Visually impaired is most older users, which you will probably be someday,
and and shouldn't be equated to handicap. They don't necessarily consider
themselves impaired. Many have the money for the better stuff, and aren't
pleased to pay more for an
On Thursday 26 February 2009 11:04:13 pm Ryan Hayle wrote:
Did this study take DPI into account though? I agree that most people
(myself included, until recently) think of 10pt as a minimum, but only
because it looks so small on Windows. It seems really odd for me to be
setting 7.5pt
On 26/02/09 22:26, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
Er...what? If it's a high dpi, and they specify 10px, then it'd be really
really tiny. But weren't you complaining that text is too big?
Two different issues, sorry for the confusion. The 16 pt default is
overridden by specifying e.g. 16px,
to, 2009-02-26 kello 13:59 -0500, Mackenzie Morgan kirjoitti:
On Thursday 26 February 2009 1:44:13 pm Nicolò Chieffo wrote:
which resolution have you got?
It's not just the resolution.
Resolution tends to be a bad word for these things. I'd suggest pixel
count for number of pixels on
On 2009/02/26 22:04 (GMT-0600) Ryan Hayle composed:
On 26/02/09 20:43, Felix Miata wrote:
I think your majority is a majority of young people. We're not talking
extremely here. Scientific studies (hard to find, but they're out there) have
shown that most people (not a group skewed to the
60 matches
Mail list logo
