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 inferior experience. >
Like I said, I truly don't want to alienate any users or act like an arrogant youth! I'm hoping we'll see more development of scalable UIs to help these people out even more. > 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 younger than average, with > their better average vision) prefer 12pt, and recommend 10pt as a minimum. > Funny how 12pt (which on Windows by default is usually 16px, on Mac always > 16px) is by far the most common default web browser default font size. > 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 fonts in Ubuntu (my current default at 147 DPI), as intuitively I think this should be unreadable, yet it's not at all. I think it will take a while to change people's perceptions about this because of the damage MS has caused. No one knows what point sizes mean anymore. Doesn't Firefox default to a 16pt default proportional font size? This seems really huge to me, no doubt a result of all those Windows web designers who think everyone's on 96 dpi. People using pixel-size fonts on the web are the worst for us high-DPI users! > True. In making the decision, it needs to be kept in mind the > difference in > comparative impact, and the side effects. Fedora, openSUSE& Mandriva I also > use, and they all have long and still default to 10pt as the primary desktop > and menu font size. If *buntu uses 9, you induce older users gravitate to the > others, and/or induce those older users who try *buntu say it's too hard to > use. > > "Big" is good: http://www.lighthouse.org/accessibility/top-10/ > That's a fair point. I would hope that there would continue to be consensus across distributions for the default. I am assuming those dists were defaulting to 10pt 96dpi as well, though I could be wrong. On 26/02/09 21:12, Chris Cheney wrote: > Agreed and as Windows doesn't seem to actually be moving in the > resolution independent direction, at least anytime soon, due to backward > compatibility with third party apps. So I don't think dpi is going to > increase significantly more any time soon as Ryan seemed to think. > > Here are some interesting articles about High DPI from the Microsoft > perspective. > Well, I will admit that I ignore the "Microsoft perspective" entirely. MS put us into this mess, we can't expect them to get us out of it! I wasn't aware of these high-resolution screens in the past, so I thought they were gradually getting higher as the technology improved, but I do see your point. I hope that they get back on track now with scalable UIs. Ryan -- 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
