On 2007/09/05 11:42 (GMT-0700) Hassan Schroeder apparently typed: > Felix Miata wrote:
>>> So my question is: do we *know* that this applies to reading text >>> /on a computer screen/? Not "guess", not "believe", *know*. >> Maybe something like this? >> http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/2S/font.htm >> And as additional answer to issue of aging boomers: >> http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/3W/fontSR.htm > Neither of which are apparently worth anything, if your contention below > about assessing size is true :-) If you accept the assumption I make below, then quite the contrary. >> To know how big 16px or 24px is requires knowing: >> 1-screen size >> 2-screen resolution >> 3-viewing distance >> Plus, there are factors besides size that affect reading comfort, such as >> contrast, leading, and line length. > At least, I didn't see any of that addressed on a quick read. >> Had you written 12pt rather than 16px, one might assume that your system had >> a properly adjusted DPI and consequently that 12pt really meant 12pt, a >> physical size, and thus meaningful. Even so, without knowing your viewing >> distance, we still don't know the apparent size. > On my 1280x1024 19" (diagonal) flat panel display, 12pt and 16px are > visually the same. The physical size on the screen is ~3.5mm (a bit > more than 1/8") and my viewing distance is ~32 inches. A 1280x1024 19" display is ~86.3 DPI. If you are using a browser that floors at or is fixed to use an assumed 96 DPI (standard doz setting BTW), which more often than not is the reality, then 12pt should be rendering at about 17.8px. Some browsers will round 17.8 down to 17 (IE), while others will use 18 (Gecko). It's quite common for that 1px or 2px difference to be unnoticable unless seen in direct comparision, such as on http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Font/font-arial and http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/Font/font-verdana. > But we don't have any of that for the "studies" you cite, so how much > can they really be relied on? Because of their source and apparent nature, it is reasonable to assume that when they wrote 12pt, they meant 12pt as a real size, not as a nominal size. If on the contrary they were actually using nominal sizes, then the truth is that the participants were probably, as was the norm in lowfi screen days of 6-12 years ago, seeing and happy with fonts that were larger in fact than the nominal sizes indicated. >> Note that it happened many many years ago when average screen DPI was much >> much lower than it is now. 16px isn't as big as it used to be. > Uh-huh. And these studies were (apparently) published seven years > ago, and hence likely done on low-res CRTs, for which, again, we > have no data. The actual resolutions are unimportant, as long as the assumption that the pt sizes stated meant actual pt size rather than nomimal pt size is made, with the consequence that the validity of the study remains in effect. > In the absence of /current/ evidence, I'd say the jury's still out :-) Current studies aren't required prior to demonstration that previous studies are no longer valid. Truth isn't converted by mere age into untruth. We do know that standard LCD displays on store shelves today seem to be targeted to working DPI as little removed as practical from the 96 default standard from M$. To that end, the larger displays have higher resolutions. e.g., 4:3 displays are uncommon in sizes other than 17" (more common, 96.4 DPI) and 19" (less common, 86.3 DPI). Smaller 15" displays are 1024x768 (85.3 DPI). Larger, 20" is 1400x1050 (less common, (87.5 DPI) or 1600x1050 (100.0 DPI). More common now are the widescreens, 19" at the bottom usually using 1440x900 (89.4 DPI) or 1680x1050 (104.3 DPI), bigger 22" using 1680x1050 (90.1 DPI) or 1920x1200 (102.9 DPI), bigger yet 24" 1920x1200 (94.3 DPI), or giant 30" 2560x1600 (100.6 DPI). In the laptop world, which has been outselling the desktop world for the past several years, manufacturers have taken to adjusting the default DPI upward to 120 before delivery when necessary to avoid reduced sales that result from the laptop (everything is so tiny) syndrome. A 14" @ 1280x800 (107.8 DPI; if 96, pt is undersize; if 120, pt is oversize), 15.4" @ 1280x800 (~98 DPI; quite close if DPI is 96), 16" @ 1440x900 (106.1 DPI), 16" @ 1680x1050 (123.8 DPI), 16" @ 1920x1200 (141.5 DPI), 17" @ 1680x1050 (116.5 DPI), or 17" @ 1920x1200 (133.2 DPI). Compare those to yesteryear's (lowfi) DPI values: screen size 13" 14" 16" 18" 800x600 76.9 71.4 62.5 1024x768 91.4 80.0 71.1 The net result is IE's 12pt (16px) nominal default on average used to be a lot bigger than it is now. Nominal 12pt today is on average significantly smaller than the average 16px of 6-12 years ago (when the web developer "defaults are too big" mantra had its genesis). If those studies were using nominal sizes, then the same tests today would almost certainly be providing the participants physically smaller fonts. -- "It yet remains a problem to be solved in human affairs, whether any free government can be permanent, where the public worship of God, and the support of religion, constitute no part of the policy or duty of the state in any assignable shape." Chief Justice Joseph Story Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/ ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
