Re: Font Size units

Okay, I've read-up on DPI, and it certainly was an eye-opener...

Felix Miata wrote:

BTW, the majority of browser defaults are actually 12pt, the size
normal people prefer. 16px just happens to equate to 12pt using
the Microsoft default DPI, but that default has become less than
ubiquitous with the advent of widescreen and high resolution. If
you shop for a 17" laptop you're liable to find the DPI setting is
120 rather than 96, which makes the IE default translate to 20px.

This is all news to me and something I shall look at more in the
future. Funnily enough, my home computer was the furthest from the
default, and has now been adjusted. However, the computers we use to
design with at work are all 100dpi, 4% above default. So, in our case,
I can't agree with the suggestion that designers' computers show an
unrealistic representation of actual font size, if anthing they show
them smaller than 'normal'.

No one should have to resize on account of a web developer who is
unwilling to respect his guests. Resizers are defense mechanisms
provided by modern browser makers to combat web designer
disrespect.

So, you don't accept that people with less than average eyesight are
the majority of the few who will have actually looked into adjusting
their computers to show fonts larger? Or that they will also base their
monitor buying decision on perceived font size or DPI value?

Anyway, the point is taken. I have certainly opted for higher base
percentages of late - certainly not going below 87.5% (equivalent to
14px at 96dpi) recently. My fluid design skills aren't up to scratch
yet, having done primarily fixed-width layouts for the last couple of
years, so adjusting to 100% will be a gradual process, and one that I
was working towards anyway.

--
K A Nuttall
www.yammer.co.uk
Re-type the e-mail address how it sounds, remove .invalid

On 2007/01/30 14:16 (GMT-0500) K A Nuttall apparently typed:

What I was suggesting is that designers design for the status quo, who
are generally technically ignorant (I base this on 20 years experience
in the IT industry). They want web pages to look good for these people,

Works good should trump looks good. Works good necessarily includes legible text. Only the user can determine the most appropriate text size for maximum legibility. Your frame of reference is biased, and excludes factors
local to the user.

who have average eyesight and average browsers. Considerate designers
also design pages so that fonts are scalable - so that people with less
than average eyesight can change their browser default to a larger font
size. Where's the crime in that?

We already have the best size set. When you assume otherwise you impose, which is rude. No amount of analysis and discussion will make it not rude. We shouldn't have to change it again because you have determined we made
inappropriate choices. You aren't here, so you can't possibly know what's appropriate here. Main body text should always be 100%/1em/medium, no ifs, ands or buts.
--
"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the
truth is not in us." 1 John 1:8 NIV

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/

On 2007/01/31 08:02 (GMT) K A Nuttall apparently typed:

Funnily enough, my home computer was the furthest from the
default, and has now been adjusted. However, the computers we use to
design with at work are all 100dpi, 4% above default. So, in our case,
I can't agree with the suggestion that designers' computers show an
unrealistic representation of actual font size, if anthing they show
them smaller than 'normal'.

Any time the system DPI setting deviates significantly from the actual DPI you get an unrealistic representation of any size that purports to be a real size. This goes for both users and designers. It used to be that
system setting and real DPI on average deviated significantly. This is no longer true, as the deviations now are just as likely to understate as overstate. http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/dpi.html

Mind you this only applies to fonts specified in absolute sizes. Px sized font actual sizes still don't relate to any particular physical sizes, or to sizes suitable for users. The same goes for relative sizes, except that
with relative sizes, it is reasonable to presume that, on average, medium/1em/100% will be close to if not exactly the right size, whatever that size happens to be in fact for any particular user, for main body text.

No one should have to resize on account of a web developer who is
unwilling to respect his guests. Resizers are defense mechanisms
provided by modern browser makers to combat web designer
disrespect.

So, you don't accept that people with less than average eyesight are
the majority of the few who will have actually looked into adjusting
their computers to show fonts larger?

Resizers shouldn't necessarily be equated to default sizers. All modern browsers except the most common one have distinctly different default and resize mechanisms. IE only has a resizer integrated, while it takes its
default directly from OS settings.

How many people have non-average eyesight shouldn't play into the decision whether to accept user decisions about appropriate sizes. Any time you set main body text to something other than 100%/1em/medium, you're
overruling whatever that choice happens to be, big, small or otherwise.

Or that they will also base their
monitor buying decision on perceived font size or DPI value?

I think the reasonable perception of the under educated masses is that bigger display translates to bigger stuff. This often leads to shock upon discovery that the native display resolution (now for desktops typically
1280x1024 on 17" = ~96 real DPI) is higher than what they are accustomed to, which means smaller stuff (other than overall display height & width) instead of bigger stuff, unless they take the trouble to adjust system
settings to compensate.

True story from my brother, who is a large international company systems admin: People were commonly unhappy with their 19" CRT displays when purchased about 6 years ago to replace older 15" & 17" CRT displays. Their
smaller 17" LCD recent replacements have made them happier because they aren't "too big", even though the actual display size difference is under 1" diagonal. :-p
--
"If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the
truth is not in us." 1 John 1:8 NIV

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/

Felix Miata wrote:

Works good should trump looks good. Works good necessarily
includes legible text.

All are important considerations, when developing a web site. Good
looks are important when selling a web site though - so many coding
dogmatists have web sites that look like shit - we'd soon be out of
business if they looked like that.

Only the user can determine the most
appropriate text size for maximum legibility. Your frame of
reference is biased, and excludes factors local to the user.

I think you'll find that ALL frames of reference are biased :-)

--
K A Nuttall
www.yammer.co.uk
Re-type the e-mail address how it sounds, remove .invalid

Felix Miata wrote:

I think the reasonable perception of the under educated masses is
that bigger display translates to bigger stuff. This often leads
to shock upon discovery that the native display resolution (now
for desktops typically 1280x1024 on 17" = ~96 real DPI) is higher
than what they are accustomed to, which means smaller stuff (other
than overall display height & width) instead of bigger stuff,
unless they take the trouble to adjust system settings to
compensate.

This isn't my experience. Higher DPI monitors are still a lot more
expensive where I live. Since taking an interest in this subject, I've
noticed that all of the larger monitors I have come across have average
or lower DPI values, making the type larger and easier to read.

I am looking to buy a new monitor myself, a 20" 1600px model, but I
can't afford one yet.

--
K A Nuttall
www.yammer.co.uk
Re-type the e-mail address how it sounds, remove .invalid

K A Nuttall <keith (AT) yammer (DOT) coedotyoukay.invalid> writes:

Felix Miata wrote:

Works good should trump looks good. Works good necessarily
includes legible text.

All are important considerations, when developing a web site. Good
looks are important when selling a web site though - so many coding
dogmatists have web sites that look like shit - we'd soon be out of
business if they looked like that.

You're right, but the plain appearance isn't caused by dogmatic coding,
it's simply that dogmatic coders tend to be logical left-brain people
rather than artistic right-brainers. A person who can excel at both is
a very rare individual.

IMHO, the best results come from both types working together - a designer
and a developer, each working to his or her own strength.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

Scripsit Felix Miata:

Any time the system DPI setting deviates significantly from the
actual DPI you get an unrealistic representation of any size that
purports to be a real size. This goes for both users and designers.

I'm not sure whether variation in DPI is the heart of the matter.

Please correct me if I'm wrong - and I mean this -, but it seems to me that
browsers typically use the pixel as the fundamental unit to which everything
is mapped according to some fixed ratio. The ratio may vary, but this is of
secondary importance; mostly it is "96 DPI", or 96 pixels = 1 inch. My point
is that the inch varies here.

Typically, 1pc = 12pt = 16px = 42.3mm, and the only really "physical" unit
here is px. When the monitor resolution is changed, the physical dimensions
of a pixel change of course, but pc, pt, mm, cm, in still have the meanings
as given by the equation. Thus, the CSS unit mm has only a casual and
allusive relationship to the millimeter as defined by the internation system
of units (SI) as a physical quantity. At some resolution, the CSS unit mm
might (almost) match 1 mm in the SI sense, but of course, people using other
resolutions may see your mm in different sizes.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

On 2007-02-02, Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela (AT) cs (DOT) tut.fi> wrote:

Scripsit Felix Miata:

Any time the system DPI setting deviates significantly from the
actual DPI you get an unrealistic representation of any size that
purports to be a real size. This goes for both users and designers.

I'm not sure whether variation in DPI is the heart of the matter.

Please correct me if I'm wrong - and I mean this -, but it seems to me that
browsers typically use the pixel as the fundamental unit to which everything
is mapped according to some fixed ratio. The ratio may vary, but this is of
secondary importance; mostly it is "96 DPI", or 96 pixels = 1 inch. My point
is that the inch varies here.

Typically, 1pc = 12pt = 16px = 42.3mm, and the only really "physical" unit
here is px. When the monitor resolution is changed, the physical dimensions
of a pixel change of course, but pc, pt, mm, cm, in still have the meanings
as given by the equation. Thus, the CSS unit mm has only a casual and
allusive relationship to the millimeter as defined by the internation system
of units (SI) as a physical quantity. At some resolution, the CSS unit mm
might (almost) match 1 mm in the SI sense, but of course, people using other
resolutions may see your mm in different sizes.

You're supposed to set DisplaySize in your xorg.conf file, and browsers
should ask the Xserver for the DPI (or resolution and display size from
which they can work it out).

This is for X11 systems, I don't know what happens on Windows, Mac, etc.
I imagine in many cases things might default to 96DPI if some part of
the configuration is missing.

"Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela (AT) cs (DOT) tut.fi> writes:

Please correct me if I'm wrong - and I mean this -, but it seems to me
that browsers typically use the pixel as the fundamental unit to which
everything is mapped according to some fixed ratio. The ratio may
vary, but this is of secondary importance; mostly it is "96 DPI", or
96 pixels = 1 inch. My point is that the inch varies here.

Precisely so. Browsers - operating systems in general, really - aren't
aware of the true resolution of the display device, and most of them simply
assume 96 DPI. When the real DPI varies from that - which it usually does -
then what is assumed to be an inch is actually no such thing.

I know of at least one browser (Netscape Nav) that can be calibrated to be
aware of your monitor's exact DPI, with the result that 12pt really is 42.3mm
onscreen - but few people actually go to the trouble of calibrating it.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

In article <slrnes73nh.npu.spamspam (AT) bowser (DOT) marioworld>,
Ben C <spamspam (AT) spam (DOT) eggs> wrote:

I don't know what happens on Windows, Mac, etc.
I imagine in many cases things might default to 96DPI if some part of
the configuration is missing.

On Macs, one usually just sets the dpi from a menu of choices for
the monitor. With LCD screens, best is native. One of mine is 20"
and 1600 x 1200 matches the inch measurements giving 100 dpi (but
there are lots of other choices, the "d" in the dpi varying with
each one.

--
dorayme