Resolution indpendence

[Felix Miata]

On 2008/07/08 05:21 (GMT+0100) Glynn Clements apparently typed:

> Felix Miata wrote:

>> Olivier Galibert apparently typed:

>> > From my experience in a research lab where people
>> > handles lots of text, people tend to go for the smallest font size
>> > their eyesight can cope with.

>> I would expect far more people to differentiate between coping with and
>> comfortable with, preferring a somewhat larger size for comfort over the
>> smallest they can "cope with", i.e. tolerate.

> That depends upon what other priorities you have.

Like keeping eyes functional? ;-)

> For me, being able to have two 80-column views side-by-side is a very
> high priority. Sometimes, being able to have three views is useful
> (e.g. where you are merging different versions of a file, and want to
> comparing the merged version against both original versions). In that
> situation, three "legible" views is better than two "comfortable"
> views.

If doing that on routine basis, I'd have multiple screens, or something
really wide, more than 24", in no less than 1920x1200, but more likely
2560x1600. 80 often isn't wide enough for anything but email, and even then
not always. For comparing text file versions, I routinely find diff works
better than my eyes.

> Essentially, legibility is the "bottom line". If you simply can't read
> the text at all, it doesn't really matter how much of it you can get
> on screen. But anything beyond that often has to be balanced against
> other criteria.

Among which:
1-protecting back and neck against leaning forward too much/often disease
2-keeping eyes functional all day, and able to recover via overnight sleep
-- 
"Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry."
				Ephesians 4:26 NIV

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

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