[thelist] dynamic font size

Wed Jul 13 09:59:38 CDT 2005

Felix,

Thank you for your argument and the url addresses that support it.
Actually I was looking a place to see all those dpi pixel cm values together.
Your pages happen to be a good resource.

Hope, it was a good discussion for both me and other followers of this
thread. As I said a priori, I am not a pixel-fan. So I wil not defend
on the pixel-side (i.e. the dark side).

Anyone who designs for web should know that it is not print medium and
one size does not fit all.

I just can't stop pointing a single URL for the counter-argument to
the interested:

http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/box_lesson/font/

Cheers,
Volkan.

On 7/13/05, Felix Miata <mrmazda at ij.net> wrote:
> =?ISO-8859-9?Q?VOLKAN_=D6Z=C7EL=DDK?= wrote:
> 
> > Felix Miata wrote:
> 
> > > Yes a pixel is a pixel regardless. The problem is that definition has no
> > > meaning until you know the amount of space available for pixels to
> > > occupy, and how many pixels are designated to occupy that available
> > > space.
> 
> > But we should also note that generally users with high resolutions are
> > users with large screen areas. For instance an 14inch monitor-user
> > will possibly browse with
> > 800*600, while an 17'' will possibly browser with 1024*768.
> 
> 15" CRT display is 605 cm^2, and at 800x600 has a pixel density of 796px/cm^2.
> 19" CRT display is 1003 cm^2, and at 1600x1200 has a pixel density of 1914px/cm^2.
> 22" CRT display is 1366 cm^2, and at 2048x1536 has a pixel density of 2303px/cm^2.
> 
> So, 1600x1200 is 4 times as many pixels as 800x600, but for the
> indicated monitor sizes 1600x1200 only has 2.4 times the area to pack
> them into as 800x600. IOW, even though higher resolutions tend to be
> used on larger monitors, the size difference generally isn't even close
> to making pixels the same physical size. Note also that 1600x1200 is
> just a common high resolution, not anything close to any limit. I can
> run up to 2048x1536 on 19" here. Even on a 22" CRT, 2048x1536 is 6.6
> times as many pixels as 800x600, but for 22" vs. 15" only has 2.3 times
> the area to pack them into. http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/dpi.html
> 
> > If I am a CAD designer and prefer to user 12048*11024 on 17'' monitor
> > or higher, even 1 em will be small for me.
> 
> If you set your preference exactly according to your needs, then 1em
> will ALWAYS meet your needs EXACTLY.
> 
> > Besides, there are problems wrt mac/win dpi differences, css-rendering
> > differences (of 1em normal) between various versions of MSIE and many
> > more that I cannot recall right now. I do not want to go in detail but
> > the issue is a candidate to take a whole chapter in a book on web
> > typography.
> 
> The DPI differences aren't Mac/Win, they're a complex combination of
> various resolutions, display sizes, and system or software "DPI"
> settings. If as recommended by everyone who actually understands the
> issues involved you stay away from sizing using pt or cm or other
> assumed physical sizes, DPI is a non-issue.
> 
> > If you use pixels, you will make some unhappy. If you use em's you
> > make some others unhappy. There is no means of making everyone
> > satisfied.
> 
> There is no reason to assume that using em will make anyone unhappy
> except those who feel compelled to control the uncontrollable. By
> definition, 1em is equal to the user preference. Nearly all users have
> the power to change their preference to suit their needs, and for those
> that don't generally someone with power has set something close enough
> to be usable, e.g. public libraries.
> 
> > (However afaik, 1em corresponds to approximately 14px on msie-win
> > 1024*768; which some designers (and some users) may think a
> > larger-than necessary font size.)
> 
> What 1em corresponds to on Win depends on various system settings. On
> Win IE, the default is always 12pt. At the Win nominal default of 96
> DPI, that translates to 16px. But, Win provides users several larger
> font options, which at up to 192 DPI can make 12pt up to 32px at
> "medium", and 43px at "largest".
> http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/absolute-sizes-IE6.html
> 
> > > Preferring the wants and needs of
> > > the clueless over the clueful is utterly backwards nonsense.
> 
> > If the clueless happens to be your client thing changes a lot :)
> 
> Ah, but your client is at your disposal to train. There is no good
> reason for your client to remain clueless.
> 
> > If the client has a clue, but s/he thinks that the audience is clueless
> > that's another story. You will have a hard time persuading your client.
> 
> It may not be easy, but trying your best is the right thing to do.
> Pretty pages your client's visitors can't reasonably use do him little
> or no good.
> 
> > To sum up, nothing is 100% right for everyone.
> > The converse is also true: "nothing is 100% wrong for everyone".
> 
> Providing people who know what they want what they want is not a bad way
> to succeed. Guessing what people who don't know what they want should
> have is an efficient time waster, particularly when it impedes those who
> know what they want from getting what they want.
> --
> "If you love your children, you will be prompt to discipline them."
>                                                Proverbs 13:24
> 
>  Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
> 
> Felix Miata  ***  http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/
> 
> --
> 
> * * Please support the community that supports you.  * *
> http://evolt.org/help_support_evolt/
> 
> For unsubscribe and other options, including the Tip Harvester
> and archives of thelist go to: http://lists.evolt.org
> Workers of the Web, evolt !
>