Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
RobG wrote:
The concept of 'text size' is different in different browsers. IE
uses largest, larger, smaller, etc. with a base 'size' based on system
settings. Firefox has a base font size in pts and then adjusts from
there (and system settings have an effect on it too).
No, the length unit used for the base font size by Gecko-based browsers,
including Firefox, is px.
No unit is specified in the settings dialog, I assumed pt. Even the
help pages don't say what the unit is, do you have a reference? I'm not
saying you're wrong (heaven forbid!) just that I can't find where it's
specified.
Other browsers likely have other methods, e.g. IE 7 Opera has a zoom
^^^^^^^^^^
factor as well. Different platforms add to the mix.
I never heard of /that/ user agent and hopefully I never will ;-)
:-x ... IE 7 and Opera have ...
[...]
Try this:
<URL:http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=05284>
That is more misinforming than informing the reader. For example, it
completely misses the point that if those people used px, em or % in the
first place, instead of the `pt' unit, which is designed for printouts,
not for the screen, there would not have been a problem of font display
between Windows and Mac, given the same display resolution.
Yes there would, that is the whole point. Given a 72dpi display for
both Windows and Mac, the same 12pt font will appear 33% larger on the
Windows display because the graphics system *thinks* it is sending an
image to a 96dpi device. In Windows, a 72pt M will be 96pixels high, on
a Mac it will be 72pixels high. That was done deliberately by Windows
right from the start.
Of course very few devices are 72dpi any more, some are approaching 200pdi.
Way back Macs used 72dpi for screen fonts
AIUI it still uses that for 1024x768 and lower display resolutions.
but that appeared too small for the developers of Windows, so they used a
default of 96dpi. Sending an image made for 96dpi to a 72dpi screen made
the images larger.
Font resolution does not have anything to do with image resolution.
You misunderstand me. The term 'image' here means the image of the text
that is sent to the screen. Windows generated an image of the font
suitable for a 96dpi device, but because it was displayed on a 72dpi
device, it appeared bigger. It was done quite deliberately to make the
text 33% bigger and easier to read for a given pt size.
Windows still uses this technique to make text bigger - that's why it
suggests using a setting of 120dpi if you have difficulty reading screen
text. Many screens are now physically about 96dpi (e.g. a typical 17"
LCD of 1280x1024px is about 94dpi) and the enlargement that was
previously delivered by setting 96dpi doesn't occur.
However, now those fonts look too big so everyone makes their web fonts
90% or even 80%.
Nonsense.
What? This is a very well known and understood problem, surely you've
stumbled across it before? Google 'tiny text windows mac'.
The basic design templates for many late 90's web pages were based on
what looked good on a 72dpi Windows screen, hence the scale factor
introduced by Windows was (unknowingly in most cases I suspect) taken
into consideration in their design. Many designers were trying to get
10pt screen fonts that really were 10pt.
But that has changed because the dot density on monitors is now commonly
96dpi or more and Windows users are seeing what Mac users had been
putting up with for some time - tiny text. Modern pages are now
generally quite readable on most devices, but the text size issue
persists in places.
All because one software vendor tried to trick the system... please
don't compound the problem.
How did you get that idea anyway? Obviously not from of personal
experience.
Gimme a break Thomas. The very start of the article I quoted offers the
following quote:
"Because Windows thinks monitors use a screen resolution
of 96 dpi by default, rather than the Mac's 72 dpi, Windows-based
Web designers often lower the font size so text doesn't appear
too large for Windows users. Mac users are then faced with tiny
text that's hard to read."
The decision to enlarge screen text by playing with the dpi setting was
unique to Windows, the resulting issues are very well understood. The
rest of the article (published in February 1999) is here:
<URL:http://db.tidbits.com/getbits.acgi?tbart=05255>
Note that even in Windows XP, Microsoft suggest that if you have
difficulty seeing text, *increase the Windows dpi setting for your
monitor*. It is the concept that you can control your screen text size
by playing with dpi settings that is the root of the problem.
The OS should be aware of the real dpi of the monitor, it should not be
fooled into thinking it is anything other than what it really is just to
modify text size. That plays havoc with applications that really do
want to know what what the monitor dot pitch is - reliably.
I have used Mac and Windows computers interchangeably for over 15 years
and currently use displays with 94ppi on both (17" LCD at 1280x1024). I
also test on and infrequently use displays with 72ppi to 150ppi.
Some articles to bring you up to speed:
"Where does 96 DPI come from in Windows?"
<URL:http://blogs.msdn.com/fontblog/archive/2005/11/08/490490.aspx>
"Adjusting Scale for Higher DPI Screens"
<URL:http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/workshop/author/dhtml/overview/highdpi.asp>
A rather over stated headline, but illustrates how widely the issue is
known:
"Tiny text threatens air safety"
<URL:http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/04/18/tiny_text_threatens_air_safety/>
--
Rob
