[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: rawhide report: 20050121 changes



barryn pobox com ("Barry K. Nathan") writes:

>> > A gtk port means fontconfig and AA ie all the users that do not use pure
>                                                              ^^^^^^^^^^
>> > american files on a 75dpi screen can get some mileage out of emacs
>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> > without ruining their eyes.
>
> I've added emphasis here... think about people who are not using a
> 75dpi-100dpi screen. e.g. think about a 135 DPI (or so) screen.

How common are such resolutions? 19" TFTs with 1280x1024 (90dpi) should
be the typical usecase. When the minority with >=135dpi is large enough,
bitmap-fonts for this resolution can be created.


>> * text apps used by me (XEmacs, xterm) are configured for 10pt fonts. I
>>   want to see much information and do not want larger fonts therefore,
>>   but fonts <10pt are too small for me
> [snip...]
>
> Are you assuming that 10 points == 10 pixels, or at least that 10
> points is the same number of pixels on all screens?

I am very untalented in font questions... I just know that bitmap-fonts
look perfect while AA fonts are crappy.

For text based applications I do not need device independent sizes; the
text must be only readable.


>> * standard bitmap fonts for 10pt are of perfect quality (I am using them
>>   currently and do not know how they could be enhanced)
>
> Now, find perfect quality bitmap fonts that will display at 10 points on
> a 135DPI display... IME, bitmap fonts for text editors are the height of
> perfection on a 15" 1024x768 LCD and the bane of my existence on a 15"
> 1600x1200 LCD.

I use them on 13" TFT + 15" CRT 1024x768, 17" 1152x768 (CRT) + 1280x1024
(TFT), 19" TFT 1280x1024 and 22" CRT 1600x1200, and bitmap fonts look
perfect there.




Enrico


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]