On Thursday 21 March 2002 20:00, Marc Mutz wrote:

> > Hmm, I just note the huge spacing in the left one. The right one
> > looks good to me. Maybe the spacing could be bigger, but the left one
> > is definitely too big.
>
> No, it isn't. This is on a 133dpi display. Scale it down to see what's
> wrong.

I'm having a 130dpi display ;)

> Up until now I was very happy with this font and size. I possibly know =
a
> bit more about typesetting (what with part of my job being LaTeXing
> math. articles) than the average user, and the "Durchschuss" is much
> too small.

I'm sure that this is true for printing on paper, where you have a much h=
igher=20
dpi resolution than on displays. But IMHO, a font that is too few pixels =
high=20
is worse for readability. With the big line spacing, I have a small font =
hard=20
to read, and it still takes up a lot of screen space. I'd more like a big=
ger=20
font, but it shouldn't take up too much space.

> See attached screenshot where the size has been increased, but the
> Durchschuss is still to small.

That's not what I meant. If you have smaller line spacing, you save displ=
ay=20
space, so you can in turn increase your font size without taking up more=20
space than in the old version. I think this is more readable then.

> Seems like a fixed offset is used now, independent of the font size (in
> pixels) or the space is calculated in px based on font size in pt.
> Something like that.