[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: So we really want *pixel* sizes (was Font size setting inconsistency in kcontrol)
From:       Lars Knoll <lars () trolltech ! com>
Date:       2001-01-29 12:54:14
[Download RAW message or body]

On Monday 29 January 2001 13:25, glaurent@telegraph-road.org wrote:
> > The font size looks about right on my display (I'm using 100dpi), but
> > the layout is broken.
> >
> > This is a very special case. It seems pixie really should ask for a
> > pixelsize
> > (QFont::setPixelSize() rather QFont::setPointSize() ) for the splash
> > screen.
>
> And don't you think that the same problem is bound to happen for any
> webpage with icons, like slashdot for instance ? How do you expect
> the layout to remain correct from 75 to 100 or 120 DPI if the font
> physical size remains constant while all the icons shrink ?

An I remember very well the problem of all people complaining about khtml 
using too small fonts on a lot of 75dpi displays. This is because the typical 
web page is layouted for windows which usually uses around 100dpi. I don't 
think there is a way to satisfy everyone. Using pixel sizes will be way too 
small for a high resolution display (as long as the dpi value of your display 
is the *real* dpi value). If your XServer uses 120 dpi and actually your 
physical dpi value is only 90dpi, then sure, all fonts will look way to big, 
but thats a configuration problem of your XServer. Yes, the pysical size will 
stay the same, but otherwise people would be forced to use low resolutions to 
get bigger fonts. This is bad too.

I know that some web pages rely on pixel like layout and on specific font 
sizes, but you'll *never* get them accurately as on windows, as windows uses 
point sizes too (at 98dpi or so).

> And I believe that any user setting font sizes for the file manager or
> web browser expects the "medium" settting to look reasonably good,
> regardless of its DPI (how many end user knows about this parameter
> anyway ?). With hard-coded point sizes this is just impossible.

I'm running at 112 dpi and I think the "medium" font size looks reasonably 
good. Otherwise you force people with eyes that might be not as good as yours 
to switch to low resolutions. That can't be the solution neither.

> From what Dirk told me I understand that a patch was recently
> committed to correct precisely this, but it doesn't seem to have found its
> way in 2.1beta2.

You have 5 font sizes you can choose from now. There should be one in there 
that fits your preferences.

Lars

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]