On 2009/10/23 06:13 (GMT-0400) Pit Suetterlin composed:
Felix Miata wrote:
FWIW, a 23" 1920x1080 works out to almost exactly the "magic" number 96 DPI, depending on how close to an actual 23" it measures. Its screen height is virtually the same as a 16:10 display of only 21", which is about 108 DPI.
Nosy question: What's so magic about 96DPI?
For one thing, it's the reference pixel density in the CSS specs: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/syndata.html#length-units Mac OS X is locked to using 96 DPI regardless of display characteristics. Windows defaults to it, and never takes display characteristics into account WRT suitability of it. Most Windows users prior to laptops becoming bigger sellers than desktops never changed from that default, and since then probably most whose vendors have preset it to the most common alternative of 120 probably haven't changed that. I http://blogs.msdn.com/fontblog/archive/2005/11/08/490490.aspx describes its origination. The apparent lock to 96 led most app devs for many many years to never take alternatives into account in UI design, sizing text, icons & containers in pixels. Running those apps at other DPIs typically resulted, and results, in text overflow and clipping, and/or text and icons uncomfortably small for their purpose. This lack of design competence flowed into web page design, where CSS provided the ability to size in px (and pt), which disregards user preferences entirely, giving web surfers pages with similar overflow and clipping problems. This flow through into web design is largely how 96 "magic" found its way into most modern Linux DTEs, but legacy DTEs and GTK1 apps were typically built in a fashion similar to Mac and Windows, sizing in px. Newer Linux DTEs generally do a better if not good job of taking variation in DPI into account, sizing in em, and making a variety of icon sizes available. Still, too many web designers still do the old way, leaving their pages to break when visitors use their browsers' defense mechanisms to attempt to override those inflexible designs with minimum font size, text zoom, and/or page zoom, or prohibiting authors from controlling colors or text sizes. Desktop display marketers have apparently noticed (and not so very long ago) the 96 legacy. You'll find the biggest selling (due to availability) combinations of native resolution and screen size deviate relatively minimally from 96. e.g., prior to widescreen overwhelming the market, 1024x768 native was most common in 14" (91 DPI) & 15" (85 DPI), while 1280x1024 was used for 17" (96 DPI) & 19" (86 DPI). In widescreen, entry level seems to be 19", which is native 1440x900 (89 DPI), and also 1440x900 for 20" (84 DPI). The next larger sizes are mostly 1680x1050, 21" (94 DPI) & 22" (90 DPI). 1920x1200 generally starts at 23" (98 DPI), but is more common at 24" (94 DPI) and larger. Small 1920x1080 HDTVs marketed as computer displays are similarly close to 96, e.g. 23" (95.8 DPI), as I wrote previously. If and when DTEs and apps become resolution independent, 96 "magic" will become an anachronism.
Pit (using a 124DPI screen since 6 years)
I've been using mostly 120 or more a long time too. -- " A patriot without religion . . . is as great a paradox, as an honest man without the fear of God. . . . 2nd U.S. President, John Adams Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org