On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 14:19:11 -0500 Hendrik Boom <hendrik@...2611...> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 02:15:00PM -0500, Shawn H Corey wrote:
On 11-01-09 01:57 PM, Jon Cruz wrote:
Ah, but there's the rub. There are many definitions of "remain the size I given it".
Among others there is the question of intent. For example, does one always intend an image to span half the width of the display when I hold it in my hand, but only 1/30th of the display when I bring it up in my living room? Very often the answer to that one is "no".
And does one want to measure a distance in strict linear means on a physical object, or does one want the same retinal image size? (Apple has bumped this one up in the consciousness of the consumer, but W3C and CSS already addressed it)
When I say I want an image that is 6 inches by 4 inches, I mean that and nothing else. The problems is with the monitors; they are measured in pixels. Printers, however, print to paper of standards sizes.
When you measure distance, you measure the physical distance. The size of the image on the retina is irrelevant.
People with some kinds of poor eyesight routinely like *everything* to be twice as big. Evidently, you're not one of them.
-- hendrik
Not posted for a while but this one really got my attention!
Then let them indeed rescale everything i.e. the entire desktop *display*. I have poor eyesight and if I want to see detail I'll zoom in, not attempt to change the underlying structure of a document.
I agree with Shawn in inch is an inch. I would be extremely annoyed if my PCB designs were arbitarily re-sacled :(