Path: ccw.ch!elna.ethz.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!nntprelay.mathworks.com!howland.erols.net!agate!fsc.fujitsu.com!not-for-mail
From: Rick Sala <Rick.Sala@fnc.fujitsu.com>
Newsgroups: comp.fonts,comp.sys.mac.system,alt.folklore.computers
Subject: WYSIWYG -- Was: Original Mac Fonts Why were the ones chosen chosen?
Date: Fri, 05 Jun 1998 15:01:24 -0500
Organization: Design Automation Group, Fujitsu
Lines: 47
Message-ID: <35784E94.119E1CA4@fnc.fujitsu.com>
References: <3573189F.FF6D5DF@cisco.com> <Etwp2M.Hpo@midway.uchicago.edu> <35738aff.627705202@newshost.anu.edu.au> <p.kerr-0306981142380001@news.auckland.ac.nz> <6l3hsp$bl@top.mitre.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: tddcae141.tddeng00.fnts.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (X11; I; SunOS 5.5 sun4u)

Joe Morris wrote:

<snip>

> There are lots of reasons why I like having scalable fonts on a computer,
> but to me one of the worst results of introducing them is the nasty
> habit of too many programmers (especially web page designers) of trying
> to pack far too much text onto a screen by using a miniscule font size.
> Too often I see text set in a way that if it had been a legal document
> it would have been said to use the font "Flyspeck 3".
> 
> Joe Morris

You bring up an interesting point. From all I have read over the years
regarding Mac development, and electronic type setting in general, a
real
WYSIWYG monitor displays at 72 dpi, which works out to a 16in monitor at
800 x 600, or the original Mac 9in monochrome monitor. Anyway at 72dpi
fonts will be displayed on screen at their proper height when compared
to
hard copy output. (This all goes back to some typesetting standard for
proportional fonts.)

Display the same font size on a 16in at a higher resolution than and the
font size will appear smaller than on the hard copy. Therefore, you have
the unusual situation where a finer resolution monitor makes it harder
to read a document.

I wonder if anyone has considered improving the current modern GUI's to
automatically adjust viewing scale, so that text would be true WYSIWYG
again? For me, a wordprocessor that did this would be much more useful
tool than say, a word processor with Mr.Clippit chirping about some lame
formatting feature.

MHO,

Rick
-- 
_______________________________________________________
Rick Sala
Design Automation Analyst
Fujitsu Network Communications
Richardson, Texas

972-479-2484

_______________________________________________________

######

Path: ccw.ch!usenet
From: Neil Franklin <neil@chonsp.franklin.lugs.ch>
Newsgroups: comp.fonts,comp.sys.mac.system,alt.folklore.computers
Subject: Re: WYSIWYG -- Was: Original Mac Fonts Why were the ones chosen chosen?
Date: 06 Jun 1998 01:38:29 +0200
Organization: My own Private Self
Lines: 52
Message-ID: <m367ifpgga.fsf@chonsp.franklin.lugs.ch>
References: <3573189F.FF6D5DF@cisco.com> <Etwp2M.Hpo@midway.uchicago.edu>
	<35738aff.627705202@newshost.anu.edu.au>
	<p.kerr-0306981142380001@news.auckland.ac.nz>
	<6l3hsp$bl@top.mitre.org> <35784E94.119E1CA4@fnc.fujitsu.com>
X-Newsreader: Gnus v5.3/Emacs 19.34

Rick Sala <Rick.Sala@fnc.fujitsu.com> writes:
> WYSIWYG monitor displays at 72 dpi, which works out to a 16in monitor at
> 800 x 600, or the original Mac 9in monochrome monitor. Anyway at 72dpi
> fonts will be displayed on screen at their proper height when compared

If all fonts are used as pixels=pts this is so.


> Display the same font size on a 16in at a higher resolution than and the
> font size will appear smaller than on the hard copy. Therefore, you have
> the unusual situation where a finer resolution monitor makes it harder
> to read a document.

Or adjust your pts->pixels calculation.


> I wonder if anyone has considered improving the current modern GUI's to
> automatically adjust viewing scale, so that text would be true WYSIWYG

Yes, this has been done. Often in fact. I am looking at the result
while typing this (the last column in the table below).

If you increse the dpi from 72 to say 96 (+1/3), you simply have to
replace 12 pixel high font with an 16 pixel high font to retain 12pt
size.

This adds the bonus of finer shaped glyphs.


resolution  12pt char  80x30 char         diag15"=12x9" diag20"=16x12"
                       (6.6x5"=diag8.3")  *9/5          *12/5
72dpi       6x12pix    480x360            864x648       1152x864
96dpi       8x16pix    640x480            1152x864      1536x1152

Don't a lot of those numbers ring a bell? Familiar, aren't they?
Guess why exactly they are used.


BTW:

1. some (MS) consider monitor distance > paper distance -> make larger
2. some (NeXT) consider it exactly reversed -> make smaller
3. some consider 12pt too large -> chose smaller
4. some say all above cancels out -> pick your poison


Neil "evey monitor under 21inch sucks" Franklin

-- 
private: Neil.Franklin@ccw.ch.remove http://www.ccw.ch/Neil.Franklin/
office: franklin@arch.ethz.ch.remove http://caad.arch.ethz.ch/~franklin/
WinCE car, crashing soon on a road near you