4 ms·

You are right for projectors and TV screens, but otherwise I think I disagree. Paper also doesn't take viewing distance into consideration. If my screen is 80

You are right for projectors and TV screens, but otherwise I think I disagree. Paper also doesn't take viewing distance into consideration. If my screen is 80 cm away, and my colleague's is 60 cm away from him, should things be smaller in pixels on his screen? What if I walk up to his desk? It would be really hard to compare sizes. The thing is, the brain already corrects for optical forshortening. It's normal that things that are further away use less arcdegrees, or space on the retina. Now we might be talking about different things. Sure, text in a book or on a phone can be a bit smaller than on a screen further away. That's a large-order effect, effectively you are using a different stylesheet, or viewing a different document. What I and other resolution-independence proponents are talking about are small effects, when viewing the same document on similar devices. A multimonitor setup, a large tablet, your colleagues' screens. In all these places, you should be able to hold up a ruler and have 1cm=1cm.

pas 9y ago
> Paper also doesn't take viewing distance into consideration I think designers and various printing press related workers very much print out things to look at it, to judge prototypes. There's a usual (almost standard) reading distance for a reason.
deathanatos 9y ago
> In all these places, you should be able to hold up a ruler and have 1cm=1cm. I don't necessarily agree, I guess. If all of the monitors are set up at the same viewing distance, then yes, 1cm=1cm if stuff is measure in arcdegrees. But if they're not — say one is a larger device that's typically viewed further away — then no, the absolute physical length of a displayed item should, again IMO, increase to compensate for the distance. I think this is a better system than today's, which seem to be mostly a hodge-podge of bad assumptions that the screen's DPI is always X, and fiddling with UI zoom settings until something respectable comes out. I am not saying that there aren't good use cases for a display device to output actual cm/in, however: for example, if I want to preview how a printed document will actually physically look, I absolutely think there should be an API to say, "No, I don't want to display this is arcdegrees, I want this thing to be absolute 8.5 in by 11 in." and then in that case, yes 1cm=1cm. That is, it's contextual, but I think arcdegrees provide a better default for the majority of use cases.

pas 9y ago

> Paper also doesn't take viewing distance into consideration I think designers and various printing press related workers very much print out things to look at it, to judge prototypes. There's a usual (almost standard) reading distance for a reason.

deathanatos 9y ago

> In all these places, you should be able to hold up a ruler and have 1cm=1cm. I don't necessarily agree, I guess. If all of the monitors are set up at the same viewing distance, then yes, 1cm=1cm if stuff is measure in arcdegrees. But if they're not — say one is a larger device that's typically viewed further away — then no, the absolute physical length of a displayed item should, again IMO, increase to compensate for the distance. I think this is a better system than today's, which seem to be mostly a hodge-podge of bad assumptions that the screen's DPI is always X, and fiddling with UI zoom settings until something respectable comes out. I am not saying that there aren't good use cases for a display device to output actual cm/in, however: for example, if I want to preview how a printed document will actually physically look, I absolutely think there should be an API to say, "No, I don't want to display this is arcdegrees, I want this thing to be absolute 8.5 in by 11 in." and then in that case, yes 1cm=1cm. That is, it's contextual, but I think arcdegrees provide a better default for the majority of use cases.