4 ms·
There is an abbreviation for that - YMMV, right? My monitor is closer to that usually. And that's the point. It makes absolutely no sense to measure viewing an
by c-smile 7y ago
There is an abbreviation for that - YMMV, right?
My monitor is closer to that usually. And that's the point.
It makes absolutely no sense to measure viewing angles.
The only thing that we can agree is that area of finger/screen touch measured on screen surface is roughly equal for humans - 1cm x 1cm or something like that.
So size of your buttons shall be measured in units of screen surface, but not in some mysterious things that depend on distance orthogonal to screen surface.
So
1. CSS pixels must be treated as logical length unit equal 1/96 inch, and,
2. Browsers must ensure that 1in or 10cm are exactly that when measured by physical ruler on screen surface.
I, as a developer, must know that my 1cm button is exactly that on screen and so human clickable.
- marcosdumay 7y agoYour mileage will vary. A lot. But CSS sizes are defined by viewing angles, not by linear size. There was plenty of debate at the time it was standardized, and really, none of the options is good so they got one of the bad ones.
- c-smile 7y agoYep, initial idea of HTML as just one dimensional tape of scrollable text - something that has given width but no height - literally just a Text for reading ... Who would have thought that we will start clicking <button>s by literally fingers. But how much of dev time wasted already in discovering that `px` stands for points in MacOS terms (1/72 on inch initially and now 1/96 of inch) and nothing near real pixels ...