3 ms·
That is exactly what he means. I guess it might have been explained better in the comment, but that's the whole point the article is making: that the "reference
by garethadams 13y ago
That is exactly what he means. I guess it might have been explained better in the comment, but that's the whole point the article is making: that the "reference pixel" for a given display is calculated by taking a certain visual angle (based on a specified DPI/distance) and projecting it onto a perpendicular surface at the expected viewing distance.
If the reference pixel is the viewing angle then multi-pixel measurements don't map linearly to on-screen sizes unless the screen they're designed for is the concave face of a sphere centred on the user's eye
- Steuard 13y agoAs I understand this article (and my long-past reading of the spec), the only thing in the spec that talks about visual angle is the part about defining the size of one reference pixel. That's a very small angle, and at those sizes angular size is essentially linear even when projected onto a flat screen. Nothing that I've seen in the spec ever remotely suggests using angular measurements for more than one pixel at a time, let alone enough of them for 90 or 180 degrees of the visual field.
- garethadams 13y agoThat's all completely true, but the article that this linked article is a response to didn't draw that same conclusion from the spec, and that's what started this whole mess
- mistercow 13y ago>and at those sizes angular size is essentially linear even when projected onto a flat screen. But not quite, and summed over many pixels, it will result in a noticeable discrepancy (which is still of no practical consequence). I wonder how it would feel to use a computer that used head tracking to dynamically transform the screen's contents so that pixels were mapped to equal angular size (from the point between the user's eyes).