3 ms·
As 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 siz
by Steuard 13y ago
As 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).