Hello Andrew, thanks for the critics, I will try to respond to some of them.
2008/6/15 Andrew Douglas Pitonyak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > A font is typically designed and created for rendering at a specific size > (well, that used to be true, and it may have changed). The result is that an > 8 pt font doubled in size will be different than the same font specifically > created for viewing at 16 pt. Assuming that our documents will be viewed at > 85% of actual size has a few side effects. I agree that having to zoom down has a negative side effect. The alternative is to abandon the conventional A3 A4 standards and go for something optimized for the screen. Impress uses this approach. The issue is that you can only optimize for a certain horizontal resolution. > > 1. Embedded figures will be larger because they are created for a larger > page. It will be the contrary. Normally people work with font sizes between 9pt and 12pt on their desktops and this is the font size of the dialog boxes. We then scale the pictures down a bit so in fact the OOoTextBody will be 14pt while the font in the pictures is more like 8-10pt. > > 2. It will be more difficult to print, so we will be required to have two > copies of the documentation (one for printing and one for viewing). I > purchased an expensive large high speed networked color laser printer, and > it can not print on A3 paper. The print shop where I work probably has A3 > capable printers, but your home user will most likely not. If you scale when > you print, this can add significantly to the print time because the entire > document is scaled. valid point. Rescaling will be needed of course and I have no counter-argument here. All I can say is that we are optimizing for screen viewing and that in these days even my cheap ink-jet printer can handle 2 pages per sheet (required if we go for the portrait option) as well as 70% rescaling needed for going from A3 to A4. It most certainly adds delay to the printing. > > 3. Fonts will not be viewed at their designed size, which will reduce > readability and may take more computing power. This is the most serious critique. If we cannot get the readability right then it is pointless to change template. > > Depending on the screen reader, this may make things more difficult for > people with vision issues. While reading, it is not much problem to scroll > down through a document, but it is very difficult and annoying to scroll > left and right while reading on screen. Most wide screen monitors allow you > to rotate the monitor so that the document can be viewed with greater height > than width. Agreed. This is why along with the landscape A3 I have also proposed two portrait A4 pages to be seen as book layout. People with vision issues can switch to the traditional 1 page view and will be very pleased to discover that the base font size is 14pt so very easy to read. > > I have a good size monitor, and unless I reduce the size, i can not get an > entire page height on the monitor at the same time. I can get all of the > text, but then it is only the text (I lose headers and such unless I scroll > up and down). OK, if I move to my video editing machine, that has a HUGE > monitor that can display the entire page and then some. It will be impossible to do something that works on every monitor. I also cannot see the full page in landscape mode on my widescreen monitor. This is one of the reasons to remove the header and leave only the footer > > Now that I have criticized the layout, I will add that: > > In general, the layout does look nice on screen. > You will offer two versions of the documentation, so if someone prefers > Portrait, that is still available, so nothing lost for those that > need/desire it. Jean's and your preference to be able to switch to a single page view and your comment on being able to print without delays seem to point in the direction of the portrait orientation and book view layout. Cheers, Michele
