On Mon, Dec 28, 2015 at 9:35 PM, Michal Suchanek <hramr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> That makes some sense. Pity, on still very popular 96 DPI monitor >> readability of subpixeled font is one step higher. > Popular in the sense you can easily pull a working one from the trash?
In a sense that around 60% of all monitors in the shops are still 23" FullHD which is 96 DPI, and most of the large employers are providing exact those monitors in the offices. >> Also, I've noticed that font size is often configured in pixels and >> not in points, why? > It's stupid. On the other hand, X reports DPI as 96 always unless you > take manual measures to correct it. > > There is also per-display DPI which you can infer from xrandr > information which is also often bogus. And nobody probably bothers to > read it anyway. Yes, X is famously bad at detecting physical size of the display. But minor modification to Xorg conf and you can have it reported properly, since most of the toolkits are still calculating DPI from physical size and resolution. As for pixels, if you have QHD+ laptop with 96 DPI external screen you're still screwed, no matter if you measure in pixels or points. But at least they promise that Wayland will handle it better than X, so pt is still more flexible. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
