On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 12:21 +0100, Bert Freudenberg wrote: > On Mar 14, 2007, at 12:10 , Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: > > > And anyway it seem sane to try and be resolution independent (both > > dpi and actual screen size/ratio). > > Given fixed hardware and severe performance limits, is this still > "sane"? Isn't the XO much more like a game console than a PC in the > sense that optimizing to that specific hardware gets you much more > than you could ever achieve by trying to be general? For example, > like in game development, you could have the original artwork be > resolution-independent but then you pre-render this to the resolution > that it's actually needed at.
Given the current architecture (cairo, svg, layout system), from a performance point of view, I think resolution independence comes basically for free. We are already doing device to user transformations. >From a code complexity point of view, once HippoCanvas is made a little smarter I think it would be transparent. It has some design costs (a certain design will work better at a certain resolution), but we don't have to pay it now. We can optimize design on the XO resolution. The advantages seems a lot: * I don't care about screen rotation a lot at the moment. But when we will have a touchscreen I will care. (when rotated the screen size in pixels and the ratio is different). * We can make Sugar feel good also on traditional laptops. That's important if nothing else for development. Also this is probably a long term thing but... I'd like to be able to use the stuff we are working on. * If the screen size/ratio changes in some future revision, reoptimizing sugar for it will be easier. In the end, I don't think it's an absolute requirement, but it's nice to have and I don't see a reason to not do it. Marco _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.laptop.org/mailman/listinfo/sugar
