From: "Joel Jaeggli" <joelja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> On Sun, 31 Oct 2004, James Wilkinson wrote:
>
> > Bill Gradwohl wrote:
> >> I run my 20" at 1024x768. If I were 20 years old; said another way, if
I
> >> were 35 years younger, I'd probably crank up the resolution, but its
> >> just not comfortable for me.
> >
> > As you say, it's personal preference. Personally, I tend to increase the
> > screen size and then increase the font size to compensate. You may find
> > that your text is actually the same size, but less blocky: I find that
> > easier to read.
>
> Increasing the resolution of your text will almost allways make it more
> more readable. I fit about the same number of 80x25 terminals on my
> 1920x1440 21" crt (4-6 per page) as I used to on a 15" 1024x768 tube.
> assuming the same font size, at ~150dpi each character is composed of
> about 4x more pixels then it is at 72dpi which is the alleged norm for
> monitors. it's still about 1/8 the number of dots a reasonable laser
> printer will assemble the same character out of.
One might wish more web sites could "adapt" in this regard. Too many
override the user's "make the damn text bigger you freaking as*!"
preferences selections in the interests of their artistic expression.
May the pox of a thousand whores infest their genitals!
{O.O} (Can you tell you hit one of Joanne's hot buttons? My eyes
are older than yours so it's REALLY valuable to have better
formed letters and larger text sizes. 6 point text just does
not make it. I can't see 1mil gold bonding wires anymore
with my bare eyeballs.)
