When I chose a font size in DW -- for example 3 -- I see the font sized as I want. If I try and create a font in a CSS through DW ... and chose size 3 -- I get a much, much smaller size. I try pixels and points both. Can anyone explain the difference and suggest how I can get the size I select in DW to match the one I choose in the CSS? Thank you.
> When I chose a font size in DW -- for example 3 -- I see the font sized as > I > want. If I try and create a font in a CSS through DW ... and chose size > 3 -- I > get a much, much smaller size. I try pixels and points both. Can anyone > explain > the difference and suggest how I can get the size I select in DW to match > the > one I choose in the CSS? Thank you.
>One shouldn't use points (a print metric) on a pixel-based screen >anyhow.
There are, no doubt, a number of good reasons why points are not a good unit for the design of web pages but points are as much a screen metric as they are a print metric. Text editors and word process have had no problem since the year dot in using points on a "pixel based screen" whether anything is printed or not.
Of course they have a problem. Different browser/platforms will interpret point sized characters differently. You will therefore get size differences from one to the next.
Never use points for web character sizing.
-- Murray --- ICQ 71997575 Adobe Community Expert (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!) ================== http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources ==================
"Richard Mason" <whitne...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
>>One shouldn't use points (a print metric) on a pixel-based screen anyhow.
> There are, no doubt, a number of good reasons why points are not a good > unit for the design of web pages but points are as much a screen metric as > they are a print metric. Text editors and word process have had no problem > since the year dot in using points on a "pixel based screen" whether > anything is printed or not.
>Different browser/platforms will interpret point sized characters >differently. You will therefore get size differences from one to the >next.Never use points for web character sizing.
Different browser/platforms interpret more than point sizes differently. Points are both a print metric _and_ a screen metric and always have been. It's misleading to state that points are only a print metric.
The point metric was developed for print. They were 'designed' to work on the printed page, long before anyone ever thought of displaying print on a pixel based screen.
It is true that one should not use points on the web.
It is a reasonable conclusion that points are only a print metric. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make....
-- Murray --- ICQ 71997575 Adobe Community Expert (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!) ================== http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources ==================
"Richard Mason" <whitne...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
>>Different browser/platforms will interpret point sized characters >>differently. You will therefore get size differences from one to the >>next.Never use points for web character sizing.
> Different browser/platforms interpret more than point sizes differently. > Points are both a print metric _and_ a screen metric and always have been. > It's misleading to state that points are only a print metric.
>The point metric was developed for print. They were 'designed' to work >on the printed page, long before anyone ever thought of displaying >print on a pixel based screen.
Of course, but it also became a screen metric when computer screens came along.
>It is true that one should not use points on the web.
I'm not proposing otherwise
>It is a reasonable conclusion that points are only a print metric. > I'm not sure what point you are trying to make....
It's not a reasonable conclusion. The point I'm making is that there are two metrics involving points, which means inches, because the printer and the screen are physical output devices where inches have completely different meanings. When you view text in a word processor/text editor at one point size do you think that something is wrong when you can simultaneously print that text at a completely different point size?
In CSS one can specify font sizes in points (which means inches) and lengths in inches and the browser doesn't toss a coin in the air to decide how that will actually appear on the screen but uses the established screen metric using the screen dpi setting. How else would you translate points (inches) into pixels?
<whitne...@xtra.co.nz> wrote: >On Sun, 6 Jan 2008, Murray *ACE* wrote
>>The point metric was developed for print. They were 'designed' to work >>on the printed page, long before anyone ever thought of displaying >>print on a pixel based screen.
>Of course, but it also became a screen metric when computer screens came >along.
>>It is true that one should not use points on the web.
>I'm not proposing otherwise
>>It is a reasonable conclusion that points are only a print metric. >> I'm not sure what point you are trying to make....
>It's not a reasonable conclusion. The point I'm making is that there are >two metrics involving points, which means inches, because the printer >and the screen are physical output devices where inches have completely >different meanings.
HUH???
Inches do not ever have "different meanings". An inch is an inch.
Therefore:
How can pixels possibly correspond directly and consistently to inches?
Let's say I have two monitors: a 15" and a 22". I set BOTH to a screen resolution of 800 pixels x 600 pixels.
Each pixel on the 15" screen is physically smaller IN INCHES than each pixel on the 22" screen.
Same number of pixels.
Different number of inches.
>When you view text in a word processor/text editor >at one point size do you think that something is wrong when you can >simultaneously print that text at a completely different point size?
Once again, HUH??
>In CSS one can specify font sizes in points (which means inches) and >lengths in inches and the browser doesn't toss a coin in the air to >decide how that will actually appear on the screen but uses the >established screen metric using the screen dpi setting. How else would >you translate points (inches) into pixels?
Not only that you can change the number of pixels that constitute an "inch". Since I work on a high resolution small screen (1400x1050 on a 12.1" screen) I use a non-standard PPI of 115 instead of Windows default of 96ppi or large fonts of 120ppi.
-- Cheryl D Wise
"Win Day" <win...@NOSPAMwildrosewebsites.com> wrote in message
>>It's not a reasonable conclusion. The point I'm making is that there are >>two metrics involving points, which means inches, because the printer >>and the screen are physical output devices where inches have completely >>different meanings.
> HUH???
> Inches do not ever have "different meanings". An inch is an inch.
> Therefore:
> How can pixels possibly correspond directly and consistently to > inches?
> Let's say I have two monitors: a 15" and a 22". I set BOTH to a > screen resolution of 800 pixels x 600 pixels.
> Each pixel on the 15" screen is physically smaller IN INCHES than each > pixel on the 22" screen.
> Same number of pixels.
> Different number of inches.
>>When you view text in a word processor/text editor >>at one point size do you think that something is wrong when you can >>simultaneously print that text at a completely different point size?
> Once again, HUH??
>>In CSS one can specify font sizes in points (which means inches) and >>lengths in inches and the browser doesn't toss a coin in the air to >>decide how that will actually appear on the screen but uses the >>established screen metric using the screen dpi setting. How else would >>you translate points (inches) into pixels?
Briefly: there are two types of inches in computing. The physical inch you measure with a ruler and the logical inch that you don't. The logical inch has been a "parameter" in (real) computer programming since Windows first came out. If you have your screen dpi set to the default 96i then there are 96 pixels per logical inch. If you use large fonts at 120 dpi then there are 120 pixels per logical inch - and so on. The screen dpi should never have been called that. It should have been called screen ppli (pixels per logical inch). It's a long story but the sole purpose of the screen dpi value is to translate the physical inch of the typography point into pixels via the concept of the logical inch.
Take a look at the Eric Meyer page: http://meyerweb.com/eric/css/tests/css2/sec16-01.htm where he says: "the first line of this paragraph should be indented half an inch." So how many pixels would that actually be on _your_ screen? The answer depends on _your_ setting for screen dpi because the indent is not half a physical inch but half a logical inch. If, say, your screen setting dpi is 96 dpi then one logical inch is 96 pixels so half an inch is 48 pixels, and that's what the indent is in pixels. I actually have my screen set at 102 dpi so on my screen that half inch indent is 51 pixels. I bet even Eric Meyer even didn't know that :-)
>Let's say I have two monitors: a 15" and a 22". I set BOTH to a screen >resolution of 800 pixels x 600 pixels. >Each pixel on the 15" screen is physically smaller IN INCHES than each >pixel on the 22" screen. >Same number of pixels. Different number of inches.
It's absolutely nothing to do with the size of your screen or your video resolution.
>Not only that you can change the number of pixels that constitute an >"inch".
Ha, a "logical inch"
>Since I work on a high resolution small screen (1400x1050 on a 12.1" >screen) I use a non-standard PPI of 115 instead of Windows default of >96ppi or large fonts of 120ppi.
ppi is just as bad as dpi. No wonder people get confused by these concepts.
<whitne...@xtra.co.nz> wrote: >On Sun, 6 Jan 2008, Win Day wrote
>>HUH???
>>Inches do not ever have "different meanings". An inch is an inch. >>Therefore:How can pixels possibly correspond directly and consistently >>to inches?
>LOL Referencing an article you've written yourself does nothing to >increase the credibility of your replies. >I'm an engineer and a writer. Accuracy in measurement and accuracy in >language is important.
A number of people who post here have written tutorials and articles so when they refer people to these then, apparently, it doesn't do much for their credibility either, or do you judge an article solely by the author and not by the content - a rather poor engineering practice.
I say on the my Home page "Some of the things I say in these pages you can easily check for yourself" so why not do so and provide a reasoned argument why you think it wrong. That's the engineering way. I provide a derivation, starting with the TrueType specification, for the relationship between font sizing and screen dpi. That's the engineering way and an engineer should have no difficulty following it. Did you even bother to read it?
>Choosing to redefine the word "inch" to suit your own purpose does not >redefine the standard, scientific value of an inch.
I didn't invent the logical inch - Microsoft did. A simple search on the Microsoft site would have found a number of references - it's called research and is another engineering technique.
>Inches do not ever have "different meanings". An inch is an inch.
But one inch can have a different length than the other. SCNR
>Therefore:
>How can pixels possibly correspond directly and consistently to >inches?
>Let's say I have two monitors: a 15" and a 22". I set BOTH to a >screen resolution of 800 pixels x 600 pixels.
>Each pixel on the 15" screen is physically smaller IN INCHES than each >pixel on the 22" screen.
>Same number of pixels.
>Different number of inches.
Physically, yes. But logically they have the same width of 8,33", assuming a default Windows setting of 96dpi on both systems. An inch as defined in your CSS for example will appear with the same number of pixels on both systems, but of course one will physically be smaller than the other.
If you correctly configure the dpi setting in your OS with regards to your screen size and resolution, then the length in pixels will differ, but the physical length on the screen will nearly be the same and may even come close to the real length of an inch.
A little test on my own system with two screens:
19", 1600x1200px, 96dpi 17", 1152x864px, 96dpi
A CSS box with a width of 4" will be rendered as 384px on both screens, but of course the physical size on the screens differs:
19": 8,6cm = 3,39" 17": 10,8cm = 4,25"
So the physical inch on the screens is completely different from the logical inch defined in the CSS - and wrong in both cases because of my default dpi setting.
>If you correctly configure the dpi setting in your OS with regards to >your screen size and resolution, then the length in pixels will differ, >but the physical length on the screen will nearly be the same and may >even come close to the real length of an inch.
Correctly?? Why would anyone want to adjust their dpi setting so that a logical inch matches a physical inch and the screen simulates a piece of paper. I don't know anybody who reads printed documents by holding them out at arms length, at eye level, which is about where, I would say, screens are located for most people.
>A little test on my own system with two screens:
>19", 1600x1200px, 96dpi >17", 1152x864px, 96dpi
>A CSS box with a width of 4" will be rendered as 384px on both screens, >but of course the physical size on the screens differs:
>19": 8,6cm = 3,39" >17": 10,8cm = 4,25"
>So the physical inch on the screens is completely different from the >logical inch defined in the CSS - and wrong in both cases because of my >default dpi setting.
I don't understand what you mean here by "and wrong in both cases because of my dpi setting".
Of course the physical inch is different to the logical inch but the logical inch is not even mentioned, let alone defined in the CSS specification The logical inch is an Operating System concept not a CSS concept. The inch in the CSS spec is mentioned only in the context of an "absolute length unit" "in: inches -- 1 inch is equal to 2.54 centimeters."
It's all phrased in such a way that the reader will have no difficulty in thinking in terms of physical inches and thus completely avoiding an awkward quantity like the logical inch. Given the ludicrous definition, elsewhere, of the "pixel unit" I doubt whether the spec writer even understood the concept.
> To add to the confusion IE will honor my OS ppi settings in determining > the size to display a font specified in points another print metric (72 > pt = 1 inch) while firebox does not so text on a web page set to 10 pt > will be significantly larger viewed in IE than Firefox.
>>>If you correctly configure the dpi setting in your OS with regards to >>>your screen size and resolution, then the length in pixels will differ, >>>but the physical length on the screen will nearly be the same and may >>>even come close to the real length of an inch.
>> Correctly?? Why would anyone want to adjust their dpi setting so that a >> logical inch matches a physical inch and the screen simulates a piece of >> paper. I don't know anybody who reads printed documents by holding them >> out at arms length, at eye level, which is about where, I would say, >> screens are located for most people.
>>>A little test on my own system with two screens:
>>>A CSS box with a width of 4" will be rendered as 384px on both screens, >>>but of course the physical size on the screens differs:
>>>19": 8,6cm = 3,39" >>>17": 10,8cm = 4,25"
>>>So the physical inch on the screens is completely different from the >>>logical inch defined in the CSS - and wrong in both cases because of my >>>default dpi setting.
>> I don't understand what you mean here by "and wrong in both cases because >> of my dpi setting".
>> Of course the physical inch is different to the logical inch but the >> logical inch is not even mentioned, let alone defined in the CSS >> specification The logical inch is an Operating System concept not a CSS >> concept. The inch in the CSS spec is mentioned only in the context of an >> "absolute length unit" >> "in: inches -- 1 inch is equal to 2.54 centimeters."
>> It's all phrased in such a way that the reader will have no difficulty in >> thinking in terms of physical inches and thus completely avoiding an >> awkward quantity like the logical inch. Given the ludicrous definition, >> elsewhere, of the "pixel unit" I doubt whether the spec writer even >> understood the concept.
To add to the confusion IE will honor my OS ppi settings in determining the size to display a font specified in points another print metric (72 pt = 1 inch) while firebox does not so text on a web page set to 10 pt will be significantly larger viewed in IE than Firefox.
>>If you correctly configure the dpi setting in your OS with regards to your >>screen size and resolution, then the length in pixels will differ, but the >>physical length on the screen will nearly be the same and may even come >>close to the real length of an inch.
> Correctly?? Why would anyone want to adjust their dpi setting so that a > logical inch matches a physical inch and the screen simulates a piece of > paper. I don't know anybody who reads printed documents by holding them > out at arms length, at eye level, which is about where, I would say, > screens are located for most people.
>>A little test on my own system with two screens:
>>A CSS box with a width of 4" will be rendered as 384px on both screens, >>but of course the physical size on the screens differs:
>>19": 8,6cm = 3,39" >>17": 10,8cm = 4,25"
>>So the physical inch on the screens is completely different from the >>logical inch defined in the CSS - and wrong in both cases because of my >>default dpi setting.
> I don't understand what you mean here by "and wrong in both cases because > of my dpi setting".
> Of course the physical inch is different to the logical inch but the > logical inch is not even mentioned, let alone defined in the CSS > specification The logical inch is an Operating System concept not a CSS > concept. The inch in the CSS spec is mentioned only in the context of an > "absolute length unit" > "in: inches -- 1 inch is equal to 2.54 centimeters."
> It's all phrased in such a way that the reader will have no difficulty in > thinking in terms of physical inches and thus completely avoiding an > awkward quantity like the logical inch. Given the ludicrous definition, > elsewhere, of the "pixel unit" I doubt whether the spec writer even > understood the concept.
>To add to the confusion IE will honor my OS ppi settings in determining the >size to display a font specified in points another print metric (72 pt = 1 >inch) while firebox does not so text on a web page set to 10 pt will be >significantly larger viewed in IE than Firefox.
>>If you correctly configure the dpi setting in your OS with regards to >>your screen size and resolution, then the length in pixels will differ, >>but the physical length on the screen will nearly be the same and may >>even come close to the real length of an inch.
>Correctly?? Why would anyone want to adjust their dpi setting so that a >logical inch matches a physical inch and the screen simulates a piece of >paper.
It makes sense if you use inch-based units in your applications and want to get predictable results across different platforms.
>>A CSS box with a width of 4" will be rendered as 384px on both screens, >>but of course the physical size on the screens differs:
>>19": 8,6cm = 3,39" >>17": 10,8cm = 4,25"
>>So the physical inch on the screens is completely different from the >>logical inch defined in the CSS - and wrong in both cases because of my >>default dpi setting.
>I don't understand what you mean here by "and wrong in both cases >because of my dpi setting".
Wrong, because the 4" from the CSS don't appear as 4" on my screens. With a proper dpi/ppi setting they would.
>Of course the physical inch is different to the logical inch but the >logical inch is not even mentioned, let alone defined in the CSS >specification The logical inch is an Operating System concept not a CSS >concept. The inch in the CSS spec is mentioned only in the context of an >"absolute length unit" >"in: inches -- 1 inch is equal to 2.54 centimeters."
... when "the physical properties of the output medium are known". The physical properties of a monitor (size and resolution) are known, the only problem is the OS's dpi/ppi setting to reflect those properties.
> In other words, and after all the 'sturm und drang', points should not be > used on the web because they are a print metric. 8)
> -- > Murray --- ICQ 71997575 > Adobe Community Expert > (If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!) > ================== > http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources > http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources > ==================
> "Cheryl D Wise" <nom...@wiserways.com> wrote in message > news:flthgq$14o$1@forums.macromedia.com... >> To add to the confusion IE will honor my OS ppi settings in determining >> the size to display a font specified in points another print metric (72 >> pt = 1 inch) while firebox does not so text on a web page set to 10 pt >> will be significantly larger viewed in IE than Firefox.
>>>>If you correctly configure the dpi setting in your OS with regards to >>>>your screen size and resolution, then the length in pixels will differ, >>>>but the physical length on the screen will nearly be the same and may >>>>even come close to the real length of an inch.
>>> Correctly?? Why would anyone want to adjust their dpi setting so that a >>> logical inch matches a physical inch and the screen simulates a piece of >>> paper. I don't know anybody who reads printed documents by holding them >>> out at arms length, at eye level, which is about where, I would say, >>> screens are located for most people.
>>>>A little test on my own system with two screens:
>>>>A CSS box with a width of 4" will be rendered as 384px on both screens, >>>>but of course the physical size on the screens differs:
>>>>19": 8,6cm = 3,39" >>>>17": 10,8cm = 4,25"
>>>>So the physical inch on the screens is completely different from the >>>>logical inch defined in the CSS - and wrong in both cases because of my >>>>default dpi setting.
>>> I don't understand what you mean here by "and wrong in both cases >>> because of my dpi setting".
>>> Of course the physical inch is different to the logical inch but the >>> logical inch is not even mentioned, let alone defined in the CSS >>> specification The logical inch is an Operating System concept not a CSS >>> concept. The inch in the CSS spec is mentioned only in the context of an >>> "absolute length unit" >>> "in: inches -- 1 inch is equal to 2.54 centimeters."
>>> It's all phrased in such a way that the reader will have no difficulty >>> in thinking in terms of physical inches and thus completely avoiding an >>> awkward quantity like the logical inch. Given the ludicrous definition, >>> elsewhere, of the "pixel unit" I doubt whether the spec writer even >>> understood the concept.
All I can say is that it does not and though I prefer the way Firefox handles font resizing it does not properly handle focus caret so that the TIP (Tablet Input Panel) is not triggered for form fields or other inputs. Pity because I prefer it in many ways to IE.
>>To add to the confusion IE will honor my OS ppi settings in determining >>the >>size to display a font specified in points another print metric (72 pt = >>1 >>inch) while firebox does not so text on a web page set to 10 pt will be >>significantly larger viewed in IE than Firefox.
>In other words, and after all the 'sturm und drang', points should not >be used on the web because they are a print metric. 8)
More like 'smoke and mirrors'. Points are a print metric for print and a screen metric for the screen. My next address will be to the Flat Earth Society, although I doubt that trying to convince them the Earth is round will succeed :-)
>>In other words, and after all the 'sturm und drang', points should not be >>used on the web because they are a print metric. 8)
> More like 'smoke and mirrors'. > Points are a print metric for print and a screen metric for the screen. > My next address will be to the Flat Earth Society, although I doubt that > trying to convince them the Earth is round will succeed :-)
|
