On May 1, 2005 08:26, you wrote: > On 22/4/2005 Cristopher Martin wrote : > > Recently I took it upon myself to adjust KDE's default fonts > > I picked as a default size 10 points, > > That is the problem. You specify fontsize in points. > And then you try to "solve" problem by setting dpi. The most obvious means at my disposal... > Trying to change default dpi for a purpose that is different from > making it more accurately represent > most common or average dpi of our user's displays, That is precisely what I suggested in my message - 96 dpi is much closer to the typical dpi of displays than 75 dpi. > amounts to you pushing a specific (wrong) interpretation of dpi, > which goes against wishes of others, > who use a different (wrong) interpretation of dpi. > This explains why you got complaints. Before this change, the complaints were that the default fonts were too large, since for most people, with correct dpi on modern displays, they were. Many users have also objected to forcing a specific dpi on them (therefore establishing a known relationship between points and pixels) and while I wouldn't mind it myself, it would have to be done either in the manner of GNOME, where users can adjust it themselves with a nice GUI, without superuser privileges, or else in the manner proposed by Mr. Biggs' article, namely an easily editable/removable setting in a global configuration file. > If K applications are not capable of specifying default font in pixels, > please fix that, > instead of trying to change X in a random unrelated way. Your arguments are very interesting, but I have a concrete problem to solve, one that can be substantially ameliorated by an almost trivial change to a specific default value in X. I realize that this change is not a perfect or complete fix to a very general problem, but I'm not about to rewrite the X/KDE font system at the moment. > That are my thoughts on this subject. > Please feel free to point out anything you think is wrong with them. I appreciate your interesting thoughts on the matter of font sizes, and I agree with many of your ideas - but they don't constitute a rebuttal of my request to have a small change to X made (and perhaps they weren't intended to, but it seems that way). You are critiquing the general font sizing system currently in use, and that is fine, but I'm interested in a smaller and easier "patch-up" for the time being. Cheers, Christopher Martin
Attachment:
pgpsPOMu3TV41.pgp
Description: PGP signature