15 Jun
2013
15 Jun
'13
8:08 p.m.
> I didn't miss the point. (at least I
don't think I did!)
> Ben is stuck in Windows land.
On Sun, 16 Jun 2013, Liam Proven wrote:
What indicates that?
You would think so.
On the [Windoze XP] machines at the college, with most adjustments LOCKED
OUT, the default screen resolution did not have a suitable sized font.
BUT, if I dropped it down a couple of notches, to 1280x1024, I was able to
get a font size that I could stand.
Windows users are accustomed to reducing the
resolution of the graphics system in order to get larger text.
Only incompetent
ones. Windows has had on-screen feature scaling since
the 3.1 days and built-in to the GDI since NT 3. No, it isn't, not at all. Hasn't been since
1993 or so.
But, the college managed to resurrect the problem.
I think that what Ben was saying was that he had low
vision or other
serious eyesight problems and that he therefore cannot read small
text. You appeared to be mocking his disability.
25 years ago, I could [and did] read microfiche without a viewer.
For my personal use, I created my own LaserJet font with 9x12 pixel
characters (and one with 7xs9 and one with 5x7). I loved my
Wyse700/Amdek1280 monitors with 1280x800 pixels that could give me
160 characters x 50 lines text modes.
Presbyopia hit me. HARD.
Now, I can not even read a newspaper without >+2 reading glasses,
+2 for computer screen, and >+3 for OQO and/or 7" Android tablet.
But, worst of all, I ended up constantly battling with my cow-
orkers over screen resolution on shared computers - I had to drop
the display to 1280x1024 in order to get access to a suitably
sized font.
IN THEORY, I should have had access to larger fonts without
changing the display resolution. Would defenestrating some
college administrators have helped? Would it have helped with
font size?
--
Grumpy Ol' Fred cisin at xenosoft.com