Re: User Agents Do Not Implement Absolute Length Units, Places Responsive Design in Jeopardy

This is an idea I strongly believe should be a separate unit or solution
path.

It's super-useful for something like Sony's wearable
display<http://technabob.com/blog/2011/09/04/sonys-hmz-t1-3d-oled-goggles/>,
wherein the viewport is physically small but apparently (I haven't tried it)
functionally equivalent to a big-screen display.

However, I feel that is a corner case, and in most cases authors will want
to use linear physical data, to then arrive at their own design conclusions
about legibility and appropriate use.

Cheers,
-Brian


On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 2:28 PM, David Singer <singer@apple.com> wrote:

> Perhaps size detection should be based on the angle subtended at the eye?
>  That's what we are basing other stuff on.  I think the linear size is much
> less relevant (and meaningless in some cases).
>
> To do it well, you probably need to know "how much is subtended by the
> display" .  You probably should not need to know "what is the pixel count in
> that range" as the equipment designer should have made it that 'normal'
> sizes like 10pt text are, in fact, readable.
>
> On Oct 5, 2011, at 10:28 , Boris Zbarsky wrote:
>
> > On 10/5/11 1:21 PM, Brian Blakely wrote:
> >> The problem isn't resolution detection.  The problem is that we're using
> >> pixel resolution to do *size *detection.  Adjusting a layout for
> >> small-size displays is currently achieved by defining max-width MQs at
> >> about 640 *pixels*, when it really should be 3.5 *inches* (ballpark).
> >
> > The problem is that to be web-compatible, UAs more or less have to fix
> 1in == 96px.
> >
> > And again, just to be clear, are you trying to detect _linear_ size, or
> _angular_ size of the screen?
> >
> > -Boris
> >
>
> David Singer
> Multimedia and Software Standards, Apple Inc.
>
>
>