Proposal: reduce base font size from 10pt to 9pt for Karmic Koala release

[LoonyPhoenix]

Just my $0.02: I'm using a 125 DPI monitor and I don't find fonts at 9
pt too small. In fact, Windows's "ridiculously small fonts" seem just
a bit small to me, but definitely legible enough. But that's a matter
of taste; I just like my user interfaces compact, I'm a freak that
way.

However, DejaVu, in my opinion, looks worse than XP's Tahoma and
Vista's Segoe UI at "ridiculously small" sizes, and it looks very good
at 10 pt, unlike Tahoma. I see how this might be a barrier for
lowering the font size.

Anyway, I don't see the issue, because, as pointed out, a user with
too large a font can always make it smaller (as I always do). And the
default font size looks okay even to me, a person who likes compact
interfaces.

There is another problem for small screens that I think is more
serious because it's not as easy to solve, and that's a lack of
pre-installed compact gtk+ theme like Shiki-Human Semicompact [1].
Normal gtk+ themes seem to waste lots of screen real estate, which for
netbooks and smaller laptops and older low-DPI low-resolution monitors
is crucial. However, that is not the topic of this discussion.

Regards,
LoonyPhoenix

Notes:
[1] http://gnome-look.org/content/show.php/Shiki-Human+Semicompact?content=96171

2009/10/10, Felix Miata <mrmazda at earthlink.net>:
> On 2009/10/10 07:20 (GMT+0100) Conn composed:
>> - Fonts currently look over-sized on the default configuration (96dpi,
>> 10pt,
>> subpixel smoothing & slight hinting) if you compare to competing operating
>> systems[1].
>
> You're making your comparison in the wrong environment: 1024x768. Generally
> at that resolution fonts and other objects are larger than at the higher
> resolutions new systems and displays average. 1024x768, which on a 15" (the
> largest that was ever readily available with that native resolution) flat
> panel screen is about 85 DPI, has gotten hard to find except pre-owned or
> off-lease. Normal minimum in stores today is 1280x800 for laptops (e.g. 108
> DPI on 14") and 1440x900 for desktops (e.g. 89 DPI on 19"). Worse cases
> aren't that uncommon. 1920x1200 goes as low as 15.4" on a laptop, which is
> 147 DPI, and 23" on a desktop, which is ~98 DPI. 1680x1050 isn't uncommon at
> 20", which is ~99 DPI.
>
> You're proposing that fonts should be smaller everywhere, while they are
> already smaller just as they are on the average more expensive displays
> (higher resolution = more expensive). The problem is compounded for laptop
> users, since they average significantly higher resolution. Further
> compounding the size of the problem is that laptops outsell desktops,
> meaning
> the average size of fonts and other desktop objects is already too small for
> many average users. Then further compounding is the fixation on 96 DPI
> instead of actual DPI on high resolution screens. What you see as "too big"
> 10pt on your 1024x768 screen many will see as too small on their more
> expensive displays running 100 DPI and up.
>
>> Rather than myself going into a lot of detail with arguments for and
>> against
>> this change, I would appreciate any feedback from the rest of the
>> community.
>> All that I would ask is that you give this proposal a fair chance - change
>> the font sizes on your system to 9pt, and evaluate it for a day or so. We
>> have become accustomed to - and perhaps comfortable with - a default 10pt
>> font, but it is not necessarily optimal.
>
> Lest anyone forget, it's generally much easier for a user given too large
> fonts to see to figure out how to make them smaller than it is for a user
> given too small fonts to see to figure out how to make them bigger. The
> upshot of that is if you can't make them perfect for everyone (which is
> impossible anyway), it's better to err on the large side than on the small
> side.
>
>> Notes:
>> [1] Comparison screenshots, showing default font sizes:
>> Windows 7 (9pt, proprietary ClearType smoothing):
>> http://www.redmondpie.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/Windows-7-6.1.7600.16384.win7_rtm.090710-1945.png
>
> The fonts in that image are absurdly small.
>
>> Windows XP (9pt, no ClearType smoothing):
>> http://www.winsupersite.com/images/reviews/wxp_rtm_home_004.gif
>
> Ditto. If those are in fact 9pt and not 8pt something is unusual on your
> comparison XP. Windows UI fonts have usually been ridiculously small (8pt),
> but I have encountered the use of 9pt in W2K & WXP when "large" has not been
> selected in settings. The browser and office app document fonts have always
> been 12pt by default. The difference in size is a function of area, not
> nominal size, meaning that 12pt is 2.25 times the size of 8pt (12^2 / 8^2)
> and 1.78 times the size of 9pt (12^2 / 9^2).
>
>> [2] Before anyone suggests otherwise, this is not a problem with the GTK
>> theme's padding. I am the co-author of the Human theme, and I can assure
>> you
>> that widget padding is already minimal; reducing the padding any further
>> would compromise the consistency of widgets.
>
>> [3] Font rendering comparison:
>> Jaunty alpha 1 (10pt, greyscale & medium):
>> http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage/Ubuntu-9-04-Alpha-1-Screenshot-Tour-5.jpg/
>> Jaunty alpha 6 (10pt, subpixel & slight - identical to Karmic):
>> http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage/Ubuntu-9-04-Alpha-6-Screenshot-Tour-8.jpg/
>
> Table of DPIs for the most common environments:
> http://fm.no-ip.com/auth/dpi.xhtml
>
> Check the suitability of the DPI your system is using:
> http://fm.no-ip.com/auth/Font/fonts-ptdemo.html
> http://fm.no-ip.com/auth/dpi-screen-window.html
> --
> "   A patriot without religion . . . is as great a
> paradox, as an honest man without the fear of God. . . .
> 			2nd U.S. President, John Adams
>  Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
>
> Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/
>
> --
> Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
> Ubuntu-devel-discuss at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
>