Jim Gettys wrote:
>
> Truetype or Type1 fonts, while scalable, come much more dearly (and may not
> do well at low resolutions), and are about 10x larger than a single
> bitmap font.
I think Truetype would be a little too problematic at the moment.
> Should we try to match Palms and/or WinCE roughly?
>
> I know this is a pretty open ended question, but I'd like to
> get some discussion on the topic going...
It's a sticky issue in some ways: we want small fonts so that we can
find sufficient text on the screen, but larger fonts would be nice in
some instances so that certain things can be read from further away.
That being said, I'll put forward the suggestion that we don't need any
of the 24 pixel size fonts and possibly not even the 18. I'm using a 10
pixel, 100 point size font, that's 5 pixels wide (it's clR5x10.pcf) on a
240x320 screen, and it's readable from about two feet away. I can't see
that anything larger than 14 pixels high would really be necessary, at
least on this screen.
-- Michael Coyne | Voice: 204-478-8055 Symbol Technologies | FAX: 204-942-3001 1000 Waverley Street | Email: coynem_at_symbol.com Winnipeg, Manitoba, CANADA R3T 0P3 |Received on Tue Sep 12 2000 - 09:45:34 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Jul 25 2005 - 17:20:41 EDT