[rfc-i] open issues: small and mobile screens
touch at isi.edu
Fri Jun 1 07:24:36 PDT 2012
On 6/1/2012 6:49 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 31 May 2012, at 22:25 , Joe Touch wrote:
>> I propose that those who want to adapt available outputs further - to other extrema - are, as always, welcome to do so. That's how we have PDF and HTML right now, and I don't expect that to be prohibited.
> I have strong preference for a single format that works reasonably well on all displays. This makes mirroring and linking much easier.
>> - figures, tables, and structured text should be clearly
>> readable on a 7" diagonal XVGA display or larger without
> I think I remember how big an inch is, but that *VGA terminology is meaningless to me.
1000x800 approx. I was using it as shorthand for the typical reader
resolution. The readers don't specify them in terms of *VGA.
>> I.e., I don't want to have to draw figures to be legible without
>> the user wearing reading glasses on a cellphone screen.
> If I resolve the double negative you seem to want to require figures
> to be drawn is such a way that the user requires glasses when viewing
> them on a cellphone screen? That seems odd to me.
The correct inversion would be:
NOT (I want to be able to draw figures that are legible possibly needing
the user to wear reading glasses on a cellphone screen).
I.e., I don't want to assume the responsibility for legibility on such a
limited device as a substitute for the user either using a bigger device
or using reading glasses.
> I regularly encounter images that are drawn in such a way that they
> require glasses when viewing them on a regular monitor, and this is
> one of the reasons why I'm not a big fan of making images more
> prominent in RFCs. But I'll be happy when an RFC in the new format
> displays regular text well on a cell phone and all the other stuff
> requires panning.
That's basically my conclusion as well.
More information about the rfc-interest