16 pixels For Body Copy. Anything Less Is A Costly Mistake

Re:16 pixels For Body Copy. Anything Less Is A Costly Mistake by wladimir on Friday October 07, 2011 @09:21AM (#3083810)

Now, if we could provide bitmap assets that could be zoomed in the same way

The most common way (used for icons) is to provide multiple bitmaps and load the right one depending on screen DPI. You can do this on your site too.

And there's of course vector graphics (SVG), if you don't mind some extra processing on the client for rendering...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:16 pixels For Body Copy. Anything Less Is A Costly Mistake by dextorious on Friday October 07, 2011 @10:33AM (#3084148)

Yes, you could provide multiple bitmaps in a website now, but in a convoluted way (with some custom javascript checking for resize events etc). In the icons case, it happens automatically.

As for SVG, client rendering time would be insignificant for most case (for a desktop machine at least, they have CPU to spare). But currently used IE version (> 6) for one don't support SVG. And the main problem are bitmap assets such as photographs. Those cannot be done as vectors.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:16 pixels For Body Copy. Anything Less Is A Costly Mistake by wladimir on Friday October 07, 2011 @01:47PM (#3085033)

Sure... I didn't say that it would happen automatically, just that it could be done. Everything done on the web is convoluted.

Btw: why would you have to watch resize events? Changing the size of the browser window (even rotating the screen/phone) doesn't change the DPI.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:16 pixels For Body Copy. Anything Less Is A Costly Mistake by dextorious on Saturday October 08, 2011 @09:44AM (#3087903)

My bad, I meant resize as in zoom-in out (Ctrl +-) of the page in general, not the $(window).resize().

[ Parent | on HN ]