|
|
|
|
|
by bzbarsky
5370 days ago
|
|
> What they're doing is implementing approximations The definition of CSS-px (for low-res devices, which includes all the mobile stuff so far; high-res in this context is print) is: it is recommended that the pixel unit refer to the whole
number of device pixels that best approximates the
reference pixel
and the reference pixel is defined as: the visual angle of one pixel on a device with a pixel
density of 96dpi and a distance from the reader of an
arm's length.
See http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS2/syndata.html#length-unitsSo the whole point is to approximate the reference pixel by doubling your device pixels (or tripling, or whatever). I think you may be thinking of a different definition of CSS pixel that used to exist a number of years ago (when "px" and reference pixels were the same thing). That definition is no longer in the spec, and hasn't been in a while. And that's precisely because of the antialiasing issues you mention. |
|
Given that the point we're debating here is the merits of setting a minimum 16px body text size, that would mean the next alternative was 32 physical pixels on a display of roughly 200dpi resolution. While that might be useful, you could still find that depending on the physical properties of your devices, 16px text needed to render at say 24 physical pixels to look the same size to the reader.
When you've got that kind of uncertainty to work with, I stand by my earlier comments that an arbitrary 16px size without reference to either the specific font or the physical properties of the device isn't a particularly useful guideline. The design considerations for devices with such different physical properties are too complicated to dismiss with a simple scale factor.