1x5 pixel characters should suffice theoretically. Everything else is
quite obviously pure luxury!
Michael Turner wrote:
>
> Actually, provided you have halfway decent
> upper/lowercase character images (mainly:
> enough ascender/descender distinction), it's not
> even the shape of the *characters* so much
> as the shape of the *words* that really matters
> for general legibility. This was pointed out
> as early as 1988 in the OCR world by Jonathan
> Hull [1]. The general idea was certainly understood
> long before that. Intelligent anti-aliasing of the
> character images could get you even further.
>
> With a good magnifying-glass interface, you
> could probably do 80-character vt100 emulation
> on a phone that would actually be useful, in
> a pinch. The only question at this point is:
> who would implement a fully-compliant telnet
> midlet who isn't already busy biting the heads
> off of live chickens in some more lucrative
> capacity?
>
> -m
> leap@gol.com
>
> [1] www.cedar.buffalo.edu/Publications/abstracts.html#hull
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Mika Tuupola <tuupola@appelsiini.net>
> To: <keitai-l@appelsiini.net>
> Sent: Monday, March 12, 2001 2:12 AM
> Subject: (keitai-l) Re: Tiny fonts
>
> > On Sun, 11 Mar 2001, Hubert Hung-Hsien Chang wrote:
> >
> > > I use the Palm font size. but you could always shrink 3x5 is a bit
> > > too contrived. Try capital 'M'. Gosh... look aweful.
> >
> > True. But the 3x5 is still readable because eye catches
> > familiar familiar shape of the letters, not the letters
> > themselves. I'd personally rather read something like
> > 5x9 though, which looks much better.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Mika Tuupola http://www.appelsiini.net/~tuupola/
> >
> >
> > [ Did you check the archives? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ ]
> >
> >
>
> [ Did you check the archives? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ ]
[ Did you check the archives? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ ]
Received on Tue Mar 13 07:59:41 2001