#3221 NORM First D: Sugar's fonts too small even for fully-sighted people

[Zarro Boogs per Child]

#3221: Sugar's fonts too small even for fully-sighted people
---------------------+------------------------------------------------------
  Reporter:  ssb22   |       Owner:  marco                 
      Type:  defect  |      Status:  new                   
  Priority:  normal  |   Milestone:  First Deployment, V1.0
 Component:  sugar   |     Version:                        
Resolution:          |    Keywords:                        
  Verified:  0       |  
---------------------+------------------------------------------------------

Comment(by AlbertCahalan):

 Replying to [comment:5 ssb22]:
 > For more evidence, how about this usability study:
 http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/3W/fontJR.htm - in their
 experiment (with a 96dpi screen and children aged 9 to 11), they compared
 12pt with 14pt and found 14pt to be significantly better.  That's twice
 the current 7pt.

 This study is worthless.

 That's a 60 Hz CRT (ow, instant headache) at 75 DPI. (did the math)
 Windows just pretends the screen is 96 DPI. There should be about 1.33
 pixels per point, or 56.25 points per inch.

 The fonts are shown without any anti-aliasing. They look dreadful.
 Obviously, larger fonts will be needed to compensate. Note that TrueType
 point sizes are advisory at best; the XO does not have the Windows fonts.
 (for example, Verdana is HUGE for any given size while Times New Roman is
 rather small)

 > Note that although the XO's screen is 200dpi, the full resolution is
 present only when in monochrome mode.  It needs to be usable in colour
 mode too, and that means at 100dpi, hence the above study is still valid
 for the XO.

 That isn't how the screen works. You get about 115 DPI in color mode
 because of a blur filter and the sub-pixels being used as pixels, but you
 still get to address the full 200 DPI.

 There will always be 72 points per inch when the DPI value is correct.
 Physically, the XO fonts are thus smaller. Visual angle matters though; a
 kid would probably sit closer to the XO.

 Using the 200 DPI figure, there should be about 2.78 pixels per point. The
 XO has over twice as many pixels per point as the CRT. 14 points on the
 Windows CRT should be the same as 6.69 points on the XO, except that the
 XO has anti-aliasing to make things better.

 Using the 115 DPI figure, there should be about 1.60 pixels per point. The
 XO has 25% more pixels per point than the CRT. 14 points on the Windows
 CRT should be the same as 11.63 points on the XO, except that the XO has
 anti-aliasing to make things better.

 Those old CRTs really were dreadful. I remember needing the 10x20 font on
 one, but only 7x13 on an LCD. The study really doesn't apply here. Even an
 LCD-based study using the DejaVu font and FreeType would be suspect
 because of the unusual screen.

 Kids don't find paging and scrolling to be all that easy. A larger font
 means more of that, plus broken layouts.

 BTW, I question the "fully-sighted adults" bit. Eben and I are not having
 trouble. If fully-sighted adults really have trouble, then Eben and I must
 have super vision. I wish that were true... mine  vision is starting to
 decline.

 Kids books have big fonts so that grandma can read to the kids. :-) Also,
 there just isn't that much text usually.

 Proper font size varies by locale. (ssb22 uses what language?)

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://dev.laptop.org/ticket/3221#comment:6>
One Laptop Per Child <https://dev.laptop.org>
OLPC bug tracking system