(keitai-l) Re: Tiny fonts

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/ ]