Wow, that's a mouthful.
The font size looks decent to me,
Where does it look "decent size?" In your Actual Options screen? Or looking at my screen shot? I noted that AFTER my shot is attached on the forum, it makes the font looks bigger & darker than the actual GUI or the actual screen shot (when viewed in SSC) - least, to me. I promise, font is much smaller & lighter in actual GUI.
-cathie28
I was going by your screenshot. The letters don't look much different from my default DPI setup, but since my eyes are still fine that may have been a bad way of expressing myself. I've seen many websites in the past that like to use smaller text for entire paragraphs of text, so all I meant to say is 'I'm reading this and not feeling annoyed about the size being wrong compared to what I am used to'.
For the text on your screenshot being darker... does your ClearType configuration affect how it comes out any?
AND - as mentioned - some font on Options GUI is even smaller than the rest.
What do you consider a "decent size," in terms looking in a word processor, Wordpad, etc., at a similar font style, same SIZE - that's in SSC Options?
Can you type in something in Wordpad (look like Arial) & change font size till it matches SSC Options GUI? What is the pt size that matches YOUR SSC Options GUI?
If you type in normal Arial (no bold, dark) @ 7 pts or less, in an editor / processor, is 7 pt Arial a "decent size" to you? It's sure as hell not to me or most people my age, even w/ corrective lenses @ 20/20.
7 pt or less is what matches my SSC Options GUI. How old are you (rhetorical question) & how far is your nose from monitor? Using laptop or desktop?
-cathie28
I'm way too tired for a comparitive measure with my own screen, typing letters and comparing them on a pixel level to see how well they match. Unless other people aren't interested in doing that by the time I get around to re-visiting this topic. :-)
For as far my screen is concerned: I've got a 1920x1200 24" screen, and if I stretch my hands out in front of me the tips of my middle fingers can barely reach my screen. (Unless I hunch over, but I'm keeping my back against the back of my chair here.)
Yes, I increased my Windows font DPI - only to 110 (default = 96). That works great w/ 99% of everything & I use a LOT of apps.
But, increasing DPI SHOULD make the font on Options GUI a bit larger - not smaller (if it affects it at all - it doesn't, AFAICT).
I only recently increased Vista DPI from Default. The font on SSC's Options GUI has ALWAYS been tiii-nyyy.
Some apps for some GUIs ignore Windows settings (it seems). Many increase menu & some GUI font size based on Windows settings - even based on font sizes chosen in Appearance Settings > Advanced. Some apps ignore it all.
-cathie28
I never meant increasing DPI would make the text smaller. It is indeed supposed to make it look bigger. My point was that the code is probably oblivious to the concept of 'DPI', and thus renders text at a certain fixed size. Because everything else is bigger, of course this same-old-size text appears smaller. But it is the same size as before.
Not sure I understand your intent, there. Sounds like you're saying, SSC doesn't have ability to adjust Options GUI font based on Windows settings. Not surprising - lots of apps can't. If so, has absolutely nothing to do w/ Options font size being tiny in 1st place. UNLESS you're hinting that increasing Windows DPI actually caused SSC to REDUCE its font size? Don't think it did that (hope not - that'd be crazy).
-cathie28
Nope, we would seem to be in agreement (see above). However, from your screenshot, I got the impression your issue was caused by the text being small while being used to the text sizes common to the increased DPI setting. The size as it is is not a size I feel is wrong for a standard computer setting; there is a gotcha here though... one that becomes quite apparent in
your Vurbal's later screenshots: the fonts used are different!
The font SSC uses is the more 'antiquated'
MS Sans Serif I believe. This used to be the standard for Windows interfaces from Windows 3.1? all the way upto XP. It is optimized for smaller screens, has a plain and crisp look, and generally has its roots in the lower definition world. However, Vista and Office (some version I forgot) finally introduced a bunch of new fancy fonts which became defaults of their own right.
Segoe UI is the new one which was engineered for better legibility on screens with higher definition and all that jazz. This font, at similar 'point sizes', is considerably larger (and by consequence more legible) than MS Sans Serif, which is likely another, if not the main reason that the SSC Options look so tiny in comparison.
I've got experience with both camps; many applications I use daily still have their UI rooted in the old fonts, while more modern applications have made the switch. If I compare your screenshot with some of those apps, it is exactly the same size, and I have zero problems using it. But if I compare it with those other applications, it indeed feels tinier.
Is it a problem? Kind of. The one that is most to blame is Microsoft: it is the same OS, but UI standards change from OS to OS to OS. But given the fair amount of users that are likely still relying on XP, it probably isn't feasible to switch over to a full Vista+ look either. (And two different looks is a pain to maintain.)
Finally.. I of course don't speak for mouser. I only speak for me and my personal experiences. :-)
Edit: Also, I understand that your needs require addressing. But this is likely not a simple problem. Rather than a work-around (bigger fonts), or implementing dpi scaling, the entire options window probably needs re-architecting to be less reliant on so much text and categories (Window Capturing 1 & 2? Bad UI right there.) There's a lot more wrong with the options window; this is just one of many cracks that show its age.
Show Posts
) release of Cautomaton v1.0.0! It introduces the support for invoking a context menu on multiple files that I've wanted to put in there since the moment I started implementing Cautomaton several years ago.
and asked for a feature I sadly couldn't deliver on. :-( In the end, I consider JottiQ feature-complete; most of the things people want are stuff that has to happen on the server end that I do not control. :-)