DonationCoder.com Software > Screenshot Captor
SSC 4.5 options GUI font INCREDIBLY small
worstje:
Wow, that's a mouthful.
The font size looks decent to me,
--- End quote ---
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 (August 26, 2013, 03:35 PM)
--- End quote ---
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 (August 26, 2013, 03:35 PM)
--- End quote ---
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 (August 26, 2013, 03:35 PM)
--- End quote ---
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 (August 26, 2013, 03:35 PM)
--- End quote ---
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.
cathie28:
Thanks. Again (not sure why) - my screen shot looks better than the actual GUI. A bit bigger & a lot darker. Don't know about ClearType & taking screens (if that's what u meant).
Attached example Options screen from PicPick. Much larger, or at least easier to read.
SSC has TOO MUCH info crammed into too small a space. Either need larger screens - spread into out, or more screens - less info on each screen.
1) When I was much younger, I could read the fine print on backs of credit card offers from 2 ft. away. That means nothing now & neither does fact that some can read < 7 pt (crowded, NOT very dark or heavy weight) font. Enjoy it while you can. Trust me, unless you're exceptionally fortunate.
2) Light weight, crowded 7 pt or less font, is not "fine" to VAST majority of people > 50 (if that's what most users actually see on the GUI). Ever see older folks looking out from UNDER their bi / tri focals, to look at small print?
It don't take long to open Wordpad, select Arial or MS Sans Serif, type a couple words, change it to one of these fonts & sizes. Compare to your actual SSC Options GUI.
Now, if others are GETTING LARGER than 7 pt on their monitors, please offer suggestions.
3) Some text on my orig. attached SSC screen, under "Default Comment" & "Available Fields" are even SMALLER than rest of the font.
Here's UNedited, actual size samples of PicPick & GreenShot Options screens. Fonts & spacing on THEIR GUIs are "FINE." SSC isn't. All the screens under their options look about like this. If they can do it, anyone can.
mouser:
Ok, let me try to shed some light and offer some commentary.
First, let's start with the easy part:
You have your windows system configured to run in a large-fonts mode, presumably because it's easier for you to read text when it is a larger font.
Depending on the design of application windows, dealing with this non-standard large-font mode can present some difficulty for programmers.
Various user interface libraries have different methods of artificially scaling up the controls and dialogs to try to accommodate this non-standard large-font setting, with mixed levels of success.
For myself, I have always run into some problems somewhere when trying to scale dialogs to match the large-font settings. Some controls which don't scale well, or some positioning issues, etc.
In the end, I have decided that because the options dialogs are rarely used (at least relatively speaking), and because the large-font mode is also rare, the best solution for my programs is to basically work-around the large font setting and ignore it -- which in effect is a little more than ignoring -- i have to manually downsize the fonts so that they are not artificially scaled up by windows.
Anyway, the point is this -- I believe i've chosen the best of some bad options when dealing with the large font issue. I am sorry that it makes it harder for those of you who prefer large fonts to see the options as clearly as you might otherwise.
It may be an issue worth revisiting at some point, but right now it's not at the top of my priority list.
cathie28:
Mouser (aka, Fmr Mouse & the Traps),
Don't believe it has anything to do w/ Windows DPI setting (as I mentioned). So, reset Windows to default 96 DPI - rebooted. Attached is resulting SSC screen. Didn't change SSC Options font size one iota.
SSC Options fonts have always been tiny compared to almost any app's options / config screens. They were running under what ever the Windows DPI happened to be - at any time - & I don't know of one w/ smaller, more crowded font than SSC Options.
I am sorry that it makes it harder for those of you who prefer large fonts
--- End quote ---
"Prefer?" Come on - now you're just insulting most people over 50 & anyone w/ slight eyesight issues - really. Has nothing to do w/ preference. The font is tiny. There's no other way to put it. IF... it's some OTHER setting in Windows or... I'll be happy to look at it.
After resetting Windows to 96 DPI, rechecked PicPick / GreenShot Options screens. They're a bit smaller than before, but STILL WAY easier to read than SSC.
FORGET about "trying to rescale dialogs to match large fonts." Don't scale ANYTHING. TOO much info crammed into tiny spaces.
Need to enlarge size of GUI screens;
Pick a font that doesn't cram letters together like sardines, or have character lines (strokes) ~ 2 hairs wide;
Use a slightly larger font;
Space lines slightly farther apart.
If enlarge GUI some, should be able to do this & not have to worry about scaling fonts.
BTW, notice on the shot - "Enable / Disable Toolbar Buttons, can't read most of the text. Window too small & no horiz. scroll.
Vurbal:
After resetting Windows to 96 DPI, rechecked PicPick / GreenShot Options screens. They're a bit smaller than before, but STILL WAY easier to read than SSC.
-cathie28 (August 26, 2013, 07:46 PM)
--- End quote ---
It sounds like you're misunderstanding the options in Windows. The DPI setting doesn't change the dot pitch (size of pixels / number of DPI). In fact if you're using a flat panel monitor nothing can change the dot pitch. It's fixed at the monitor's native (highest) resolution. It can simulate lower resolutions, but unless they're exact multiples of the horizontal and/or vertical native resolution there will be some blurring. If it's a CRT monitor you can lower the actual resolution. In either case you need to do that in the options for adjusting resolution, not DPI.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version