| 1 |
On Sunday 03 Jan 2016 11:44:37 Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sunday 03 January 2016 11:08:32 I wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Saturday 02 January 2016 12:45:09 Frank Steinmetzger wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 01:23:28PM +0000, Peter Humphrey wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > > > you see here. And the qt5 screen shot is half as big again as the |
| 6 |
> > > > > > qt4. |
| 7 |
> > > > > |
| 8 |
> > > > > I don't quite get that. |
| 9 |
> > > > |
| 10 |
> > > > ?? |
| 11 |
> > > |
| 12 |
> > > Both images are the same size. The usable content area in the qt5 |
| 13 |
> > > screenshot is far from just half. Maybe the word “again” tips me off b/c |
| 14 |
> > > I try to interpret a meaning into every word, being a pedantic |
| 15 |
> > > non-native. ;-) |
| 16 |
> > |
| 17 |
> > I meant the size of the file. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> And now I want to add that using 1.5 x the space to represent far less |
| 20 |
> information is a clear indicator of inefficiency. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
Well, ... it depends on your measure of inefficiency. Your statement stands |
| 23 |
good in terms of pixel density on a page, but perhaps less so in terms of user |
| 24 |
time taken to process the information on different platforms and display |
| 25 |
resolutions. In web design at least, the centre of gravity has been shifting |
| 26 |
towards mobile platforms for a long time now. |
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Regards, |
| 29 |
Mick |
Archives