Solve : Is 800 by 600 pixels bad for Low Vision Users??

1.	Solve : Is 800 by 600 pixels bad for Low Vision Users??
Answer» A large minority of people my age have reported visual impairment. A few years back a screen resolution of 800 wide by 600 high was good for most users. Now Windows will nag you if you want to use this lower resolution. Often the SYSTEM wants you to go up to 1600 by 1200. That is TWICE the size of the old standard. (And four times the pixels.) Why? Why does the Windows OS need so much screen space? The ease of Use options in current versions of windows do not recommend the older standard. Has the OS somehow now given us more information than it used to? I doubt it. Back in the DAYS of Windows 3.11 the 800 x 600was good enough. Everything you needed was there. Now I can understand the need for more RAM. But why four times the number of pixels? Here are some statistics about Low Vision. Quote An estimated 7.9 million persons (age 6 and older) have difficulty seeing words and letters in ordinary newspaper print, even when wearing glasses or contact lenses (McNeil, 2001). One in SIX Americans (17%), 45 years of age or older, representing 16.5 million middle -age and older ADULTS, report some form of vision impairment even when wearing glasses or contact lenses (The Lighthouse Inc., 1995) /quote] - from http://www.gesta.org/estudos/statistics0402.pdf From another web site it is recommended that people with vision problems use the lower resolution. For me, Windows s7 with 800 by 600 and large icons works good. But I get this stupid reminder that my resolution is too low about once a week. So, my question is - Does Microsoft really care about users with visual impairments? Do they ever consult with people who have such impairment? Any comments welcome. The reason for more pixels is for sharper, clearer text and on-screen elements. The issue here is associating Screen resolution with the size of on-screen elements, which isn't really the case. Imagine a massive, 2048 by 1500 pixel display. You are likely imagining a Windows desktop with tiny, 32x32 icons on the desktop, and teensy little taskbar buttons, and so forth. Of course, it could be configured that way, but it doesn't have to be (nor by default). I popped open a Windows 8.1 VM, and I was able to create this. The on-screen elements like icons, and even the Run Dialog, are quite large. This is because I adjusted the settings on the VM; I set the DPI to the largest setting, and I adjusted the personalization options to use Larger text as well (For the Start Screen). Now, for contrast, we can see this 800x600 Windows 3.1 image, blown up to fit the same size. It's also notable that even with less visual acuity, using scaled DPI text rather than blown-up aliased low-resolution text tends to be easier to read, in the same way that typeset text would be easier to read than blown-up MS-DOS Text fonts.

Answer»

A large minority of people my age have reported visual impairment.
A few years back a screen resolution of 800 wide by 600 high was good for most users. Now Windows will nag you if you want to use this lower resolution. Often the SYSTEM wants you to go up to 1600 by 1200. That is TWICE the size of the old standard. (And four times the pixels.)
Why? Why does the Windows OS need so much screen space? The ease of Use options in current versions of windows do not recommend the older standard. Has the OS somehow now given us more information than it used to? I doubt it. Back in the DAYS of Windows 3.11 the 800 x 600was good enough. Everything you needed was there. Now I can understand the need for more RAM. But why four times the number of pixels?

Here are some statistics about Low Vision.
Quote

An estimated 7.9 million persons (age 6 and older) have difficulty seeing words and
letters in ordinary newspaper print, even when wearing glasses or contact lenses
(McNeil, 2001).
One in SIX Americans (17%), 45 years of age or older, representing 16.5
million middle -age and older ADULTS, report some form of vision impairment even when wearing glasses or contact lenses (The Lighthouse Inc., 1995)
/quote]
- from http://www.gesta.org/estudos/statistics0402.pdf

From another web site it is recommended that people with vision problems use
the lower resolution. For me, Windows s7 with 800 by 600 and large icons works good. But I get this stupid reminder that my resolution is too low about once a week.

So, my question is - Does Microsoft really care about users with visual impairments? Do they ever consult with people who have such impairment?

Any comments welcome.

The reason for more pixels is for sharper, clearer text and on-screen elements. The issue here is associating Screen resolution with the size of on-screen elements, which isn't really the case.

Imagine a massive, 2048 by 1500 pixel display. You are likely imagining a Windows desktop with tiny, 32x32 icons on the desktop, and teensy little taskbar buttons, and so forth. Of course, it could be configured that way, but it doesn't have to be (nor by default).

I popped open a Windows 8.1 VM, and I was able to create this. The on-screen elements like icons, and even the Run Dialog, are quite large. This is because I adjusted the settings on the VM; I set the DPI to the largest setting, and I adjusted the personalization options to use Larger text as well (For the Start Screen).

Now, for contrast, we can see this 800x600 Windows 3.1 image, blown up to fit the same size.

It's also notable that even with less visual acuity, using scaled DPI text rather than blown-up aliased low-resolution text tends to be easier to read, in the same way that typeset text would be easier to read than blown-up MS-DOS Text fonts.

Solve : Is 800 by 600 pixels bad for Low Vision Users??

Discussion

No Comment Found

Related InterviewSolutions

Reply to Comment