Agreed. Everyone sees the term pixel and thinks it will match a device pixel. This isn't true. The CSS pixel is sized to take up a certain amount of the visual field due to that diagram with a reference screen, distance, and density. The person writing about angular stuff is dead on target explaining to people the difference.
The author of the linked article is just nit picking word choice and confusing the issue. No one was applying this past that to then come to the claim the pixel size changed at different degrees, which is the implication that the author of this article seems so upset about. Everyone knows the CSS pixel stays the same size across the entire screen, we don't need to discuss that. We certainly don't need enormous articles like this written to correct a problem no one had.
Although overall the spec is really the offender since they never should have called this a pixel.
No one was applying this past that to then come to the claim the pixel size changed at different degrees, which is the implication that the author of this article seems so upset about. Everyone knows the CSS pixel stays the same size across the entire screen, we don't need to discuss that. We certainly don't need enormous articles like this written to correct a problem no one had.
Actually I think this article was (re?)posted in response to another article[1] that made the front page today[2] which did claim that pixels were angular measurements. So certainly some people have had that problem
To be honest, since this article is from January this year and the other is (seemingly) from 2009 I'm not sure why it's come up today, but that's the Internet for you!
Comments
Agreed. Everyone sees the term pixel and thinks it will match a device pixel. This isn't true. The CSS pixel is sized to take up a certain amount of the visual field due to that diagram with a reference screen, distance, and density. The person writing about angular stuff is dead on target explaining to people the difference.
The author of the linked article is just nit picking word choice and confusing the issue. No one was applying this past that to then come to the claim the pixel size changed at different degrees, which is the implication that the author of this article seems so upset about. Everyone knows the CSS pixel stays the same size across the entire screen, we don't need to discuss that. We certainly don't need enormous articles like this written to correct a problem no one had.
Although overall the spec is really the offender since they never should have called this a pixel.
Actually I think this article was (re?)posted in response to another article[1] that made the front page today[2] which did claim that pixels were angular measurements. So certainly some people have had that problem
To be honest, since this article is from January this year and the other is (seemingly) from 2009 I'm not sure why it's come up today, but that's the Internet for you!
[1]: http://inamidst.com/stuff/notes/csspx [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6668395