Hello
You can use large fonts in settings advanced of the Display Properties, you can also access large fonts in in the appearance tab.
You might find changing to Large Fonts in settings will make some dialogues unreadable. I have complained about this for years, without result
Mike Engles
Oliver,
Like Mike states,
Look in the Photoshop CS4 preferences -interface section. There you will see the section relating to the UI TEXT OPTION…select a Font size ( small, medium, large ) close down CS4 and reopen it……Better?
…or you could run the monitor at a lower resolution….but obviously you will loose that lovely desktop real estate.
Also, how big are your images? do monitors ever match print sizes?
..or you could run the monitor at a lower resolution
Horrible idea with an LCD, IMO. These panels only look good at their native resolution.
Bob
Yeah I know Bob!!, But if Oliver cannot see the icons properly at 2560×1600 it may be an option for him, albeit, not highest quality – although some new lcd’s can scale quite well…..I should add that font size and UI look just right on my 30inch monitor at the same resolution – This, for me, makes cs4 look awesome….but that’s just me.
Thank you all for the suggestions. I did, however, set the fonts to ‘large’ when I started the process. (Why only three font sizes? Why not e.g. Windows default, or elective fonts? Because the various panels are firm coded is why. And why did Adobe elect to use gray on gray for their submenus? It’s truly very old fashioned programming practice. )
I currently run at 1900 x 1200 in order to be able to see the UI at all, which is a waste of potential, to put it politely. There is clearly degradation of screen quality that resuts from this. In native high resolution, the result is jewel-like – seeing almost all of photograph or map at ‘actual pixels’ in gliding pan mode on a 30" screen is very remarkable. If you set up to do that, however, you cannot easily tell one tool from another – to which experienced users will say: "so use the keyboard" – or, more to the point, interact with e.g. layers with any hope of precision, speed or effortlessness. I guess I will have to buy a magnifying glass, or use Windows accessibility to bring up the screen one! It truly is a loss of potential, and one which Adobe of all companies should have anticipated.
There does seem to be a trend – as with the unspeakable Office 2007 – of companies pasting tonka-toy UI chrome over their software in order to arrive at a quick affect. In the MS case, the result puts all the bloatware up front. In CS4, it merely pastes a fossil crust over the face of familiar software.
Just go into window color and appearance and change the color to frost and that will hide the "chrome" outer band. The tonka trucks I grew up with didn’t have chrome. They were real metal bodies with real paint on them that rusted when left out in the rain…lol
I started this by saying that through an oddity of this forum software, my original thread had vanished from the list. Exactly the same thing happened to this one, which i had to find through searching the forum list. The previous one vanished completely. One appears to get a different list if one comes in via a direct URL or via support > Forums > windows: an .asp error, presumably, but Adobe please note.
Someone asked why use a high res screen. If you work on a large image, you either operate at the pixel level – a plate on a table top if you are at 1020 x 768 and working with a 20 megapixel image – or you shrink the thing down to fit. In the latter case, each pixel that you see is, depending on the native image size, an average of a large number of adjacent pixels. In the case of a 24Meg image and the above screen size, each visible pixel is an average (or however Adobe calculate it) of a bit over 20 pixels from the native image. If you look at 2560 x 1600 you are still seeing a composite, but of a quarter fewer source pixels per point. If you look at the natve image as ‘actual pixels’, the ‘dinner plate’ is four time bigger in proportion to that of the SVGA image.
That said, imagine the layers pallet in which one layer has, let’s say, a football set against an group of players , P/shop users will expect to see a black blob representing its position in the layer. At high resolution, however, the blob is represented on the screen by a patch that is smaller than a full stop on a page of type, and essentially invisible from 150 cm from the screen. Thus: squint, lean forward, mutter angily.
Why can one not set the cons and the ephemeral facilities such as the layers pallet to be any size you want? It is really very silly.
I’m waiting for Apple to get all the bugs worked out and finally start integrating vector-rendered UI elements into OS X as has been rumored for awhile. Then, of course, we’ll have to wait for the applications to adopt this new standard. And if history is any indicator (and I don’t mean this as a dig, necessarily) and then probably, an OS version after that for Microsoft will do it too. It just makes a lot of sense.
And if history is any indicator (and I don’t mean this as a dig, necessarily) and then probably, an OS version after that for Microsoft will do it too.
It seems that Microsoft has been ahead of Apple with XAML/Windows Presentation Foundation <
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Presentation_Foundation>.
In terms of standards, it is more likely that Adobe will roll its own vector-based UI before anything becomes a thorough standard on the platform level. There was already discussion of Adobe dancing with SWF rendered interface elements <
http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2008/05/dr_woohoo_the_f.html>.
I don’t care who gets there first, or how they do it, just so they do it, and it works well. Vector-rerendering on-the-fly of OS- and app-level widgets would just be soooo nice. Once one platform gets it we all will.
We already do. Vector UI rendering is already possible on the major platforms. The problem is with a standard system that Adobe can use to develop on two platforms. The ball is in Adobe’s court to decide which way to go.
Vector UI is not necessarily the answer. Developers have long had the ability to make applications aware of the pixel pitch and to adjust accordingly. A bug report/feature request on adobe.com would be ideal to let Adobe know how many wish for this to improve.
But I’m also talking about a complete refitting of OS-level stuff.
I’ve read a bit of Apple’s patent applications and some of their public-consumption white papers on it. It’s in the channel…
Once they get to that level EVERYTHING will be cleanly resizable to suit anyone’s eyesight and monitor resolution.
What about your vanishing posts? To me they always appeared in the list.
Not really important to reply to that, but you said it twice now, and I can’t resist to comment because I wonder why I can see your posts, while you can’t
Rob
Following Rob Keijer, I had to refind this through Forum Search. I get an unstructured and dateless column of forums, with neither of those that i started on the list. Oh well…
My take from all that has been said is that there is no way of adapting CS4 to anything but native SVGA resolution, which is a poor show. By contrast, for example, Open Office is freely scalable at whatever resolution you want, and that has no pretentions to being a graphics program. One is therefore reduced to scratching around amongst gray on gray bird seed – try manipulating paths at high resolution! – until the package crashes once again. I have to say that this is the least stable release of a major piece of software since ,,,, I don’t know, Windows 3?
Moral: we shall not be upgrading, and will advise clients the same. Reasons: instability, no real added value, no attempt to adress the things that have been annoying people for a decade, such as the fixed tool box, or the path handles, as fiddly and silly an approach to vector graphics as any on the planet. The new selection tool is nice, the free running pan can be useful but we haven’t found anything resoundingly attractive.
Oliver,
When you do a "search" on your name, with the "all forums option selected", you show up a lot of times. Even your other post that you say is missing is there.
Your use of CS4 and responses seem to start on November 17 2008 to "CS4 bugs brush curser display incomplete October 15, 2008 (post 62 of 137). So your responses can be found all over the forums if you select the all forums option. Just type in Oliver H and you will see.
