what the smallest consistently readable text size for a url would be (in pixels, not points, at 300 dpi)?
Go to Page...
Discuss the CafePress service and features. Please note: this is not an "official" CafePress sponsored forum, it is a peer to peer community for current and future CafePress members. Visit CafePress.
what the smallest consistently readable text size for a url would be (in pixels, not points, at 300 dpi)?
what the smallest consistently readable text size for a url would be (in pixels, not points, at 300 dpi)?
Can anyone tell me what the smallest consistently readable text size for a url would be (in pixels, not points, at 300 dpi)?
And would a shade lighter or darker than the part of the image or text it's overlaid on still be readable (by shade I mean the 'next' colour up or down in the RGB/CMYK coilor space)?
Re: what the smallest consistently readable text size for a url would be (in pixels, not points, at 300 dpi)?
Just readability :-) If someone peered closely, and it was small, could they read it?
You say create a test in my graphics programme, but as I understand it the printing process doesn't accurately reflect what I'm going to see in my graphics programme.
Re: what the smallest consistently readable text size for a url would be (in pixels, not points, at 300 dpi)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by onthebeach
Just readability :-) If someone peered closely, and it was small, could they read it?
24 pixels.
Quote:
You say create a test in my graphics programme, but as I understand it the printing process doesn't accurately reflect what I'm going to see in my graphics programme.
It will from a shading standpoint. You can get the colors close by printing out a color chart and matching as close as possible the printer colors to the colors you want in your design. Then pick your next color up or down from your computer program.
Re: what the smallest consistently readable text size for a url would be (in pixels, not points, at 300 dpi)?
Somebody correct me if I'm wrong-- trying to understand how you came up with that.
dpi usually refers to printing resolution-- so 300 dpi would be printing 300 dots per inch.
pixels normally refers to screen resoution. So I may be running my screen output at 1280 x 1024 but my screen is say 10 inches tall it would be 1024/10 roughly 100 ppi (or dpi) to make the numbers easy.
Obviously there is a translation from one resolution to the other (screen to print). GIMP (graphic editor) will allow me to specify 300dpi editing and I can measure onscreen sizes (translated). I suppose I can assume 1 pixel == 1 dpi when the graphics program does it for me...
So, taking an educated guess here (at 300dpi),
100 pixels = 1/3"
75 pixels = 1/4"
37 pixels ~= 1/8"
24 pixels ~= 1/12" (pretty darn small no?)
I think I answered my own questions....
On a related note, is it "acceptable" to advertise your site on your own shirts??? I think it would be great to tag your site to your designs but not sure how people will deal with that.
Re: what the smallest consistently readable text size for a url would be (in pixels, not points, at 300 dpi)?
CP prints at 200 dpi apparently, so 24px at 300 dpi is presumably equivalent to 16px at 200 dpi
On dark T-shirts there's also a relatively rough underlay of white which apparently doesn't allow for high resolution printing.
If the text is within the main body of the graphics and surrounded by colour then a misalignment shouldn't have any noticeable effect.
But if the text is on its own away from the main graphics and the operator misaligns the shirt slightly then the white underlay would show and have a much greater effect.
This is why I was trying to find out the smallest practicable size i.e. a size that allows for the rough underlay and possible misalignment by a small margin. I'm guessing there's usually a maximum acceptable misalignment.
Re: what the smallest consistently readable text size for a url would be (in pixels, not points, at 300 dpi)?
On a related note, is it "acceptable" to advertise your site on your own shirts??? I think it would be great to tag your site to your designs but not sure how people will deal with that.
Re: what the smallest consistently readable text size for a url would be (in pixels, not points, at 300 dpi)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrendaR
On a related note, is it "acceptable" to advertise your site on your own shirts??? I think it would be great to tag your site to your designs but not sure how people will deal with that.
Re: what the smallest consistently readable text size for a url would be (in pixels, not points, at 300 dpi)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrendaR
On a related note, is it "acceptable" to advertise your site on your own shirts??? I think it would be great to tag your site to your designs but not sure how people will deal with that.
I wouldn't PAY to advertise for you.
Fair enough. Now, this is a bit off-topic but...
I'm not necessarily arguing with you, but want to add some perspective. There is precedent for this. People buy shirts that are pretty much adverstising for the brand. Look at stuff like TapOut, Quicksilver, Roxy, and a whole host of other "brands". Even Polo and Lacoste have "iconic" icons on their clothing. For that matter, whenever somebody wears a Bud Light or Corona shirt, they're basically advertising (although that's advertising another type of product really). So the question is, when is it the design and when it is just advertising the brand. And which comes first? Does the brand come first, or the design-- (not sure if that makes sense). For example-- TapOut is all about that text/concept and MMA. I haven't seen their early designs, but did they START with designs that had TapOut all over them or did they have other designs?
Hope that makes sense-- this is really more of a marketing/promotion question than anything else.
Re: what the smallest consistently readable text size for a url would be (in pixels, not points, at 300 dpi)?
Hmm-- dunno what happened to my orginal post but let me try again.
Re: advertising on a shirt. Not trolling or trying debate really. But, there's seems to be precedent for this. Some clothing is all about advertising (obviously) -- but many are non clothing type of things (digg.com, bud beer, etc.). Other clothing lines have their brand/logo all over their stuff-- TapOut, Roxy, etc. In this case its different though.
Re: what the smallest consistently readable text size for a url would be (in pixels, not points, at 300 dpi)?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrendaR
On a related note, is it "acceptable" to advertise your site on your own shirts??? I think it would be great to tag your site to your designs but not sure how people will deal with that.
I wouldn't PAY to advertise for you.
Lots of people have advertised their sites on their shirts. Some customers may hate it, others may love it and feel it's part of the brand/designer they are buying from.
It won't work for every company, but it does work for many.
There's been a few threads in the past about branding your designs that get into some good discussions about both sides of the argument. It's probably best to take up the discussion about that topic in a new thread or an existing thread
This is a discussion about what the smallest consistently readable text size for a url would be (in pixels, not points, at 300 dpi)? that was posted in the CafePress section of the forums.
what the smallest consistently readable text size for a url would be (in pixels, not points, at 300 dpi)? 
