(Mac <--> Win) Layout differences, why?

[skrying]

We have a couple people developing on Macs, and a few on Windows. If we change the layouts on one platform, they end up looking different on the other. (I haven't seen this myself, yet... new to the project) Is this a common problem? I suggested it was maybe a fonts issue, but was told, "its not that things get nudged out of place by a few pixels, but they'll be totally off in a different position."

Any help on this issue?

[stanley]

Skrying:

There are a number of interesting font issues when going cross-platform, but before you begin to pull your hair out, make sure that all of your users are on the latest version - you indicate FMP7, and the latest update would be 7.0v3, which addressed a number of layout issues.

You will always have inconsistencies between Mac & Windows, but they should be manageable inconsistencies, restricted to subtle shifts of location, size and spacing. One way to minimize these issues is to use fonts which are definitely available and present on both platforms - Helvetica, Arial, Courier, etc.

You end up sacrificing a certain sophistication, but if you're going to be working cross-platform, it's worth it.

To summarize - check what versions the developers are using, and check what specific fonts they are employing.

-Stanley

[skrying]

I'm not sure I understand...

I mean, if I open a Photoshop file on a Mac or on Windows it shows the exact same thing, for any file, every single time.

So why does FileMaker have issues?

[mr_vodka]

I think Stanley was simply pointing out that some some native fonts that are available on a mac, do not exist on windows natively, so they are matched with the closest font that matches it. They can look different on different systems.

Maybe with Photoshop, since its a graphical program it can maintain its integrity cross-platform.

[comment]

if I open a Photoshop file on a Mac or on Windows it shows the exact same thing, for any file, every single time.

Yes and no. When you use a text layer, Photoshop keeps the rendered bitmap in addition to the text, font, size, etc. information. When you open the file on another computer, it is displayed using the rendered bitmap. But if you try to edit the text, and Photoshop cannot find the original font, you will get a warning that it will no longer look the same.

[stanley]

A Photoshop file is a rasterized bitmap, meaning that it is just a simple arrangement of colored pixels (the above note about text layers notwithstanding). Such a file will look the same in any format, on any computer.

Most other types of files - HTML, .txt, .fp7, you name it, are dependent on the operating system & application to talk to one-another in the process of displaying the data. You encounter all sorts of variations in that process, especially in the form of fonts and colors. Windows machines come with certain fonts, and applications load still more fonts in. Macs come with different fonts, for the most part, and the same holds true for applications loading more fonts in. So, not only do you have different fonts, but they have a tendency to display differently anyway. Take a close look at Helvetica on a Mac, and the same thing on Windows, and you'll see that they do not display identically. Then, if you add in the variations of font families - I might have ITC Helvetica, you might have Linotype Helvetica, and yours might be a TrueType font, while mine might be a PostScript font.

So, you see, it's not a FileMaker issue, it's an issue that comes up with most every application. I had a document that I sent to someone which had been prepared in Adobe Garamond, and looked beautiful. The person who received it had Apple Garamond on his machine and it looked awful, as the word-processing application (Word) substitued the next-closest font. It's just part of the wonderful world of cross-platform dynamics.

-Stanley

[skrying]

Yes, I understand all about fonts. That's not the issue (so I am told).

The problem is this: if I add a portal to a layout from my Mac, and this portal is 20 pixels from the left and 20 pixels from the top - why is it not 20 pixels from the left and 20 pixels from the top when viewing the same layout under Windows?

What I am being told is that such things are occurring in our database.

I guess what I am asking exactly is this: is it true that there are non-font related layout inconsistencies when moving Mac -> Win & vice versa? Or are my colleagues mistaken? And if these inconsistencies occur, why? If I place an image at a certain spot in a Photoshop file it views the same on either platform; I'm being told this isn't true with FileMaker.

[stanley]

Skrying:

FileMaker layouts are not pixel-based. If you are looking at a layout on a Mac, something that's 1/2 inch down on a layout is 36 pixels down, at 72dpi. On Windows you might be looking at 96dpi, in which case your layout element is 48 pixels down - off by 12 pixels. However, the layout element is still 1/2 inch down. It's just one of the problems with cross-platform layouts.

-Stanley

[skrying]

So layouts aren't pixel based. Ok... that helps. Thanks.

[comment]

layouts aren't pixel based

I am not sure about that.

I believe a layout element that is positioned 20px from the left and 20px from the top, will keep this same position on any screen, on any platform. The physical interpretation of the distance is a function of the screen's resolution, but any changes should be proportional - IOW, the entire layout may shrink or expand, but the internal proportions should be preserved.

[coolcat]

Skrying:

One way to minimize these issues is to use fonts which are definitely available and present on both platforms - Helvetica, Arial, Courier, etc.

-Stanley

Q: Is there list somewhere of the cross platform fonts for Mac and Windows?

[stanley]

Coolcat:

I don't know if there is a solid list. I'd start with the three I mentioned. Actually, you may want to put up a new post with that question - it would be interesting to see what the consensus is among the old hands.

-Stanley

[Fenton]

I'd add Verdana to the list. Everyone seems to have it, and it looks much the same across platforms. Verdana 10 plain is my standard.

[LaRetta]

I also use Verdana. When I open a file created on Mac, I notice one thing right away ... the fields are too thin for the text, ie, I need to increase height be 3 px or so to read the letters or all hanging letters are chopped off. So if you design on Mac for Windows viewing, give your fields extra room. If it is a sentence, it is even more dramatic and sometimes the entire bottom line of words only displays HALF of the last line. :wink2:

Edited November 6, 2005 by Guest

[KevinRan]

As far as cross platform fonts are concerned, use Open Type Fonts. It's a relatively new format and is created to be used cross platform.

-Kevin

[stanley]

Kevin:

OpenType has actually been around for quite some time now, and many of us are probably using it without realizing it. To my knowledge it hasn't changed the fact that Windows and MacOS display fonts differently, resulting in the situation we still face regarding cross-platform viewability. I say this because it seems to me that you get these problems even if you use the exact same font on each platform.

-Stanley

[CyborgSam]

Windows' typography engine is not as advanced as the Mac's (I'm being kind...). The differences are from (IMHO) the inaccurate rendering and poor font-smoothing in Windows. Identical OpenType fonts will appear differently between Mac & Windows. Adobe Photoshop has its own typography engine, small font sizes can be poorly rendered (on a Mac, never tried it on a PC).

I think Windows gets in trouble because the display is treated as a variable resolution device (how many dots-per-inch). This makes rendering and smoothing algorithms more complex, so accuracy and smoothness are sacrificed for speed. Macs have stuck by their 72dpi display resolution in spite of the fact that most displays today have at least 96dpi. In the Mac Plus days, displays were adjusted using an actual rular held to the screen, so 72 dots were exactly an inch.

Considering how much fun this is, why would anyone want more stringent standards? :