Terminal emulator for Touch (and Paperwhite?)

[twobob]

Originally Posted by baf

I didn't think about it. Keyboard uses images so it is resolution dependent. I didn't manage to compile matchbox-keyboard with text buttons. Maybe some day I could get rid of external keyboard dependency and improvise real built-in one.

I did some tests. like a 200% 150% size increase should be about right I think.

A batch resize of the images for PW would not be too tough an ask.

[cubemike99]

How have you all managed to change the width of the Tab, Caps Lock, Shifts, Enter, etc so that they're the same width as all the other letters. Is it something to do with the matchbox-keyboard patch? Much appreciated.

[twobob]

Why... what does yours look like?

Is this because you have a paperwhite.... They look small? I'm guessing.

I noted that someone should try reprocessing the png files in the matchbox keyboard resource folder to about 190% 140% or something...

bit more detail on the actual difference would be nice... ; )

[cubemike99]

Haha sorry for the lack of specificity, I assumed everybody's keyboard started out like mine. Yes, I am on a Paperwhite and the letters are next to microscopic. Here's a picture, as screenshots seem not to work in kterm.

In my experimenting, I thought that the letter png's themselves could stay the same and just have the area around them change so that each key is equal, so I tried to go in and edit the widths in keyboard.xml, but that changes didley squat.

http://i.imgur.com/oatycoh.jpg

[knc1]

Yea, mine is the same or much worse - -
And if someone could tell me where the re-direction operators are... ( '<' and '>' )

[twobob]

ermm.. well aside from the fact that they look A LOT like mine

I would go for what I suggested. try blowing one up large

hopefully the truncation effect will be "centralised framing" I havent played since I dont have a PW yet.

Those keys do look a LOT like mine though

(on a touch)

[twobob]

Originally Posted by knc1

Yea, mine is the same or much worse - -
And if someone could tell me where the re-direction operators are... ( '<' and '>' )

Shift + ,

Shift + .

[twobob]

Originally Posted by cubemike99

http://i.imgur.com/oatycoh.jpg

Here's a side by side...

There is some obvious disparity. even in this "thrown together overlay.
Interesting

[twobob]

Okay I think I see what is happening from that.

That letters are smaller, so the TAB, SHIFTS, BACKSPACE etc. become huge.

definately have a play with content size imho. 212 dpi to 167 ratio = eerrrr 130% bigger for a starter? try that

[cubemike99]

Just for kicks I went right to 200%. The img folder can be found here http://ge.tt/4ztEFDY/v/0 if you want to see what it looks like on yours. The letters are certainly more readable, but the spacing is still jacked up. Which makes sense considering the png's are form fitting around the actual character. It really seems like the keyboard.xml is whats controlling the spacing. If that's the case though, why did nothing change when I changed the xml?

[cubemike99]

OK, after further testing it is keyboard.xml that regulates the actual width of the keys, not the pngs of the letters themselves. I have no idea how the on screen widths are decided from those in the file, though, since having a file width of 2000 for both '0' and BACKSPACE does not result in them having the same on screen width.

[knc1]

Originally Posted by cubemike99

OK, after further testing it is keyboard.xml that regulates the actual width of the keys, not the pngs of the letters themselves. I have no idea how the on screen widths are decided from those in the file, though, since having a file width of 2000 for both '0' and BACKSPACE does not result in them having the same on screen width.

Perhaps it is time to read the source code a bit?
Might be quicker than guessing.

[baf]

Originally Posted by cubemike99

OK, after further testing it is keyboard.xml that regulates the actual width of the keys, not the pngs of the letters themselves. I have no idea how the on screen widths are decided from those in the file, though, since having a file width of 2000 for both '0' and BACKSPACE does not result in them having the same on screen width.

Unfortunately it is all messed up on Kindle. I never managed to make it work properly.

[baf]

Originally Posted by cubemike99

I have no idea how the on screen widths are decided from those in the file, though, since having a file width of 2000 for both '0' and BACKSPACE does not result in them having the same on screen width.

It is parameter "fill" which makes backspace expand to all available space.

[wolftail]

Originally Posted by twobob

Here's a side by side...

There is some obvious disparity. even in this "thrown together overlay.
Interesting

You don't need to take photos of the Paperwhite. Tap the upper right corner and the lower left at the same time. The screen flashes and a screenshot saved to the root.