Pixels. The more the better. Really.

I hate to be seen as overly critical, but, in the same way you'd want to get a doctor who didn't know the difference between a suppository and a syringe struck off the medical register, you have to wonder about anyone who doesn't understand even the basics about pixels.

I read a review this morning about a new netbook computer. Unlike the hundreds of identikit devices that have exploded onto the scene like a rash, this one had a feature that made it stand out: a 1366 x 768 screen, instead of the usual, meagre, 1024 x 600; this latter resolution being just wide enough for the majority of web pages to be displayed without sideways scrolling, but still an annoying paucity short of a full screen for most people.

The reviewer's take on this improved resolution was that it would make the text harder to read.

That's a bit like winning the lottery and complaining you've got to spend some of the money on a safe.

And anyway, does it make the text harder to read? Possibly, if you've got marginal eyesight, because it will be slightly smaller. But you can use that resolution to either fit more text on the screen, or, if your astigmatism completely defeats you below a certain distance and text size, you can make the text bigger.

And when you do, it will look better as well, because you've got more pixels to accurately describe each character in a given font.

This type of misunderstanding is endemic in the digital signage industry. It's the biggest reason why some displays lose impact: because they're fuzzy. Even with digital interfaces almost universally available now, if you don't prepare your graphics at the native resolution of the screen, and - even if you do - if your screen isn't set to its native resolution, then the results will be dismal.

On the other hand, when you get it right, graphics look crisp and vibrant, even on cheaper displays.

Understanding resolutions in digital signage should be as fundamental as understanding hygiene in surgery.