Thanks Chris. You make the quandary clear, and indeed, I agree - that is just the essence of context - that it changes with what information (filter if you will) one views it with or perceives it through, besides the fact that it [context] is the result of the filter through which meaning is only partially with any semblance of intended succes to be deternined. I also understand that less is more depending on what the context is. This is for me an issue that is different from the font - field issue (of which I must say my eyes have now gotten used to and it is actually quite helpful ...) or the issue of what is presented at the top of a profile.
It is simply the fact that if one looks at an index (LNAB search, sorted on birth) one can also see the exact dates but the exactness of the date of birth (or baptism) is determined by a simple field one ticks off - exact / before this date. I understand that less is more but the choice between the two can also influence the "truth" of a fact by 12 months or more ...
I do not just see this as a problem, only as an issue to be improved on. I'm amazed to see how well WikiTree can at times through algorithms solve genealogical issues that has baffled researchers in the past - I was bad at maths (algebra) at school but got a A in bookkeeping (later in life, at school I found it plain boring), and working on this huge DCC project I have seen how accurate profiles and data can be collated through even the unwanted duplication through GEDCOM - it gives a thrill when "things" just balance out .... In this bigger picture of succes small details such as a first name field containing more that one name and this particular issue of exactness of dates can determine how accurate a search (for duplicates) go, the spelling and phonetics aside.
All in all I understand we are still a work - a succes story - in progress ...