Aspect Ratios

Post by hollerith » Fri, Sep 02, 2011, 5:11 PM UTC

wysiwtf wrote: post #8

hollerith wrote: post #7

This is a huge tangent, but I cannot resist asking: which of the mobile OSes is best at allowing the user to customize text size? Suppose for example, the user is old enough to need glasses to read small type, but would prefer not to have to put on his glasses to use his smartphone. Let's leave the mobile browser out of this (because it is more complicated) and focus on apps for calendaring, plain-text email, plain-t…

It would be nice if Apps allowed you to adjust the text size of the entire UI to enlarge it. On a related note iOS has a Zoom feature in the Accessibility options which will make the entire OS larger (you just pan around using three fingers).

Post by kenjackson » Fri, Sep 02, 2011, 5:17 PM UTC

mortenjorck wrote: post #6

peng wrote: post #4

There's not enough emphasis put the fact that designing for one aspect ratio/resolution is much easier on the designer. Not having to debug scaling issues or 1-2px vertical borders saves metric boatloads of development time. There are two main reasons fixed-width layouts are still so popular on the web, even though responsive layouts are well-supported. One, fixed width maps 1:1 to Photoshop. Two, it's simple. And th…

It's also much easier on the user (and in turn, easier on the designer to make it easier on the user). Knowing the exact surface area each control will take up, the exact distance between elements as they will appear in the real world, gives the designer that much greater degree of precision in crafting a human-centered UI.

Post by bruceboughton » Fri, Sep 02, 2011, 5:28 PM UTC

vaporstun wrote: post #9

Another thing which the author seems to leave out is the usability paradigms for different sized screens. As far as Apple goes, with their 2 formats for their mobile devices(x), iPhone and iPad. Things that work on one device wouldn't necessarily work on the other. I can't remember what Gruber said on this subject or if it was Steve Jobs himself, but I think they both said some variation. On the iPhone, it makes sens…

Post by yesimahuman » Fri, Sep 02, 2011, 5:47 PM UTC

Maascamp wrote: post #12

mortenjorck wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also much easier on the user (and in turn, easier on the designer to make it easier on the user). Knowing the exact surface area each control will take up, the exact distance between elements as they will appear in the real world, gives the designer that much greater degree of precision in crafting a human-centered UI.

Please elaborate on how it's easier on the user. I agree it's easier on the designer (though I disagree that that's a good enough reason NOT to use a fluid layout in this day and age), but I fail to see how a design that refuses to conform to my monitor size is any easier for me.

Post by vaporstun » Fri, Sep 02, 2011, 6:00 PM UTC

jleader wrote: post #16

vaporstun wrote: post #9

Another thing which the author seems to leave out is the usability paradigms for different sized screens. As far as Apple goes, with their 2 formats for their mobile devices(x), iPhone and iPad. Things that work on one device wouldn't necessarily work on the other. I can't remember what Gruber said on this subject or if it was Steve Jobs himself, but I think they both said some variation. On the iPhone, it makes sens…

Regarding point x, it's not that screen size is calculated on the diagonal; doubling the diagonal (and keeping the same aspect ratio) doubles the width and height as well. The key is that area is the square of any linear dimension (again, for fixed aspect ratio). If you double the diagonal, you quadruple the area. If you increase the diagonal from 7" to 9.7", you almost double the area (1.92x to be precise).