Ars Dissects Android's Problems With Big Screens -- Including In Lollipop 103
When it comes to tablets, Google
doesn't even follow its own design guidelines." That's the upshot of Ars Technica writer Andew Cunningham's detailed, illustrated look at how Android handles screens much larger than seven inches, going back to the first large Android tablets a few years ago, but including Android 5.0 (Lollipop) on the Nexus 10 and similar sized devices. Cunningham is unimpressed with the use of space for both practical and aesthetic reasons, and says that problems crop up areas that are purely under Google's control, like control panels and default apps, as well as (more understandably) in third party apps.
The Nexus 10 took 10-inch tablets back to the "blown-up phone" version of the UI, where buttons and other UI stuff was all put in the center of the screen. This makes using a 10-inch tablet the same as using a 7-inch tablet or a phone, which is good for consistency, but in retrospect it was a big step backward for widescreen tablets. The old interface put everything at the edges of the screen where your thumbs could easily reach them. The new one often requires the pointer finger of one of your hands or some serious thumb-stretching. ... If anything, Lollipop takes another step backward here. You used to be able to swipe down on the left side of the screen to see your notifications and the right side of the screen to see the Quick Settings, and now those two menus have been unified and placed right in the center of the screen. The Nexus 10 is the most comfortable to use if it's lying flat on a table or stand and Lollipop does nothing to help you out there.
Optimization lets the user perform more actions (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Optimizing increases the number of actions that a user performs, which increases how much data the user provides. So why would there be zero reason to spend money on optimizing?
You're implicitly accepting the GP's claim, that Android exists to spy on you. That's bullshit. Google's apps sync your data to Google, if you use them, but the OS itself doesn't.
If you have some evidence to the contrary, please enlighten us.
Not only that, your assertion that increasing the number of user actions increases the data the user provides is ludicrous. If the new version requires more taps or swipes to do the same thing, but you're still doing the same thing, how does that provide more data ab
Re: (Score:2)
Google's apps sync your data to Google, if you use them, but the OS itself doesn't.
The OS encourages you to use Google's apps by treating Google Play Store as the only "known source". If you want to use a different repository, such as Amazon Appstore or F-Droid, you have to completely "allow installation of applications from unknown sources". This is better than Apple's policy, but it'd be better if you could add Amazon or F-Droid as a "known source" the way you can with PPAs on Ubuntu.
Not only that, your assertion that increasing the number of user actions increases the data the user provides is ludicrous. If the new version requires more taps or swipes to do the same thing, but you're still doing the same thing, how does that provide more data about the user?
I didn't mean to require "more [gestures] to do the same thing". I meant reducing how long each action t
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Google only cares about collecting data.
They care about staying in business.
Google bought Android because Microsoft had vowed to"f***ing kill Google", and Apple's direction with iGadgets were an existential threat to their business. If they hadn't stepped in with an alternative platform, they could have been a search engine without a platform to run on.
Make no mistake, without Android, Google would have been at Microsoft's mercy, and we all know the quality of that strained commodity.
Re: (Score:1)
Ironically, Google makes more money on iOS than on Android. And MSFT makes more money on Android than Google.
Maybe Google should have just stuck with being a software dev.
Re: (Score:2)
Please name 3 things of software Google has developed.
(Hint: The original Google search is the only thing they actually developed in-house - everything else was an acquisition.)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
4 of those things were developed from shit they purchased.
All you have to do is Google it.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would do that? I never claimed 27 people would be infected.
Quote my original post and the post I was responding to, then try again.
Re: (Score:1)
> Google only cares about collecting data. As long as the data collection is working efficiently and stealthy enough, the OS is good enough for them.
If the OS wasn't good enough for the customers needs then they would not buy the devices. Thus Google _does_ care about the OS quality otherwise there would be no users (or fewer) and thus data collection would be less efficient.
Of course it is not the OS that is 'collecting data' it is the apps doing that. If you don't like TV having ads then don't watch co
Seems obvious (Score:2)
Google is following Apple and Microsoft and moving away from widescreen tablets. Good riddance, I say; 4:3 or 3:2 is much better for showing a 'page' of information.
That said, I don't begrudge widescreen (tallscreen?) phones, since they have to be narrow enough to fit in your pocket, nor large widescreen monitors, since they can show multiple 'pages' at once. In the 7-13" range, though, widescreens tend to be too much for one 'page' of content but not enough for two, and not nearly tall enough either. Blech
Re: (Score:3)
I begrudge widescreen monitors because they're not widescreen, they're shortscreen. A 4:3 of the same diagonal will give you more usable space and more efficiently use your visual field than a 16:9 or 16:10.
Re:Seems obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Widescreen monitors also have a unique benefit for coding if they can tilt portrait, you can fit a lot more code on a tall screen than you can on a wide one or square one.
Re:Seems obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
If only someone could invent a file format that separates content from presentation, then you wouldn't have to care what screen ratio users had...
Re:Seems obvious (Score:5, Funny)
There are people called graphic designers, for whom you comment is incomprehensible.
`display: none` wastes bandwidth (Score:2)
If you're trying to sarcastically recommend CSS, I've explained before why CSS isn't enough. You often want different amounts of content for different screen sizes, with more information per page on a 960px to 1920px wide desktop than on a 320px* wide phone. Downloading it anyway and hiding it with CSS display: none wastes last mile bandwidth, especially on cellular ISPs whose users are still billed by the MB.
* 1px in CSS means 1/2688 of the viewing distance. High density displays, such as Retina brand,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
HTML layout suuuucks for multiple column layout. The best you could get is either to hand-build a multi-column layout, which isn't going to play nice with content management systems and responsive designs; or use a Masonry layout script, which gives you no control over where anything is actually laid out. The holy grail would be something which lays out content similar to the way newspapers do, but that doesn't exist, so instead we get single-column lists because that's what works on screens.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Seems obvious (Score:4, Insightful)
I broke myself of the habit of running many of my desktop applications fullscreen, especially web viewing, since it's pointless. It's frustrating, but it's really web developers fault for insisting on presenting information in a narrow column format. Fixed or maximum width pages drive me bonkers. To this day, most (all?) standard WordPress layouts, for instance, have a maximum width far short of a standard monitor width Why, for heaven's sake? HTML is infinitely malleable in it's native form.
The move to widescreen is certainly a nod to entertainment software, since it's much more suited to playing movies / TV shows and playing videogames in that wide view. It's also really useful in the rarer types of software that edit data in horizontal tracks, such as music sequencers or video editors.
Unfortunately, it's far less useful to those working primarily with text or other largely vertically oriented documents (like programmers). I suspect that's actually *most* computer users, especially business users. However, I also suspect that since resolutions have largely reached a "good enough" state, not a lot of people complain too much about wasted horizontal space in most of their day-to-day tasks. Instead, like me, they probably just use the space to shuffle other windows around.
If you do nothing but write code or work on other vertical documents, then of course you can always tilt that widescreen 90 degrees and get a massive amount of vertical space. Most people don't do this because they still on occasion make use of that widescreen aspect, playing the occasional video or videogame which sort of demands a horizontal aspect ratio.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Seems obvious (Score:4, Informative)
That's why you go multi-monitor. I have a horizontal (cheap LED-LCD) screen for videos and entertainment, and a vertical screen (more expensive IPS) for getting real work done.
Use Snap for two 960px wide windows (Score:2)
it's really web developers fault for insisting on presenting information in a narrow column format. Fixed or maximum width pages drive me bonkers. To this day, most (all?) standard WordPress layouts, for instance, have a maximum width far short of a standard monitor width Why, for heaven's sake? HTML is infinitely malleable in it's native form.
Studies show that lines of text longer than about 80 characters are hard to read, as the eye ends up skipping or rereading a line. And you still end up leaving the same amount of space between paragraphs.
Unfortunately, it's far less useful to those working primarily with text or other largely vertically oriented documents (like programmers).
Do you use Windows 7, 8, or 8.1? Try pressing Win+Left Arrow or Win+Right Arrow to snap your browser or word processor to half the width of your 1080p or 1200p monitor. Good window managers for X11 should have a similar tiling feature.
Re: (Score:3)
Widescreen monitors start to make sense once you cross a certain resolution threshold. A 1920x1200 or 2560x1440 monitor is brilliant for showing 2 or 3 pages at once side by side. I can comfortably fit two full-sized A4 pages on my monitor, with plenty of room to spare for toolbars etc., or have a web browser on one side of the screen while a full-size 720p video plays on the other.
As resolution increases, aspect ratio becomes less relevant.
Re: (Score:2)
By the time your shortscreen monitor gets to 1920x1200 my 4:3 will be at 2048x1536 and displaying pages very comfortably side by side WITHOUT needing me to constantly scroll for want of vertical space.
Re: (Score:2)
I never needed to scroll "for want of vertical space" on my 1920x1200 monitor, and I certainly don't need to on my current 2560x1440 monitor. I rarely even maximize windows vertically anymore, it simply isn't necessary.
Like I said: More than enough space for two full-size A4 pages with plenty of room to spare. Or for that matter a comfortably-sized browser window alongside two full-size 720p videos at once, if you're into that kind of thing. 2560x1440 will do a 4x720p video wall with no scaling, which can b
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that I'm STILL getting less screen space and lower resolutions overall than if I'd had a 4:3.
Re: (Score:2)
You're arguing that you get less screen area for the same diagonal size, but while that's obviously true, it's a useless metric. It's like buying lightbulbs by wattage, when you should be buying them by lumens, color rendering index and color temperature.
Who cares that you have to get a 24" widescreen (1920x1200) to get the same vertical resolution as a 20" tallscreen (1600x1200)? You're still getting the vertical resolution you wanted, but with more space on the side, plus the 24" monitor is going to be si
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there may be good news for you: http://www.anandtech.com/show/... [anandtech.com]
A 26.5" tallscreen 1920x1920 monitor sounds like just what you're wishing for :-)
Re: Seems obvious (Score:1)
I could not disagree more. Especially for a tablet where a main use is media consumption. I hate watching movies on my families iPad due to black bars. I revert to an older android tablet for movies because 4:3 stinks for them. I would add that 4:3 works ok for a single page of text, but 16:10 works well for two pages side by side. The only minor thing 4:3 works better for is holding in portrait mode, but I don't find myself holding a tablet like that often.
Re: (Score:3)
I prefer 4:3 over 16:10 for everything but video. It's simply better all the way around. I've tried 16:10 android tablets before and I can't fucking stand them.
Re: Seems obvious (Score:4, Informative)
So much content is optimized for widescreen these days and I hope Apple's next iPads finally makes move to 16:10(9)... I really don't want to support 4:3 anymore for any of my development work -- call me selfish.
Re:Seems obvious (Score:5, Interesting)
Most people who think this forget about margins and compare to the entire page size. 4:3 is actually the worst aspect ratio. The aspect ratio of a tablet only refers to the screen size. Your tablet already has bezels which act an awful lot like margins. Why do you want to waste valuable screen space on displaying blank margins?
.75" and .875" on the sides (larger margin for the center gutter), .75" and .5" for the top and bottom (larger margin for the page number). That leaves a printed area of 4.375" x 7.75", which is a 1.77 aspect ratio. Almost exactly 16:9 (1.78). If you go with smaller .5" and .75" margins on the sides, .5" and .5" margins on top and bottom, you get a 1.68 aspect ratio - between 16:10 and 16:9.
A trade paperback is typically 6"x9". Margins are asymmetrical, typically
For a regular paperback that's 5"x8", these margins give a 2.0 and 1.87 aspect ratio respectively. For a pocket paperback (4.18"x6.88"), the aspect ratios are 2.2 and 2.0. So for something the size of a phablet or 7" tablet, 16:9 is pretty close to ideal.
"But what about 10" tablets?" The printed area of an A4-sized sheet of paper with 25 cm margins is 1.54:1. Right in between 3:2 and 16:10. A letter-sized sheet of paper with 1 inch margins is 1.38, right between 3:2 and 4:3. However, if you look at anything published on A4-sized or letter-sized paper, the text is nearly always arranged in two columns. So 4:3 and even 3:2 is really too wide for displaying scrollable text. That's why nearly all websites have switched to a format with menus on the left, a narrow column of text, and misc links on the right. The main reason a "page" is this wide is so you can include wider pictures which span both columns. This becomes unnecessary when you can zoom into the picture like on a tablet, or rotate it to landscape mode and have the picture automatically flip to fill the longer width of the screen.
(Also note that the printed area of A4 and letter size paper is actually between 11"-13". Tablets are only 10" because of cost and weight. Assuming the publishing industry knew what they were doing if after centuries of printing they standardized on A4 and letter sizes, 10" tablets are eventually going to be phased out for 11", 12", and even 13" models as technology improves and they become lighter and cheaper.)
Timely (Score:2)
It's certainly timely, now that Google has retired the Nexus 10, and introduced a smaller model.
This pointless review completely misses the point that most people use a tablet to surf, watch video, look at photos and play games. I don't care how the screen is used in Hangouts and Facebook.
Re: (Score:1)
It is pointing out ways the continuing trend of putting the I before U in UI is harming the UX. There are too many 'artists' or stupid people working in UI. Whatever happened to real UI principles? I wasn't around in the early days of computing. Were the UIs so annoying back then too? At least that era seemed to have lots dedicated UI research into making things better compared to making things simple. Simple isn't always better!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever happened to real UI principles?
They moved to Windows 8/8.1, and 10.
The desktop interface works. The "Modern" (formerly "Metro") interface works for small screens and small minds.
Windows handles both rather well. If Windows 10 phones grant me a full desktop (I buy phones with 5-6" screens) with full admin privileges (by default or by hacking), I'm ditching Android.
Re:Timely (Score:4, Interesting)
It is pointing out ways the continuing trend of putting the I before U in UI is harming the UX. There are too many 'artists' or stupid people working in UI. Whatever happened to real UI principles? I wasn't around in the early days of computing. Were the UIs so annoying back then too? At least that era seemed to have lots dedicated UI research into making things better compared to making things simple. Simple isn't always better!
In short, computers were too rare and expensive to be play toys. They were designed to be professional's tools for work and study and the occasional nerd taking an interest in tinkering with them and large enough you expected people working at a desk. You expected a certain learning curve and the UI was designed to bring you up to a professional level. Here in Norway today the majority of 9 year olds have a smart phone and a tablet. In fact tablets have gotten a serious market share among children that haven't even started school yet because of the touch interface. It might be a simple interface, but they have years of experience using it and getting used to the quirks and honestly outside of button mashers and FPS games it's not really my mad keyboard and mouse skillz slowing me down. The important part is still knowing how to use it.
Professional tools haven't really changed much, if you want to run Photoshop or Maya they'll still give you an overwhelming amount of options and they expect that if you spend that kind of money you'll also invest the time to use it well. The difference is that you have a whole different and huge class of users that aren't really looking for much bigger complexity than Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. That is the mass market and that is where most are looking to make money. If you're selling $1-5 apps then that's also reflected in the time people are willing to spend learning it, if they haven't gotten the hang of it in less than ten minutes - sometimes I'd give them two - I expect you've lost 90% of your audience. What's at the top of the learning curve doesn't matter if people drop out before they ever get there.
Re: (Score:2)
while he is right... (Score:1)
it's still better than Windows 8. :)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Android doesn't come with a terminal emulator. The command line is there.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not 'worse in every way'. It's great for what it is designed for (tablet) and Windows 8 is great for what it's designed for (desktop)
Which is why I have a desktop for work where I sit down and work for long periods, and a tablet for reading, watching movies, playing short games, and taking notes in meetings. It's handwriting recognition is pretty good, it's not perfect but usually I just go back afterward and correct any spelling issues.
My Samsung Note III does have multiple windows as the default, and
Re: (Score:2)
ASUS Transformer Book (Score:2)
I think the major problem for MS right now is that Surface Pro is just really expensive. The starting price is quite high. I think next iteration, they should offer a model with an Atom/Baytrail processor (or whatever the current low power x86 option is) without a digitizer and include the keyboard by default, to bring the price down to what more people are willing to pay for a laptop. If they can get it around $400-$500, then I think a lot of people would opt for it over a more traditional laptop, and they wouldn't need to buy a tablet.
What you want is called a Transformer Book by ASUS.
What is a tablet? (Score:2, Interesting)
This article relates to something I've been bitching about since the earliest days of tablets: The insistence by Google and many app developers on treating a tablet like a giant phone instead of like a keyboard- and mouse-less computer. Crappy file managers and task management, lousy use of screen space, etc. all add up to an Android tablet being little more than an electronic teat you can use to get content fed into your eyeballs and ears and not something you can do real work (i.e. content creation) with
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. On the small end of the scale you have phone-type devices which need one type of UI. On the large end you have desktop computers, which need a different type of UI. And somewhere between the 7" and 10" screen size, you have the line where you need to stop treating the device as a large phone and start treating it as a small desktop display. I put 10" on the desktop-display side of the line because small notebook computers use the just-barely-larger 11" screen with a desktop UI with no problems.
As f
Re: (Score:2)
Just because someone wants to be able to write programs or run excel spreadsheets or write their term paper on a tablet, doesn't mean it's a good form factor for that.
The more I use my tablet, the more I appreciate my desktop for what it is, a place to comfortable sit and work for long periods. The few times I've tried to use either my tablet or my wife's laptop for work, the more I don't bother anymore and go sit at my desktop. It's just far more comfortable for that type of work. I have dual monitors and
Re: (Score:2)
The more I use my tablet, the more I appreciate my desktop for what it is, a place to comfortable sit and work for long periods.
I agree. But sometimes you need a machine on which to do some measure of work to pass the time while riding public transit.
Is anyone surprised? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just look at how google has consistently fucked up UIs by removing functionality and making things more difficult and less efficient in the name of "design" in their other products. The only good thing I can say is that they're not alone, this is a pretty universal trend of idiocy.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, this is where we geeks tend to get it wrong. For the large majority, less *is* more.
Every feature that's added to the interface adds cognitive load to *every* user, not just the one's using the feature.
Ignoring UI elements that you don't use is not free!
It's why most general-purpose commercially successful design teams have a "every potentially new feature starts at -100 points and only gets added if it gets *significantly* above 0" philosophy.
The kitchen sink approach suits us well, but unless y
How does "too bad" benefit people? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Simple enough. Assume 100 people are using the software, and they get utility '100' out of it. We consider adding a feature that makes the software 20% more useful for 3 people out of that 100.
Unfortunately, the existence of that feature means that there's a new menu item that 99 people have to ignore or a widget that can confuse them when they accidentally touch it or more hardware that can break (even if you don't use it) and more places for security problems to hide, etc.
All in all, the new feature mak
Zero without it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> How does the math change if the utility for those 3 people is 100 with the feature or 0 (because they'd switch to something else) without it?
Exactly the same. It does make it more attractive to implement (+100 utility for a fair number of people), but a lot of the make-or-break features tend to be ones with substantially greater costs to the non-using public. For example, flash card slots. Absolutely essential for a some segment, but actually somewhat intrusive for those who don't. (I'd guess that
Re:Is anyone surprised? (Score:4, Insightful)
Mod this guy up, he's bang on. /annoying as fuck/ for the users who don't know what the buttons do, I thank the fucking gods I don't work on technical support anymore, I would be 19'th level, earth destroying ropable if I had to guide users to textless icons for fucks sake.
New google maps, less features than existing google maps
Newer gmail - instead of a single, priority inbox, regular mailbox division ON A SINGLE PAGE, let's make the user check multiple tabs.
Android phone, change the menu button to a soft roaming button, could move anywhere on the screen, no longer in a consistent location
Android / other google products, stop labelling icons and make them textless, sure it saves you fucking translation time but it's
Paying UI guys for the sake of paying UI guys.
Re: (Score:2)
This and mobile versions of websites still loading despite requesting the more functional desktop version.
(I'm looking at you Slashdot.org)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget the newer versions aren't just less functional, they're also larger, slower, and take up more space to do less.
I don't see it (Score:4, Informative)
I have a Nexus 10 with Lollipop on it and I really don't see the complaint, at least not the one mentioned in the summary.
Yes, the two swipe-down menus have been unified... but you can still swipe down from the edges to get at it, and in fact you get all of the functionality that used to be in the left and right side swipes from either side now, which means you can get to all of it even if you don't have a hand on each side. Or you can swipe down from the middle. After the unified menu comes up you have to reach over to it with your thumbs to operate the controls and I suppose if you have very small hands that could be an issue. I just asked my wife to try it (she has small hands) and she can reach everything with a thumb while holding it two-handed. She does have to move the thumb hand, but it's a pretty natural motion that doesn't require letting go of the device.
I'm not saying there isn't substance to the complaint, just that the example quoted in the summary isn't really an issue.
Note that getting to the full quick settings UI requires swiping down twice; the first swipe gets you notifications, the second one adds the quick settings. Alternatively, you can do a two-finger swipe down and you get straight to the quick settings. I can't reliably do that with two thumbs (too hard to synchronize the swipes), so that method really does require fingers. But two quick swipes work fine.
On a related note, I like that it works exactly the same from the pre-lockscreen (pops up when you press the power button to turn on the display). The pre-lockscreen shows notifications (whether sensitive notifications can be seen on a locked device is configurable), as though you'd swiped down once, then another down swipe brings up the quick controls, without unlocking. I especially like this when I'm reaching for the flashlight on my phone; no need to unlock, just hit the power button to wake up the screen, then swipe, tap and there's light.
(Disclaimer: I'm an Android engineer at Google, though I work on the low-level security subsystems, not on UI, and have no problems criticizing changes I don't like. I have found very little in Lollipop that I don't like, however, and a lot that I really do like. My only significant complaint so far is the fact that the encryption by default means that when the device boots it can't read any of the storage until you enter your password to unlock it... including any alarms you have set. This means that if your phone/tablet randomly reboots during the night (rare, but it does happen), then your alarm won't go off. This hasn't bitten me, and I doubt it will, but it's not good. On the UI, though... when I go back to a device with KitKat it just feels clunky. Wow, this turned into a lot more than a disclaimer.)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, actually, I think I missed an assumption of the author. He said "widescreen" tablets, by which I think he meant that he's holding the tablet in landscape orientation. In landscape you can get to the menu by swiping the edges, but you probably do have to use an index finger to operate the controls, because they're a long way from the edges. I suppose they could have had the menu come down wherever you swiped to fix that, but then the location would be inconsistent which creates its own issues.
So... I g
Re: (Score:1)
swillden, when you get a focus group into a room and ask them what feature they'd like in a new product, they basically describe the current product with a few twiddles. They're expected to be inventive and drive the product, yet they are not and do not.
This is what you've done. Narrow your focus to the existing lineup and twiddle with features.
He makes completely valid points, the interface is basically written to be the width of the narrowest view, portrait or landscape, and padded with space to make it l
Re: (Score:2)
Bad example - I'm sure even the Samsung Galaxy S5 series sells more than the Nexus devices - just by being more available, and popular.
And it comes loaded with triple spyware - Google's, Samsung's, and your carrier's.
Nexus devices aren't huge sellers by any means.
Re: (Score:1)
(Disclaimer: I'm an Android engineer at Google, though I work on the low-level security subsystems, not on UI, and have no problems criticizing changes I don't like. I have found very little in Lollipop that I don't like, however, and a lot that I really do like. My only significant complaint so far is the fact that the encryption by default means that when the device boots it can't read any of the storage until you enter your password to unlock it... including any alarms you have set. This means that if your phone/tablet randomly reboots during the night (rare, but it does happen), then your alarm won't go off. This hasn't bitten me, and I doubt it will, but it's not good. On the UI, though... when I go back to a device with KitKat it just feels clunky. Wow, this turned into a lot more than a disclaimer.)
Well maybe your colleagues in the UI department could really be steared in the right direction. The greatest problem I have with Android 5.0 aka Lollipop is the infuriating use of white everywhere. White on white, grey on white it makes the whole UI really annoying to use. And if you think that most successful Android Smartphones are from Samsung which use AMOLED screens it seems like Google is giving the finger to Samsung. Amoled screens don't use power for black, while they consume a lot for white colors.
Re: (Score:2)
Well maybe your colleagues in the UI department could really be steared in the right direction.
Well, I like their direction. Quite a lot. Different strokes, I suppose.
Amoled screens don't use power for black, while they consume a lot for white colors. Traditional LCD screens are backlit so they consume power whatever color you're displaying.
Meh. You don't typically spend enough time on system screens for this to matter, and all of the regular apps do their own thing anyway. The apps which cause me to keep the screen on for a long time are video players (which are all black except for the video which mostly isn't), games (which are all over the place palette-wise, depending on the nature of the game) and e-books (which I switch to a sepia-on-black mode anyway).
Re:I don't see it (Score:4, Informative)
Note that getting to the full quick settings UI requires swiping down twice; the first swipe gets you notifications, the second one adds the quick settings. Alternatively, you can do a two-finger swipe down and you get straight to the quick settings. I can't reliably do that with two thumbs (too hard to synchronize the swipes), so that method really does require fingers. But two quick swipes work fine.
On a tablet, the one-finger vs two-finger swipedown makes sense (because it is easier than reaching from the right corner of the screen to the left) but on a phone the right-vs-left makes much more sense because you're more likely to be holding and operating the phone with the same hand (Note: my N5 is broken atm so I can't check the on-phone behaviour).
There are other things I dislike about Android on a large tablet, but the biggest one has been around since 4.0... having the 'navigation' buttons in the middle of the device where neither hand is conveniently close to them.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that for larger tablets, holding them with two hands is far easier, especially for anything over a few minutes. So no, the reviewer is doing it right.
Re: (Score:2)
weird... (Score:2)
I never understood why they placed the home/back buttons in newer releases in the middle of the screen, it just didn't make any sense.. How hard was it to even think about larger tablets or have people being able to choose the position..
For me, with every new incarnation of any OS, it seems to get more stupid and babylike interface..
Good UI & UX is hard. Really hard. (Score:3)
Good UI & UX design is hard. Really hard. It's one thing doing a cleanroom design of UX, an entirely other doing it for real life and various screen-sizes - preferably responsive. It's like with the code itself. In dev it will run and work, but beware of post-deployment if you haven't tested your stuff in every possible situation. I did tons of this stuff with Flash back in the day, and even with Flashs superiour visual & direct manupilation workplace and solid cross-plattform compatilibilty it was hard. I remember doing the UI for a flash-based MMO at a gamepublisher some years ago. We worked for months just to get the pageflow of character configuration and setup right. Video-based UX testing with usergroups and all. We'd discuss how and why the rail of a slider would look like X and not like Y.
Now, with HTML5, CSS and JS and all the screen sizes and mouse vs. tough it's by orders of magnitude harder.
It does not get that much easyer when you go native with Android or iOS SDK. You're app and your workflow will always have something significant that a good UI designer would like to highlight or help out in being intuitively usable - without destroying the page- and workflow the user is used to with other applications. It's a really tough job and each and every time it's like jumping off a cliff and not knowing if the parachute will deploy.
I'm one of the rare cases that's actually reasonably good at both - I have various diplomas in art and design and 28 years of programming experience, but I honestly couldn't tell which is harder. Basically both require very hard work if you want to do it well. Good UI is also where shitty backends are exposed. If the backend can't deliver what the user needs, no UX in the world will fix it. A significant portion of the logic is having the computer do what the enduser needs, fast and efficient. If UX and backend development don't work together or one of them doesn't understand the needs of the other, it almost instantly shows in a project. That's the classic difference between Apple and MS, btw. Steve Jobs basically nailed it in this rare direct comparsion comment [youtube.com].
Bottom line: The apps shown in this rundown on lollypop are the best you can get with boilerplate UX. The article basically is right, good UX looks different.
In fairness (Score:2)
This is no way to judge a UI (Score:4, Insightful)
"I like this, I don't like that." So what? That's just your taste. Yes, that's a starting point, but everyone overestimates how much they understand *other* users.. What you have to do is observe users working with the software for real. And you can't just do it for five minutes and declare yourself an expert; you've got to watch users over the course of years before certain things become clear.
I was for many years a software designer targeting PalmOS and later PocketPC. In the early days we designed what were essentially scaled down desktop applications -- using common sense of course. But unlike many people in the modern App Store environment I had close contact with users. I traveled to user sites to install the software and train the users. I rode in their trucks and watched them using the software in the field. And over the years I began to gain insight into the PDA form factor and how people use it. We all started out with the notion that UI design for handhelds was about dealing with the limitations of a small screen. It took me years to realize that mobile US design was actually about exploiting the potentials of a touch screen you held in your hand. When the iPhone came out I immediately knew that Apple got it: the handheld form factor is about the experience of direct manipulation. By using a capacitive touch screen Apple removed the last perceived intermediary between the user and the things on scree: the stylus.
Now I'm no longer a professional developer, but I do watch how people use their mobile devices with interest. The author is obviously right when he says a tablet is a different animal than a smartphone, but I think he hasn't grasped what the difference is. It's not just about screen real estate; it's about the totality of how the user interactrs with the device. You can't put a tablet in your pocket, and I think that's a much huger difference than it sounds; it stands for a whole lot of other things that are different betwen a palmtop device and one that is simply hand-holdable. For example he likes the idea of widgets that float over the active application as a way of making use of wasted screen real estate. This is technology focused design thinking (how can we use this resource), not user focused. And my admittedly casual observations suggest that this idea is bad for a lot of the way users use tablets.
One interesting development has been the near-disappearnce of handheld computers in the 4-5 inch screen range that *aren't* smartphones. But wi-fi only tablets remain popular. Why should that be? Again I haven't been observing as a developer, but I think it's because people have different application focuses when they use different devices. When you see someone using a smartphone as a computer they're texting, tweeting,instagramming etc. When they're on their tablets they're surfing the web, watching videos, reading ebooks, and playing games. The idea of widgets floating over active content is ideal for someone who uses their tablet like a smartphone. It's not so great for people using tablets in the ways they seem to. Of course some peoiple *do* use their tablets like smartphones. They're the people who drag out their iPad to take a candid photo. Such people exist, we've all seen them, but it doesn't make them typical. I'd guess most tablet owners these days also have a smartphone.
I'm no longer developing, so take this with a grain of salt, but it seems to me that the focus of smartphone use is connecting, the focus of tablet use is consuming, and the focus of desktop use probably should be creating. Blowing up a phone app to a 10.1 inch screen will clearly make it look ridiculous, but it may not matter. What matters is the usability of apps that are built for the things tablet users are focused on.
Calculator that fills the screen (Score:2)
The idea of widgets floating over active content is ideal for someone who uses their tablet like a smartphone. It's not so great for people using tablets in the ways they seem to.
I use a 7" Android tablet for watching videos, surfing the web, composing e-mail, and jotting ideas down. Sometimes when composing e-mail, a note, or a comment on a web site, I need to do a little arithmetic. Why should a calculator on a tablet fill the 7" or 10" screen? Apple has known since Mac OS I in 1984 that even in a single-tasking environment, there are things that users need to do while inside another task. That's why Apple included "desk accessories" such as the calculator.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it shouldn't. Anyone who *watches* someone use a calculator app will realize there's a tradeoff betwen the size of the motions the user's finger needs to make and the size of the target they have to hit. So the designer of a calculator app should limit the size to which his layout should grow.
But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about having widgets float at the top of the z order as a solution to the problem of apps that don't scale intelligently to tablet size -- or really need that
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A convertible with an Intel compatible processor that can run Windows is probably the sweet spot for you, if you want to program on the go and only carry one device.
If you want to develop *seriously* for mobile platforms, you pretty much have to resign yourself to collecting gadgets. It's ironic, because I'm not a gadget hound; my thing is data. I regard hardware as a necessary evil, a transient commodity like fresh fish that rapidly turns into garbage. But I have an attic full of hard-used, historic gadg
Much of this is personal like/dislike (Score:2)
He doesn't like things centered. That's fine. Google thinks otherwise. Perhaps so too others. I would add that most people probably only use their tablets in landscape mode while viewing media, or at least far less than portrait mode. I'll agree that in some cases maybe more effort could have been made to limit the expansion of the app in landscape vs. portrait mode but that involves a lot more hackery in the design. Bottom line, this guy is just too lazy to turn the tablet to portrait mode when the a