4 ms·

I don't think that's correct. I can see the coarse nature of the screen quite easily and it's highly annoying. In any case, as I said, the size is also too smal

I don't think that's correct. I can see the coarse nature of the screen quite easily and it's highly annoying. In any case, as I said, the size is also too small to be of much use as a smartphone. Back to the main point, TFA is responsive to screen size, but there's only so much you can expect a website to scale. Just like a current website will look bad on a 8k monitor, it will also look bad on a smart watch screen. I think the SE screen is physically and logically too small.

tambourine_man 8y ago
>I don't think that's correct. It is: https://www.apple.com/iphone-se/specs/ https://www.apple.com/iphone-se/specs/ https://www.apple.com/iphone-7/specs/ https://www.apple.com/iphone-7/specs/ >I can see the coarse nature of the screen quite easily and it's highly annoying. You are probably confusing it with a 3GS or something else. Apple has been selling “Retina Displays” ever since the iPhone 4. You can't see the pixels in any such screens at any reasonable viewing distance. >…the size is also too small to be of much use as a smartphone That's not a statement of fact. The SE sells very well and not only because of its price. >TFA is responsive to screen size, but there's only so much you can expect a website to scale. Just like a current website will look bad on a 8k monitor, it will also look bad on a smart watch screen. That's not how responsive design works, that's just bad design. There's no technical reason to specify a minimum/maximum size and work within that range. And that's not what they did either. Their CSS is responsive, they just added a <table> element (which is notoriously bad on mobile) that can't scale beneath 334px with current font/padding/border settings. That's just laziness or ignorance.