32 ms·

That's what I thought, too. I don't think I've ever seen anyone say that it's flat out impossible to make something look good on Android, just a bit more diffi

by cube13 15y ago

That's what I thought, too. I don't think I've ever seen anyone say that it's flat out impossible to make something look good on Android, just a bit more difficult than iOS because the Android SDK doesn't have the UI/UX helper methods that the iOS does.

gte910h 15y ago
The exact criticism I hear all the time is the lack of a fixed aspect ratio makes Photoshop based cutout design considerably harder.
- nextparadigms 15y ago
  Google should at the very least keep the same aspect ratio when allowing manufacturers to use other resolutions. They currently allow (split by 10 for better comparison): 320:240 (13.3:10), 480x320 (15:10 ratio), 800x480 (16.6:10), 854x480 (17.7:10/16:9), 960x540 (17.7:10), and then 1280x800 on tablets where 48 of the pixels are for the bottom bar, so it's more like 1280x732 (17.4:10). I would be easier to do "pixel perfect" design if Google would at least not use all these resolutions that have little to do with each other. It goes to show that Google doesn't put much thought into these kind of design details. This is the kind of "standardization" I'd like to see Google bring to Android. Would it be that bad to deny a manufacturer the use of a 854x480 resolution over a 800x480 one? or whatever they choose to be the standard? I don't think so, but they don't seem to care much about it. The 960x540 resolution was probably unnecessary, too, considering we're about to see 1280x720 resolutions coming into market just 6 months later. If a manufacturer decides to make a 1366x768 display later, should they allow them to do it? They shouldn't because the improvement is marginal and developers have to support one more resolution with little benefit, but they probably will allow it.
  - abstractbill 15y ago
    It goes to show that Google doesn't put much thought into these kind of design details. Maybe Google thinks, as I do, that designers should be able to make their stuff look good in a variety of resolutions. Desktop/laptop computers have a range of resolutions and aspect ratios, but people have been making UIs look good on them for years.
    - cube13 15y ago
      There are two things that make it less of an issue with Desktops/Laptops. 1. There aren't really that many native ratios. Realistically, you're looking at 4:3 for CRT's, 5:4 for non-widescreen LCD's, and 16:9 or 16:10 for widescreen LCD's. So that's not as bad when creating a full-screen application, because you can also letterbox the 16:10 to 16:9 for full 1080p video. At this point, if I were a developer, I wouldn't even care about 4:3 resolutions, and just have 5:4 and 16:9. 2. Desktops and laptops, in general, have a lot more pixels to deal with, and are usually farther away from the user's face, so there is a bit more leeway when scaling your UI.
      - vetinari 15y ago
        There was time, when desktops had 640x480, 800x600 and 1024x768 (heck, the currently most sold 1366x768 is not that different), which is similar to today's smartphones. They had also much bigger diagonal/lower dpi, so there was actually less leeway and every pixel counted.
        icebraining 15y ago
        There was time, when desktops had 640x480, 800x600 and 1024x768 Those are all the same ratio (4:3). You don't have to change the relative position or size of the elements to accommodate them all.
        vetinari 15y ago
        OK. There were also 640x400, 640x350 (EGA) and 1280x1024. Under Windows, also "Small fonts" and "Large fonts", which changed size of controls, but not bitmaps. Each of these options gives you something. Focusing on single resolution (or fixed-number multiples) is short signed, almost like basing your's OS binary API on soon-to-be obsolete and unstable C++ ABI (I'm taking shots at BeOS - they took the easy solution at the beginning and what problems it caused). Especially when the system has the tools to handle the differences.
        15y ago
rahoulb 15y ago
Actually I'd say the difference is MacOS/OSX/iOS has a culture of ultra-criticism of UI decisions, meaning developers for other platforms don't have the same pressure to produce fantastic interfaces (just read Pierre Igot or Gruber's early works). Of course this isn't universal - there are many iOS apps with terrible UIs. But the overriding principle remains.
- LokiSnake 15y ago
  Apple also provides very detailed human interface guidelines for all their OSes. They are all more than 100 pages long, and describe how every single UI element should act and what the user should expect. When designing a UI using Apple's provided graphical tools, it actually guides the programmer to follow those guidelines, in terms of button sizes, spacing, etc. Apple cares about UI/UX, and it trickles down.

by cube13 15y ago

gte910h 15y ago

The exact criticism I hear all the time is the lack of a fixed aspect ratio makes Photoshop based cutout design considerably harder.

nextparadigms 15y ago
Google should at the very least keep the same aspect ratio when allowing manufacturers to use other resolutions. They currently allow (split by 10 for better comparison): 320:240 (13.3:10), 480x320 (15:10 ratio), 800x480 (16.6:10), 854x480 (17.7:10/16:9), 960x540 (17.7:10), and then 1280x800 on tablets where 48 of the pixels are for the bottom bar, so it's more like 1280x732 (17.4:10). I would be easier to do "pixel perfect" design if Google would at least not use all these resolutions that have little to do with each other. It goes to show that Google doesn't put much thought into these kind of design details. This is the kind of "standardization" I'd like to see Google bring to Android. Would it be that bad to deny a manufacturer the use of a 854x480 resolution over a 800x480 one? or whatever they choose to be the standard? I don't think so, but they don't seem to care much about it. The 960x540 resolution was probably unnecessary, too, considering we're about to see 1280x720 resolutions coming into market just 6 months later. If a manufacturer decides to make a 1366x768 display later, should they allow them to do it? They shouldn't because the improvement is marginal and developers have to support one more resolution with little benefit, but they probably will allow it.
- abstractbill 15y ago
  It goes to show that Google doesn't put much thought into these kind of design details. Maybe Google thinks, as I do, that designers should be able to make their stuff look good in a variety of resolutions. Desktop/laptop computers have a range of resolutions and aspect ratios, but people have been making UIs look good on them for years.
  - cube13 15y ago
    There are two things that make it less of an issue with Desktops/Laptops. 1. There aren't really that many native ratios. Realistically, you're looking at 4:3 for CRT's, 5:4 for non-widescreen LCD's, and 16:9 or 16:10 for widescreen LCD's. So that's not as bad when creating a full-screen application, because you can also letterbox the 16:10 to 16:9 for full 1080p video. At this point, if I were a developer, I wouldn't even care about 4:3 resolutions, and just have 5:4 and 16:9. 2. Desktops and laptops, in general, have a lot more pixels to deal with, and are usually farther away from the user's face, so there is a bit more leeway when scaling your UI.
    - vetinari 15y ago
      There was time, when desktops had 640x480, 800x600 and 1024x768 (heck, the currently most sold 1366x768 is not that different), which is similar to today's smartphones. They had also much bigger diagonal/lower dpi, so there was actually less leeway and every pixel counted.
      - icebraining 15y ago
        There was time, when desktops had 640x480, 800x600 and 1024x768 Those are all the same ratio (4:3). You don't have to change the relative position or size of the elements to accommodate them all.
        vetinari 15y ago
        OK. There were also 640x400, 640x350 (EGA) and 1280x1024. Under Windows, also "Small fonts" and "Large fonts", which changed size of controls, but not bitmaps. Each of these options gives you something. Focusing on single resolution (or fixed-number multiples) is short signed, almost like basing your's OS binary API on soon-to-be obsolete and unstable C++ ABI (I'm taking shots at BeOS - they took the easy solution at the beginning and what problems it caused). Especially when the system has the tools to handle the differences.
        15y ago

rahoulb 15y ago

Actually I'd say the difference is MacOS/OSX/iOS has a culture of ultra-criticism of UI decisions, meaning developers for other platforms don't have the same pressure to produce fantastic interfaces (just read Pierre Igot or Gruber's early works). Of course this isn't universal - there are many iOS apps with terrible UIs. But the overriding principle remains.

LokiSnake 15y ago
Apple also provides very detailed human interface guidelines for all their OSes. They are all more than 100 pages long, and describe how every single UI element should act and what the user should expect. When designing a UI using Apple's provided graphical tools, it actually guides the programmer to follow those guidelines, in terms of button sizes, spacing, etc. Apple cares about UI/UX, and it trickles down.