Active Topics
-
Maemo 20th Anniversary (4)
to Brainstorm by teroyk - 18 hrs, 57 mins ago -
Nokia Booklet 3G (RX-75) Drivers (64)
to Alternatives by teroyk - 19 hrs, 13 mins ago -
Porting apps to Leste (46)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by teroyk - 2 days, 22 hrs ago -
Maemo repository (8)
to Community by Maemish - 6 days, 16 hrs ago - more...
|
2007-07-09
, 17:55
|
|
Posts: 3,401 |
Thanked: 1,255 times |
Joined on Nov 2005
@ London, UK
|
#12
|
Originally Posted by ysss
Fair enough, but DPI is irrelevant when it comes to web site formatting - the only thing that matters is horizontal pixels and the Neo doesn't have enough of them. No matter whether it's screen has a high DPI or a very low DPI, it physically lacks the pixels to display web sites without reformatting (or excessive horizontal scrolling), which is why to me the DPI is irrelevant - pixels are king!
DPI is irrelevant? That's either an ignorant or uninformed comment. Anything higher than VGA on a 2.8" screen will be too small to be readable.
And you don't need to work out the DPI to realise that text displayed on a 2.8" 640x480 resolution screen is going to be very small!
|
|
2007-07-09
, 18:42
|
|
Posts: 129 |
Thanked: 13 times |
Joined on Oct 2005
|
#13
|
A pitiful 480x320 screen didn't stop apple from claiming the iPhone is a "breakthrough internet device." (They don't claim this anymore. Why? It's still in the google results though.)
I think these devices are designed for purposes other that internet browsing so these low resolution screens are considered acceptable. I have used an iPhone for a little while and the internet experience was not as enjoyable as the n800. The eye strain trying to read dithered pages was terrible.
I agree that 800 pixels is the minimum width for a "serious" internet device. I disagree that dpi is irrelevant: 800x480 on a 2.8" screen would make some very small text. It probably wouldn't make for a more enjoyable web experience. (Unless you're reading it under a magnifier.)
I think these devices are designed for purposes other that internet browsing so these low resolution screens are considered acceptable. I have used an iPhone for a little while and the internet experience was not as enjoyable as the n800. The eye strain trying to read dithered pages was terrible.
I agree that 800 pixels is the minimum width for a "serious" internet device. I disagree that dpi is irrelevant: 800x480 on a 2.8" screen would make some very small text. It probably wouldn't make for a more enjoyable web experience. (Unless you're reading it under a magnifier.)
|
|
2007-07-09
, 18:49
|
|
Posts: 344 |
Thanked: 26 times |
Joined on Jan 2007
|
#14
|
Sweet jesus, have any of you heard of resolution independence?
480x320 can display exactly what our poor 800x480 screens can display. Just needs proper software.
Take the iPhone for example, if you put it in landscape mode you see the entire site in readable form. Better than the N800 in lots of cases too. Just visit Ars Technica with the N800, you have to scroll left and right. If you use fit to width it messes up all the layout.
Visit on an iPhone, its scaled to the screen so there is no horizontal scrolling and its perfectly legible. It matters what you do with the available resolution, not just how much you have.
Last edited by sherifnix; 2007-07-09 at 18:54.
480x320 can display exactly what our poor 800x480 screens can display. Just needs proper software.
Take the iPhone for example, if you put it in landscape mode you see the entire site in readable form. Better than the N800 in lots of cases too. Just visit Ars Technica with the N800, you have to scroll left and right. If you use fit to width it messes up all the layout.
Visit on an iPhone, its scaled to the screen so there is no horizontal scrolling and its perfectly legible. It matters what you do with the available resolution, not just how much you have.
Last edited by sherifnix; 2007-07-09 at 18:54.
|
|
2007-07-09
, 18:54
|
|
Posts: 3,401 |
Thanked: 1,255 times |
Joined on Nov 2005
@ London, UK
|
#15
|
Originally Posted by sherifnix
Do you have any examples of how a "native" 800x480 web page will look on a 480x320 screen? I'd be interested to see this, as so far all mobile based browsers I've used in the past have trashed a web page in order to squeeze it on to the screen, and even if it is possible to squeeze a full web page on a 640x480 screen then and only then does the DPI become an issue (small screen, high dpi => tiny text).
Sweet jesus, have any of you heard of resolution independence?
480x320 can display exactly what our poor 800x480 screens can display. Just needs proper software.
|
|
2007-07-09
, 18:56
|
|
Posts: 344 |
Thanked: 26 times |
Joined on Jan 2007
|
#16
|
Aye, sorry I just updated my last post.
Arstechnica.com is a good example. It wont fit on the N800 screen, but scales perfectly on the iPhone. Its a 1024x768 website.
Arstechnica.com is a good example. It wont fit on the N800 screen, but scales perfectly on the iPhone. Its a 1024x768 website.
|
|
2007-07-09
, 18:59
|
|
Posts: 3,401 |
Thanked: 1,255 times |
Joined on Nov 2005
@ London, UK
|
#17
|
What kind of scaling are they using on the iPhone - CSS or hardware/video scaling? From the demos I've seen, you can get an overview page which fits the screen then it zooms in again to access specific parts of the page, which is neat but not necessarily how I currently access web pages which is the whole site, as intended and legible.
 |
|
2007-07-09
, 19:00
|
|
Posts: 3,220 |
Thanked: 326 times |
Joined on Oct 2005
@ "Almost there!" (Monte Christo, Count of)
|
#18
|
Originally Posted by sdrman
I agree completely with the 800x480 axiom. Nevertheless, consider this: the Neo1973 is a completely open platform, it has (or rather: will have) a graphics acceleretor on board and its specs take into account finger-driven input. Is it that hard to imagine someone will very quickly come up with a "finger-magnifier", or a "finger-zoom"?
A pitiful 480x320 screen didn't stop apple from claiming the iPhone is a "breakthrough internet device." (They don't claim this anymore. Why? It's still in the google results though.)
I think these devices are designed for purposes other that internet browsing so these low resolution screens are considered acceptable. I have used an iPhone for a little while and the internet experience was not as enjoyable as the n800. The eye strain trying to read dithered pages was terrible.
I agree that 800 pixels is the minimum width for a "serious" internet device. I disagree that dpi is irrelevant: 800x480 on a 2.8" screen would make some very small text. It probably wouldn't make for a more enjoyable web experience. (Unless you're reading it under a magnifier.)
|
|
2007-07-09
, 19:04
|
|
Posts: 3,841 |
Thanked: 1,079 times |
Joined on Nov 2006
|
#19
|
Arstechnica.com of course fits perfectly fine on the N800. You just zoom it to 80%. Maybe the iPhone scales it automatically, but to me it's a feature that it's under user control. Because when you get to actually wanting to _read_ the site you obviously zoom it so that only the interesting text column fills the screen.
Back on topic: I cheer the OpenMoko initiative, although personally I'm not interested in smartphones so it's not for me. (I prefer a simple cheap BT/SMS phone with 3G or Edge to use as communication line for the N800 when outside wi-fi access areas)
Last edited by TA-t3; 2007-07-09 at 19:09.
Back on topic: I cheer the OpenMoko initiative, although personally I'm not interested in smartphones so it's not for me. (I prefer a simple cheap BT/SMS phone with 3G or Edge to use as communication line for the N800 when outside wi-fi access areas)
__________________
N800/OS2007|N900/Maemo5
-- Metalayer-crawler delenda est.
-- Current state: Fed up with everything MeeGo.
N800/OS2007|N900/Maemo5
-- Metalayer-crawler delenda est.
-- Current state: Fed up with everything MeeGo.
Last edited by TA-t3; 2007-07-09 at 19:09.
|
|
2007-07-09
, 19:50
|
|
Posts: 344 |
Thanked: 26 times |
Joined on Jan 2007
|
#20
|
The zooming hardware buttons are pretty clunky.
Double tapping directly to where you want to zoom is infinitely more intuitive.
I'm not opposed to Nokia's way of doing it, it just doesn't scale nearly as well as the iPhones automatic choices. Why are you forced to zoom in 20% increments, the iphone throws it on the screen perfectly everytime without input. It should at least be an option on the N800, automatic scaling and finger zooming.
You also mention that its not readable at 80%, thus the extra resolution is doing nothing. Its too bad Nokia's scaling isn't in hardware, it is slow and since it doesn't offer a transition its hard to track where its going visually.
Double tapping directly to where you want to zoom is infinitely more intuitive.
I'm not opposed to Nokia's way of doing it, it just doesn't scale nearly as well as the iPhones automatic choices. Why are you forced to zoom in 20% increments, the iphone throws it on the screen perfectly everytime without input. It should at least be an option on the N800, automatic scaling and finger zooming.
You also mention that its not readable at 80%, thus the extra resolution is doing nothing. Its too bad Nokia's scaling isn't in hardware, it is slow and since it doesn't offer a transition its hard to track where its going visually.
I think you'll find, if you read what he said, that he was referring to the crispness of the text and its comparison to printed text.
Maybe you should read and try to understand before posting here.