• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Why will the Prime have a 4.65" Screen?

darkestred said:
Gotta play devils advocate. But, if those software buttons are fixed and you can't get rid of them. You're stuck with a bigger phone with the same size screen as a 4.3" device. I"m pulling that google isn't this dumb. One shouldn't be surprised how easily these tech giants can ruin a great thing.
Click to expand...
Seems like a somewhat moot point since the expectation is that even if Google doesn't address it with ICS, someone will come up with a workaround. But I like playing devils advocate too. :D

Hypothetically, assume the NP is similar to the SGS2 HD LTE. Then consider:

Sizes:
  • SGS2 LTE (4.3" 800x480): 69.6
 
It's thought that the i9250 which recently went through the FCC is the gsm version of NP to be released and those docs specified 124 x 68 mm. Thats really not too big considering screen size.
 
Deslock. Do you know if the workarounds they have for honeycomb. Does it extend the screen? or is it a black border where the nav bar was? Touche btw (:

Yeah, isnt the prime like 5.33" which is just slightly bigger than the TB which i thought was 4.75" but really is like 5.15" so im down with that.
 
darkestred said:
Deslock. Do you know if the workarounds they have for honeycomb. Does it extend the screen? or is it a black border where the nav bar was? Touche btw (:

Yeah, isnt the prime like 5.33" which is just slightly bigger than the TB which i thought was 4.75" but really is like 5.15" so im down with that.
Click to expand...

Sorry, all I know is what's in the links I posted earlier in the thread.
 
There is a workaround that requires root for Honeycomb, but is not as stable as a built in option. And it requires root, so only good for the fraction of people that can root.

We must assume that Android team has not completely placed themselves in a bubble and have basically said "screw the user experience thing". Common sense is the option for the nav bar to be hidden should be in ICS, since also for phones.

Trust me folks (just this once). The nav bar is annoying on 7" displays, so a big yuck on smaller ones.
 
rushmore said:
There is a workaround that requires root for Honeycomb, but is not as stable as a built in option. And it requires root, so only good for the fraction of people that can root.

We must assume that Android team has not completely placed themselves in a bubble and have basically said "screw the user experience thing". Common sense is the option for the nav bar to be hidden should be in ICS, since also for phones.

Trust me folks (just this once). The nav bar is annoying on 7" displays, so a big yuck on smaller ones.
Click to expand...

I was surprised to hear you praise apple for the home button in one of your earlier posts. I've always found that to be quite idiotic. Here's why. They committed to a big physical button on the bottom of the phone, leaving less area on the remainder of the phone for the screen. Not an issue I guess, since their screen is so tiny. But then for all their apps, they need a big fat header nav bar so people can go BACK or choose SETTINGS. So the app's actual usable size is even smaller and has the aspect ratio of almost a square.

Android (pre-honeycomb) decided to make all nav buttons be physical so that you didn't need another fat nav inside each app that hogs space. To me, this was a better design.

If they've removed the physical buttons, enlarged the screen (into an incredibly tall/wide aspect ratio, and then permanently used the extra real estate for the same buttons they removed, I'd say that's totally pointless.... It only makes sense to hide it in certain situations. I suspect Google will get this right.

Agreed that given our finger sizes are constant (to the individual), the button sizes have to me more or less the same, regardless of the overall size of the screen; therefore, the percentage of real estate these buttons take up will be greater on a smaller screen than a tablet. I have to think that Google has usability in mind... If it doesn't, that's a big problem for Android.
 
I am going to give you all the real reason why Samsung gave the Nexus Prime a 4.65" screen....




.... Because they could lol
 
Android team decided on a fixed bar, due to no buttons. Not seeing how a fixed nav bar is a good thing. Create a translucent button in a corner or something, but fixed is whack on smaller displays. Anyway we spin it.
 
I'll reiterate my earlier doubts about porting these virtual buttons and the how dubious I am about it actually being of any benefit compared to what we already have.

IMO, we either will be losing screen real estate or will be forced into more screen taps than today. Either way I see no improvement at all over what we have now, and almost definitely a detriment. At the VERY BEST, with a perfect implementation, it will be a push IMO.

Either the virtual buttons will or will not disappear in certain situations:
(a) They disappear when apps are open. In this scenario, we now need 2 taps of the screen (or 1 gesture area tap and 1 screen tap) to hit the "back" or "home" buttons. Now we need only 1. This is a DETRIMENT, not an improvement in any way.

(b) The buttons do not disappear. In this scenario, we nee only 1 tap (exactly like we already have now) but we lose screen real estate and would seem to gain no opportunity to make the phones smaller, as any given screen size would be reduced by the room needed for the virtual buttons. i.e. that same space is now being used for actual buttons, thus there would be no space savings for the phone.

Still, I am intrigued and excited by the change. I would just caution everyone who blindly sees these virtual buttons as an improvement, to wait and see in real life use just how beneficial they actually are.

On tablets, this is an awesome implementation. There is room for this type of UI. On phones, with smaller screen areas, there are inevitable trade-offs IMO ...
 
Don S said:
I'll reiterate my earlier doubts about porting these virtual buttons and the how dubious I am about it actually being of any benefit compared to what we already have.

IMO, we either will be losing screen real estate or will be forced into more screen taps than today. Either way I see no improvement at all over what we have now, and almost definitely a detriment. At the VERY BEST, with a perfect implementation, it will be a push IMO.

Either the virtual buttons will or will not disappear in certain situations:
(a) They disappear when apps are open. In this scenario, we now need 2 taps of the screen (or 1 gesture area tap and 1 screen tap) to hit the "back" or "home" buttons. Now we need only 1. This is a DETRIMENT, not an improvement in any way.

(b) The buttons do not disappear. In this scenario, we lose screen real estate and would seem to gain no opportunity to make the phones smaller, as any given screen size would be reduced by the room needed for the virtual buttons. i.e. that same space is now being used for actual buttons, thus there would be no space savings for the phone.

Still, I am intrigued and excited by the change. I would just caution everyone who blindly sees these virtual buttons as an improvement, to wait and see in real life use just how beneficial they actually are.

On tablets, this is an awesome implementation. There is room for this type of UI. On phones, with smaller screen areas, there are inevitable trade-offs IMO ...
Click to expand...

I thought it was confirmed that you can touch the bezel to show/hide the buttons? In either case, A is not even a point IMHO. I have no issues with taking a quarter of a second to press the bezel (assuming this is so) and then hitting back.
 
darkestred said:
. I have no issues with taking a quarter of a second to press the bezel (assuming this is so) and then hitting back.
Click to expand...

I understand, I just don't see making 2 presses every time instead of 1 an improvement to look forward to, is all ..
 
I suppose thats the beauty of ICS. You don't have to hide the buttons if you dont want to. I understand your point, too, but given the current majority of people not caring about the full 4.6" screen it's a happy medium.
 
Some folks complain what's the point of 4.65" screen if only 4.3" is usable because of soft buttons on bottom. But that 4.65" screen fits into physical dimension of 4.3" phones with physical buttons due to smaller bottom bezel on Nexus. Also that 0.3" space occupied by soft buttons would use minimal power because it's on black and SAMOLED uses nearly zero power on black.
 
darkestred said:
I suppose thats the beauty of ICS. You don't have to hide the buttons if you dont want to. I understand your point, too, but given the current majority of people not caring about the full 4.6" screen it's a happy medium.
Click to expand...

I'll reserve judgement is all I am saying. I see nothing advantageous to this implementation on phones (other than some unanimity), compared to what we have. My contention was that - at best - it is a push. No need to guess anymore though until we have it in hand to see how the new UI is.
 
Don S said:
I'll reiterate my earlier doubts about porting these virtual buttons and the how dubious I am about it actually being of any benefit compared to what we already have.

IMO, we either will be losing screen real estate or will be forced into more screen taps than today. Either way I see no improvement at all over what we have now, and almost definitely a detriment. At the VERY BEST, with a perfect implementation, it will be a push IMO.

Either the virtual buttons will or will not disappear in certain situations:
(a) They disappear when apps are open. In this scenario, we now need 2 taps of the screen (or 1 gesture area tap and 1 screen tap) to hit the "back" or "home" buttons. Now we need only 1. This is a DETRIMENT, not an improvement in any way.

(b) The buttons do not disappear. In this scenario, we nee only 1 tap (exactly like we already have now) but we lose screen real estate and would seem to gain no opportunity to make the phones smaller, as any given screen size would be reduced by the room needed for the virtual buttons. i.e. that same space is now being used for actual buttons, thus there would be no space savings for the phone.

Still, I am intrigued and excited by the change. I would just caution everyone who blindly sees these virtual buttons as an improvement, to wait and see in real life use just how beneficial they actually are.

On tablets, this is an awesome implementation. There is room for this type of UI. On phones, with smaller screen areas, there are inevitable trade-offs IMO ...
Click to expand...

The best implementation is to have the buttons on as a default for apps. It will be compatible with older apps and the system doesn't have to worry about redrawing the layout when the buttons appears/disappears.

There will probably be specific functionality in ICS to remove the buttons in certain apps. This will be used for watching videos and games that will take out advantage of larger screen real estate.

Most other apps will likely keep the buttons because they provide essential navigation options and they want keep a consistent experience over many versions Android.

This is just speculation, I would be surprise if ICS has an implantation that is much different than this.
 
I will gladly take one more tap per app over wasting the display space on a fixed bar EVERY time. Sounds like a great idea to me :)

For doubters, please go to Best Buy and test the A100 out. Bigger display at 7", but the nav bar is a space stealing pain. Compare it to the Flyer and see which you prefer for games, web and video. No fixed nav bar wins on smaller displays.
 
darkestred said:
I suppose thats the beauty of ICS. You don't have to hide the buttons if you dont want to. I understand your point, too, but given the current majority of people not caring about the full 4.6" screen it's a happy medium.
Click to expand...


If the nav bar can be hidden, what is the issue then? :)
 
rushmore said:
I will gladly take one more tap per app over wasting the display space on a fixed bar EVERY time. Sounds like a great idea to me :)

....
Click to expand...

That's my point though. A great idea compared to what? Not compared to what we have now.

Do you really want to make 20 or 30 more clicks per day, and this is a "great idea"? This is the part I don't understand. It's one thing to say you wouldn't mind it (I would though), but it's quite another to say it's a good idea (to require users to do more work than now). Anyway, as I said, no need to argue more here, we will all see how usable it is soon enough :)
 
rushmore said:
If the nav bar can be hidden, what is the issue then? :)
Click to expand...

We're in the same boat, brotha. I'm just saying both camps get what they want. You know I've been bickering over the full screen. (:

Don S said:
That's my point though. A great idea compared to what? Not compared to what we have now.

Do you really want to make 20 or 30 more clicks per day, and this is a "great idea"? This is the part I don't understand. It's one thing to say you wouldn't mind it (I would though), but it's quite another to say it's a good idea (to require users to do more work than now). Anyway, as I said, no need to argue more here, we will all see how usable it is soon enough :)
Click to expand...

I get where he is coming from. I really do. Where i disagree is how it's worded as if tapping one more time becomes a choir; strenuous or exerting physical effort resulting in fatigue.

The 20 or 30 times comment could be exaggerated to: Wouldn't it being easier to have the phone wake up if you just hold it in your hand? This would reduce the amount of times one would have to turn on the phone using the rocker buttons or power button.

It is a touch screen device after all. I'm not sure that they were going for ground-breaking but if you could have your choice would you rather have a 4.7" screen with capacitive buttons or 4.7" screen with soft buttons? 5.3" vs 6"?

Again. I get it. Human nature would say simpler is easier but sometimes we have to not let our emotions/body dictate or exaggerate on things. If it took 2 seconds every time to have to bring the buttons up and then go back. Yes. I would agree with you. And yet again the option to have software buttons pop-up or not is completely up to the user. Win-win.

I know more people will share in Don's view vs the lot of us who like the idea of software buttons disappearing. For the sake of a phone being smaller (read: bigger screen) without capacitive buttons? I'm all for software buttons.
 
some of the advantages of software buttons I can think of:

customizable look, or potentially full rework of the button interface, giving custom developers the full flexibility in designing their own custom ROMs.

More future proofing in terms of OS interface design, if one day in the future (e.g Jelly Beans) Android having a total overhaul of user interface, this phone can do it.

Also no wear and tear of hardware buttons, even capacitive buttons can maulfuction some times.
 
Don S said:
That's my point though. A great idea compared to what? Not compared to what we have now.

Do you really want to make 20 or 30 more clicks per day, and this is a "great idea"? This is the part I don't understand. It's one thing to say you wouldn't mind it (I would though), but it's quite another to say it's a good idea (to require users to do more work than now). Anyway, as I said, no need to argue more here, we will all see how usable it is soon enough :)
Click to expand...


Think if the buttons are hiden on the normal view and transparent on the landscape view and they rotate with the screen. so you have them all the time on down side of your screen, without searching how you hold your phone annd where they are.
 
Don S said:
That's my point though. A great idea compared to what? Not compared to what we have now.

Do you really want to make 20 or 30 more clicks per day, and this is a "great idea"? This is the part I don't understand. It's one thing to say you wouldn't mind it (I would though), but it's quite another to say it's a good idea (to require users to do more work than now). Anyway, as I said, no need to argue more here, we will all see how usable it is soon enough :)
Click to expand...


The key is for ICS to have the option so users can decide how they want to use it. Option: Fixed nav bar "check to activate". Very simple, but if folks have noticed, Android has slowly been going down the Apple path of control. Mainly to slow down fragmentation, but they are heading down the path.
 
Don, I have to disagree that the best case scenario is a push. I DO agree that a poor implementation actually is worse for the UI and for workflow. This actually bugged me when I switched from the xScope browser to Dolphin - the benefits outweighed the negatives, but I do a lot more tapping in Dolphin and it bugs me.

I would say that the middle scenario is a push. That is, the buttons are there taking up screen real estate when they don't need to be, and it's approximately equivalent to having hard buttons. Except with some advantages like they can be modified when the UI/OS undergoes changes.

The BEST case, though, is that the buttons will be intelligently utilized. They're there all the time for most apps so there are no extra button presses. They disappear during movies or during full screen games where a full screen is more important than immediate button access. The buttons that are available can change based on the app you are in (e.g. the "search" button now is great, but it could be better utilized in apps that don't have a search function). If Android implements a full voice control feature, they can add a button. Maximum flexibility is a good thing - if it's properly implemented.

Just saying - the best case scenario is an intelligently designed UI, not "meh, no better than what we have."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom