QVGA V/s VGA for GTA03 (was something about yummy CPU-GPU combos!)

[Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)]

On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 16:40:08 +0100 Stroller <linux.luser at myrealbox.com> babbled:

> 
> On 10 Jun 2008, at 02:17, Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) wrote:
> > browsing full web pages scrammed into a 2.8" screen as many have  
> > suggested, is
> > really... pushing such a tiny screen far beyond its usefulness. web  
> > pages are
> > "designed" for 14" or 17" screens or so. squeezing them down into  
> > 2.8" is nigh
> > madness. it's possible - but vga vs qvga there isn't the factor  
> > (imho) :)
> 
> I'm sorry, Carsten, but this just makes me think you're nuts. Um, I  
> mean, eccentric.
> 
> I mean, I know you know loads more about this sort of thing than I  
> do, but mobile phone web-browsers are absolutely standard these days.

never said otherwise but the screen is physically small. very. put it at a
normal usage distance and it covers a small fraction of the field of view a
standard desktop screen does. web pages are normally designed for the field of
view of a desktop screen. either you play zooming games to squeeze it down, or
scrolling, or play re-formatting games. however you look at it - you won't get
close to the same experience.

of course web pages designed for small screens... that's another matter! :)

> I can see your point that the size of mobile phone screens makes for  
> poor viewing, but that doesn't mean we're not going to do it anyway -  
> viewing a webpage when you're out and about is SO tremendously useful  
> (maybe not all the time, but when one needs it) that it's got to be a  
> design consideration.
> 
> And to say that 4 times the pixels makes no discernible difference in  
> this? Well, c'mon!

it makes a difference - but not as much of one as you want to think when using
it normally. (normal distance from your eyes, etc.). you end up needing larger
fonts to be able to read it (unless you have spectacular vision) and so the
amount of content it fits is fairly low...

that's my main point. yes - the screen is nice. but it is physically small.
after months and months of being at it - running apps on it, making stuff work
- and work for fingers, font sizes just go up and up. any form of
gadget/control is just big so it can be hit with a finger (yes - we are going
for finger control. nothing new. the device wasn't designed for a stylus - no
place to hold one), so in the end - vga vs qvga is much less of a content issue
when you hit this point and more of a quality issue.

as i said before - maybe it just needs people to get them in hand and use it
for a while.

> True, there may be many people who never use the web-browser in their  
> mobile phone, but my Mum just uses the cheapest mobile phone she got  
> for £20 from Tesco. Likewise my ex-girlfriend bought her mobile phone  
> because it was pink, or pretty by whatever other criteria is  
> important this week.
> 
> People buying Openmoko phones will do so because they want to install  
> applications (if only one or two) on them, and these are the sort of  
> people who will turn to a web-browser when they're stuck for some  
> piece of information and away from home.

-- 
Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <raster at openmoko.org>