View Single Post
Old 04-12-2011, 09:15 PM   #28
kjk
.
kjk ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kjk ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kjk ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kjk ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kjk ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kjk ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kjk ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kjk ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kjk ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kjk ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.kjk ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 3,408
Karma: 5647231
Join Date: Oct 2008
Device: never enough
Quote:
Depending on circumstances sometimes I read in landscape mode and other times I read in portrait mode. So which is better 9X16 or 16X9?

Within limits, the aspect ratio of a reader is so subjective that saying one is better than another (for reading) is beyond ridiculous; and someone saying one is better than another for me is beyond arrogance.
Well sure, everything is subjective in the end. But do you doubt for a minute that Motorola and Samsung optimized for HD video by going with 16x9, while the Kindle and Nook optimized for reading by going with 4:3 (or 3:4)? Whereas the color Nook purposely went to 16x9 to differentiate it from being a pure reading device? And Apple focused more on the portrait aspect of browsing/reading as well for the iPad, hence its 4:3 ratio?

Or do you think those were purely subjective decisions? I think they were carefully designed and optimized based on what they saw their broadest usage models would be, and that things like aspect ratio are anything but subjective in design.

That doesn't mean you personally can't prefer one or the other. I just don't buy the everything within limits is subjective line as an excuse for poor (or good) design.

Last edited by kjk; 04-12-2011 at 09:31 PM.
kjk is offline   Reply With Quote