Two points: -Android 1.0, which is the one that Kogan must have been using, didn't support QVGA in its built-in-apps nor did it have framework support to help 3rd-party apps adapt to different densities. Fixing that is on the roadmap.
-As for 3rd-party apps, it's potentially a chicken-and-egg issue: app developers won't make their apps work in QVGA until there are devices out there. Device manufacturers might wait until there's decent app support o release QVGA devices. On top of that, both sides depend on Android to provide an SDK and a platform with adequate support for the various densities, which is on the roadmap. Growing pains are a necessary part of growth, though. Otherwise, pushing the reasoning further, we'd all be running Android 1.0 on the G1 forever. JBQ On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 1:23 AM, Al Sutton <[email protected]> wrote: > > Given the recent announcement by Kogan is it worth putting effort into > trying to support QVGA? > > From the -developers list it sounds like very few apps will have a > usable UI in QVGA, so maybe it should be dropped as an option? > > Al. > > Jean-Baptiste Queru wrote: >> That all sounds good, thanks. >> >> JBQ >> >> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 5:19 PM, Dianne Hackborn <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> The focus of this work is density, not resolution. We will be quantizing >>> density into a few buckets (corresponding to the existing HVGA, adding QVGA >>> and WVGA at the same size) which are supported by the platform. >>> >>> It has always been the case that Android applications should not rely on an >>> exact size of the screen, which is why we focus so heavily on layout >>> managers and have actively discouraged people from using absolute >>> positioning of widgets. >>> >>> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Jean-Baptiste Queru <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> There are quite a few precedents for situations with pixel counts that >>>> are close to one another, and it'd be good if Android allowed some >>>> fuzziness in the size "buckets" so that apps that are tuned for >>>> certain screen sizes but don't rely on bitmaps so much that the value >>>> matters to the pixel can adapt to those pixel counts. >>>> >>>> Examples: >>>> 160*100 vs 160x102 >>>> 176x208 vs 176x220 >>>> 320x240 vs 352x240 vs 360x240 >>>> 640x480 vs 702x480 vs 720x480 >>>> 800x600 vs 832*624 >>>> 1152x864 vs 1152x900 vs 1152x911 >>>> 1280x960 vs 1280x1024 >>>> 1280x720 vs 1366 x 768 >>>> 1920x1080 vs 2048x1080 >>>> >>>> I'd say that 800x480 vs 848x480 vs 852x480 vs 854x480 vs 864x480 falls >>>> in the same realm. >>>> >>>> JBQ >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 4:41 PM, Dianne Hackborn <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'd like to qualify that a little -- this work is to introduce support >>>>> for >>>>> different densities in the system, targeting only QVGA and WVGA screens >>>>> that >>>>> are approximately the same physical size as the G1's screen. This will >>>>> not >>>>> add support for larger WVGA screens that are the same density as the >>>>> G1's >>>>> screen but physically larger. We also have not decided yet on exactly >>>>> what >>>>> WVGA resolution(s) may be officially supported, though my guess right >>>>> now is >>>>> that all of those should be. >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Dave Sparks <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> We are moving to a density independent pixel representation, so the >>>>>> specific screen resolution is irrelevant. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jan 16, 12:10 am, anand b <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WVGA can refer to displays of the following resolutions: >>>>>>> 800x480 or 854x480 or 864x480 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can you please clarify what is the resolution that Android refers >>>>>>> to? >>>>>>> I understand that the support for WVGA is in Android roadmap post Q1 >>>>>>> 09. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Anand >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Dianne Hackborn >>>>> Android framework engineer >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> >>>>> Note: please don't send private questions to me, as I don't have time to >>>>> provide private support. All such questions should be posted on public >>>>> forums, where I and others can see and answer them. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Jean-Baptiste M. "JBQ" Queru >>>> Android Engineer, Google. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dianne Hackborn >>> Android framework engineer >>> [email protected] >>> >>> Note: please don't send private questions to me, as I don't have time to >>> provide private support. All such questions should be posted on public >>> forums, where I and others can see and answer them. >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > -- > ====== > Funky Android Limited is registered in England & Wales with the > company number 6741909. The registered head office is Kemp House, > 152-160 City Road, London, EC1V 2NX, UK. > > The views expressed in this email are those of the author and not > necessarily those of Funky Android Limited, it's associates, or it's > subsidiaries. > > > > > -- Jean-Baptiste M. "JBQ" Queru Android Engineer, Google. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ unsubscribe: [email protected] website: http://groups.google.com/group/android-porting -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
