unity-design team mailing list archive
-
unity-design team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #07106
Re: What should Unity look like on Smartphones and Tablets?
Den 08. nov. 2011 00:24, skrev Omar B.:
You can get some ideas here (maemo):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuYaOxfoJ1g&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhTtsZATwBQ
The plans (ubuntu on phones):
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTAxMDY
The critics (some very good comments):
http://www.linuxinsider.com/rsstory/73688.html
After you see and read those, we can get an idea of how to make ubuntu
on mobile and hybrids a success. If not we lose...
Really? I actually disagreed with most of that. But let's handle the
mistakes lots of people are making. They think that Unity is a visual
design. Unity is first and foremost a set of APIs. Then, there is a
visual design implemented by two primary interfaces, and a few others.
For instance, as I understand it, both LXDE and Xfce supports
indicators. They don't look and feel identical to how they look and feel
in Unity, of course. That's the point. You move the task of displaying
these things away from the app and onto the shell. The same is true for
all parts of Unity, be it the global menus, indicators, notifications,
the launcher or lenses. They don't have to _look_ the same way. They
have to have the same features. This is perfectly compatible with mobile
phones. So, when people say that Unity will fail because you can't have
the same interfaces on different devices, they've completely
misunderstood the point, which is that if you know how to make an app
for the desktop, then you also automatically know how to make an app for
a tablet or for a phone. This is not true for any current operating
system, unless you count HTML-apps, which is so user hostile, I don't
even understand how anyone can consider it a viable option. As an
example, on desktops, if you need help with the current application,
then you press F1. The web doesn't even have _that_.
Then there is the omnipresent notion that "it is too late". Too late?
Most people who are alive today, have no experience with computers at
all. Of those who do, a great many do not have a strong preference. And
loyalty is declining, which is obviously a very good thing for everyone.
I've been using web browsers for about twenty years now. Does that mean
Google Chrome cannot become a viable option to Internet Explorer and
Firefox, who both joined at an early stage?
Reality seems to disagree with the people who speculates that it's too
late. Another popular claim is that Ubuntu cannot succeed on the phone
because Canonical won't get any exclusive partnerships with hardware
manufacturers. But I don't agree with the assumption that hardware
manufacturers will want these kinds of exclusive partnerships. Why on
earth should they refuse to take my money because I prefer Android to
Windows Phone, or Ubuntu to Android? Or what if I want to dual boot? I
have a Nokia N8. I really love the phone, but the software is so
horrible, I can hardly use it. If I could install Android on it, or
Ubuntu -- even current Ubuntu with no modifications -- then I would. If
Nokia doesn't want to sell me a phone unless use Symbian, then I've
bought my last Nokia phone. It's that easy. Hardware manufacturers
aren't stupid enough to reject even a few million customers.
It is certainly not too late. To learn from that thought, is to admit
defeat without even raising the shield -- much less the sword. After
all, most computer users haven't even been born yet. Computers is not a
fad. Let me quote Churchill: «Now... this is not the end. It is not even
the beginning ... of the end. Though, it is perhaps the end of the
beginning.»
Wow, I didn't intend for this to become so verbose. :)
Jo-Erlend Schinstad
Follow ups
References