| |
| ▲ | ggm 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I think the person you are responding to is not thinking visually. They basically seem (to me) to think reformat-flowed fixes this, and that having the view of a web page alter because you open a book, is "not a bad thing" when you (and I) are of the view, if you maintain the aspect ratio and simply decimate how many pixels are available to show it, the actual "change" in the layout is kept to a minimum WHICH IS THE INHERENT GOOD HERE -the whole point of the A, B and C series is that the scaling function preserves the ratio of sizes of the contents, under the quality change of bigger or smaller fidelity of presentation. Unless there is some upsight I am missing, I think the OP just "doesn't get it" | | |
| ▲ | oceliker an hour ago | parent [-] | | The upsight is that they are responding to a point about side by side apps, not a single full screen app on the unfolded screen | | |
| ▲ | ggm an hour ago | parent [-] | | I don't think this is a killer logic either. If you consider that the apps were both running, both full screen on the folded state and alternate which is in view, and now can come into view side by side when you open, surely the "good" is that nothing positional in the layout or styling changes, when you move from swipe-and-select to side-by-side. |
|
| |
| ▲ | fsckboy an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | >If you unfold a square, you don't get two squares. yes, you do. Two squares will fold together into the space of one square, and the same with 2 A4 sheets of paper, or two 8½x11 sheets of paper, two of them will fold together to make one of them. | | |
| ▲ | anamexis 24 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say, or what would refute what I said. |
|
|
