Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 14th Sep 2011 22:20 UTC

Thread beginning with comment 489609
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
No, I completely disagree. The legacy UI uses all sorts of tiny controls that simply aren't touch-friendly at all. You may be able to see more on the screen, but you can't touch and manipulate it with your fingers; which is the whole point of the Metro UI.
But the reverse is also true. The purpose of a device is to let you access information - what's the point in being able to touch and manipulate stuff on the screen if the information you want isn't there?
But the reverse is also true. The purpose of a device is to let you access information - what's the point in being able to touch and manipulate stuff on the screen if the information you want isn't there?
Plus, if you look at the screenshots of Reader HD on Android:
https://market.android.com/details?id=com.ageofmobile.reader
It still displays a lot more information than the Metro one, AND it's touch friendly. I know this, because I run it on my Asus Transformer

Point being - that Metro one he shows off is just ass; it's for looks only.
Member since:
2006-01-06
No, I completely disagree. The legacy UI uses all sorts of tiny controls that simply aren't touch-friendly at all. You may be able to see more on the screen, but you can't touch and manipulate it with your fingers; which is the whole point of the Metro UI.