flex-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From OmPrakash Muppirala <bigosma...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Issue with mobile UI default sizes
Date Wed, 30 Oct 2013 22:01:16 GMT
On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 2:38 PM, Maurice Amsellem <
maurice.amsellem@systar.com> wrote:

> Hi Team,
> Some users complained that their mobile application UI  looked smaller
> than before with SDK 4.11 on iPads
> Cf. https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FLEX-33861
> I explained in the JIRA tickets that this was because iPad 2 DPI is now
> 120, (was: 160) which is closer to its actual DPI (132).
> I did some more testing on iPad 2 and iPad 3 ,  using "out-of-the-box"
> mobile UI items (no applicationDPI, no custom runtimeDPIProvider)
> and it appears that Flex mobile default UI heights are about 75% the
> heights of "reference" iOS apps ( Email, Settings, Photos).
> This includes top bar height, top bar title ascent, default list height,
> default list text ascent, etc.
> (Detailed measures in comment in the ticket ).
> Coincidentally,  75% = 120 / 160 , which means the old incorrect DPI gave
> actually correct sizes.
> I don't know the history and context of Flex Mobile, and how the original
> CSS @media settings were determined, but IMO, they are not good anymore.
> What do you think?
I was following the back and forth in the JIRA ticket.  It looks like the
FXG skins were created from a template for a particular DPI (160 and 240)
and modified for all other DPIs.  Also, the entries in
sdk\frameworks\projects\mobiletheme\defaults.css seem to have been hand
tweaked.  We dont have any history on the mobile skins, how they were
created, etc.

I think it would be too disruptive to change it now.  Perhaps we could
document a way to modify it for folks who want more control?  What are our

On the other hand, as I am working on the new Android 4.x skins, I am
thinking of having just one set of FXG files for all DPIs and just scaling
everything as required.  The fonts, etc. could be specific to DPIs.   Any
thoughts on that?


> Maurice

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message