Response to concerns regarding soft buttons and physical size

**Margucci** · 10-08-2011, 03:18 PM

Nexus S:
800*480 at 233 PPI
height: 3.43"
width: 2.06"

Prime:
1280*720 at 316 PPI
height: 4.05"
width: 2.28"

difference in width: 0.22" or approx 1/5"

Several people have expressed concern about the size of the device. However, what many people have failed to notice is that the aspect ratio of phones now and the nexus are different. the aspect ratio of most phones is 1.666:1 and the aspect ratio of the prime is 1.777:1. What this means is that the phone will only be slightly wider than a current Nexus S (and depending on the bezel possible the same width) and the height is slightly more. However one thing to keep in mind is that with the loss of hardware buttons will alomst completely offset the extra height in the screen. This in my opinion is good for three reasons:
1) the physical size of the phone will not change signinicantly
2) the 'usable area' with the soft buttons on will be approx. the same as what we are used to
3) with the soft buttons turned off (ie. taking a picture, browsing full screen, watching media, etc...) then we will have an increaced viewing area.

Regarding points 2) and 3):
With respect to the width, the height of the prime is more than the nexus S. this means that you can have software buttons which are located in the extra 0.1111 of the aspect rato(ie . 142 pixels). this works out to be a height of 0.45" inches for the soft buttons while leaving the work area the exact same as you have on the Nexus S.

Hopefully this will clear some things up.

**lilnate** · 10-08-2011, 03:23 PM

Originally Posted by Margucci

3) with the soft buttons turned off (ie. taking a picture, browsing full screen, watching media, etc...) then we will have an increaced viewing area

wait...is this confirmed, or just some speculation? i have been wondering bout this, mainly to see what the mod community comes up with.

**AndrewWestSide** · 10-08-2011, 03:28 PM

on the leaked video, when he turns on the camera app and it appears to me to take up the whole screen.

**Margucci** · 10-08-2011, 03:34 PM

Originally Posted by lilnate

wait...is this confirmed, or just some speculation? i have been wondering bout this, mainly to see what the mod community comes up with.

and with some rootage (which if you are looking at a nexus then there is a good chance you will do), you are able to customize the soft buttons on tablets and i dont see any reason why you would not be able to on the phones.

however, even if they cant be hidden then you still have point 2) as a consolation prize.

**ottscay** · 10-08-2011, 03:58 PM

The only reason to have soft buttons is so they can be hidden - otherwise you'd just go with capacitative buttons (it would literally look identical). I'm sure while movie watching or doing other activities where buttons are needed they'll go away in landscape.

**Poopai** · 10-08-2011, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by AndrewWestSide

on the leaked video, when he turns on the camera app and it appears to me to take up the whole screen.

You've never used honeycomb if you think that. The buttons didn't go away, they were just softened, and the camera didn't pick them up.

**Poopai** · 10-08-2011, 04:11 PM

Originally Posted by ottscay

The only reason to have soft buttons is so they can be hidden - otherwise you'd just go with capacitative buttons (it would literally look identical). I'm sure while movie watching or doing other activities where buttons are needed they'll go away in landscape.

No, because software buttons can be dynamic, such as having the back arrow turn into a down arrow when the keyboard is up, as it's done in honeycomb.

**djw39** · 10-08-2011, 06:36 PM

There is this fantasy out there that a larger-screened phone will not have to be any wider because manufacturers will shrink the bezel. This never actually happens, though. In fact, the Nexus S is wider than the iPhone, the GSII is wider than the NS, and the new Nexus Galaxy will be even wider. With each step up you can say "oh it's only a few mm, it's hardly noticeable" but in the end the bigger phones feel very different in the hand.

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk

**pitmasterme** · 10-08-2011, 09:16 PM

I was hoping for very limited bezel when I heard soft buttons..... have to admit that I'm a bit discouraged by the images I have seen of the new nexus.....still gonna get one, but I was hoping for edge to edge screen. Oh well.

ahhhhh...........gone todash..............

**E_man** · 10-09-2011, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by djw39

There is this fantasy out there that a larger-screened phone will not have to be any wider because manufacturers will shrink the bezel. This never actually happens, though. In fact, the Nexus S is wider than the iPhone, the GSII is wider than the NS, and the new Nexus Galaxy will be even wider. With each step up you can say "oh it's only a few mm, it's hardly noticeable" but in the end the bigger phones feel very different in the hand.

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk

Not necessarily true at all. 800x480 is nearly a 16:10 resolution (barely off, 16:9.6). A 16:10 screen at 4.3" is 2.28" wide. A 16:9 screen (nexus prime 720) at 4.65" is...2.28" wide.

**djw39** · 10-09-2011, 08:28 PM

Right. They don't NEED to, but they do. My point is that in practice, the devices with larger screens always do add width. Check the FCC filing, it gives measurements. And it is 2 mm wider than the Galaxy S II.

Sent from my Nexus S 4G using Tapatalk

**danielkx** · 10-09-2011, 10:03 PM

Originally Posted by E_man

Not necessarily true at all. 800x480 is nearly a 16:10 resolution (barely off, 16:9.6). A 16:10 screen at 4.3" is 2.28" wide. A 16:9 screen (nexus prime 720) at 4.65" is...2.28" wide.

Correction. A 16:10 screen at 4.3" is 2.212" wide. Whereas a 16:9 screen at 4.65" is 2.278" wide... a .066" difference. Not a huge difference obviously but there is a difference. For a 16:9 aspect ratio screen to have essentially the same width as a 16:10 screen which at 4.3", the 16:9 screen would be 4.52"

**E_man** · 10-09-2011, 10:21 PM

Originally Posted by danielkx

Correction. A 16:10 screen at 4.3" is 2.212" wide. Whereas a 16:9 screen at 4.65" is 2.278" wide... a .066" difference. Not a huge difference obviously but there is a difference. For a 16:9 aspect ratio screen to have essentially the same width as a 16:10 screen which at 4.3", the 16:9 screen would be 4.52"

Not really a correction, you just went more exact and calculated 5:3 (not 16:10, which I was using as a "close enough", which I stated), so a 4.3" 16:10 screen is exactly what I said, you are just going by the more exact SGS ratio.

That said, .067" difference is not even 2mm. It's not the width we should be worried about in relation to screen size is my point. It's height. The height difference between the 4.3" 5:3 and the 4.65" 16:9 is over 5x that.

**Margucci** · 10-10-2011, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by E_man

Not really a correction, you just went more exact and calculated 5:3 (not 16:10, which I was using as a "close enough", which I stated), so a 4.3" 16:10 screen is exactly what I said, you are just going by the more exact SGS ratio.

That said, .067" difference is not even 2mm. It's not the width we should be worried about in relation to screen size is my point. It's height. The height difference between the 4.3" 5:3 and the 4.65" 16:9 is over 5x that.

however, the extra height is being partially compensated by the removal of hardware buttons and the addition of soft buttons. it WILL be taller but not that much so. I cant wait to revisit this thread once we have final exterior measurements and can give a definitive answer. at this point we pretty much know that it will be 1-2mm wider but height is still up for grabs.