Verizon Motorola DROID Turbo Why would anyone want onscreen buttons???

[PsychDoc]

They just make no sense as they almost always encroach on precious screen real estate. That was one of my primary gripes with the G2. All of a sudden your much ballyhooed 5.2" screen becomes 4.8." How utterly stupid and unintuitive is that? Bravo to Motorola for going with capacitive off-screen buttons.

An unrelated question - - does anyone know where the speaker(s) are on this phone? I'm hoping they're front (or at least side) firing.

 

[TechJunkie#AC]

Re: Why would anyone want onscreen buttons???

Because they look gorgeous on Lollipop. Future versions of Android will make the front of this device archaic looking.

 

[edgefever]

Re: Why would anyone want onscreen buttons???

Top front

 

[tdizzel]

Re: Why would anyone want onscreen buttons???

Is this another one of those "I can't believe different people like different things" Threads?
I'm not a fan of onscreen buttons, but...different people like different things

 

[PsychDoc]

Re: Why would anyone want onscreen buttons???

Is this another one of those "I can't believe different people like different things" Threads?
I'm not a fan of onscreen buttons, but...different people like different things

No it's a thread about why anyone would spend perfectly good money to get a 5.2 " screen and then relinquish 0.4" to buttons that could just as easily be placed below the screen.

 

[tdizzel]

Re: Why would anyone want onscreen buttons???

No it's a thread about why anyone would spend perfectly good money to get a 5.2 " screen and then relinquish 0.4" to buttons that could just as easily be placed below the screen.

Oh, my bad. It's a "I prefer things this way so everyone else should too" thread.
Gotcha

 

[PsychDoc]

Re: Why would anyone want onscreen buttons???

Oh, my bad. It's a "I prefer things this way so everyone else should too" thread.
Gotcha

There you go. Now you got it

 

[AndroidIsMyThing]

Re: Why would anyone want onscreen buttons???

They just make no sense as they almost always encroach on precious screen real estate. That was one of my primary gripes with the G2. All of a sudden your much ballyhooed 5.2" screen becomes 4.8." How utterly stupid and unintuitive is that? Bravo to Motorola for going with capacitive off-screen buttons.

An unrelated question - - does anyone know where the speaker(s) are on this phone? I'm hoping they're front (or at least side) firing.

You can hide them relatively easily. I have a gestures app that allows me to go into full screen mode when swiping from the bottom right corner, and it works in almost any app.

 

[Sooks]

Re: Why would anyone want onscreen buttons???

All videos and photo viewing go full screen.... Not a big deal. And I'm on a Note 4 and still wouldn't mind it.

Posted via the Android Central App

 

[NoahForeman]

Re: Why would anyone want onscreen buttons???

I for one am glad they did not use on screen pon the Turbo. I have navigation icons burned into my RAZR M screen.

 

[Firedogee]

Re: Why would anyone want onscreen buttons???

All videos and photo viewing go full screen.... Not a big deal. And I'm on a Note 4 and still wouldn't mind it.

Posted via the Android Central App

I'm watching Monday Night Football on the NFL Mobile app in full screen and the on screen buttons DO NOT disappear. Capacitive for me please.

This message was emitted from Uranus

 

[maxman1]

Re: Why would anyone want onscreen buttons???

I can't say I really have a preference & it's way down the priority list for me.

 

[Revolutionary]

Re: Why would anyone want onscreen buttons???

I've had both (GNex, Moto X, G Pad vs Droid Incredible, Maxx, Note 8) and I prefer capacitive. Less fussy, you always know where they'll be on the UI, and no image retention (not exactly the right term. On the GNex and X, it's like the pixels in the button space don't age since they are never on. When you switch to a static full screen image (like a kindle book) that part of the screen is brighter and slightly bluer. Haven't noticed it yet on the GPad, but it's newer.)

 

[doogald]

Re: Why would anyone want onscreen buttons???

I can't say I really have a preference & it's way down the priority list for me.

Yep, I can use either way. It doesn't particularly matter.

 

[Sooks]

Re: Why would anyone want onscreen buttons???

That is the app, not the phone.

 

[Firedogee]

Re: Why would anyone want onscreen buttons???

That is the app, not the phone.

Many apps currently do not hide buttons while in full screen mode. Big problem on my tiny 4.3" Razr M display. Slight problem on the bigger 5.2" Droid Turbo display. This is why I prefer capacitive, as do many major manufacturers like Samsung.

This message was emitted from Uranus

 

[Ry]

Re: Why would anyone want onscreen buttons???

..didn't really make it much larger than the Moto X.

 

[AlecR]

Re: Why would anyone want onscreen buttons???

Because they're the same across all devices - hardware buttons get swapped around by different manufacturers and they always perform differently.

Android is definitely designed for software buttons nowadays.

 

[Aquila]

Re: Why would anyone want onscreen buttons???

Software buttons have been the minimum standard for 3 years now. Last year, Kit Kat made full screen "immersive" mode the easiest thing in the world for devs to add to their apps. I think losing .4" on a 5.2" screen is a little aggressive; by pixel count the area has typically been 5%, which on 5.2" would be .26". So in a worst case scenario (on the home screen) things are 5.26% bigger with off-screen buttons - but nothing is added, things are just enlarged slightly to be spread out over the different areas. In a poorly made app, more content could be shown... but most don't, they just stretch because they want to show a preset amount of stuff. On well made content apps, they use immersive for anything you'd want to enlarge (images, video, text) and it's a non-issue.

I can't see any argument against meeting the minimum standard in design guidelines. Any utility "loss" is at best negligible and no functionality loss is possible. That being said, the guidelines do allow for capacative buttons - but there is a significant problem created and it is one that the Turbo and Note 4 (as well as all other hardware keyed devices created so far) share: the button schema is already legacy. There are ICS buttons on devices that will presumably run Lollipop and possibly the M version.

Another obvious drawback to those who have used onscreen buttons that try to use buttons that are offscreen - onscreen buttons can move, change, be customized, be resized, contextually adjust to apps, etc. If you pick up your phone or tablet upside down in landscape, those buttons can be in their normal position if you have them set up to do so... meaning you don't have to fumble around for the "correct" side of the device. Not as important on phones for most, but on tablets that is a pretty handy value add.

I understand that people have different preferences, but saying that on-screen buttons are objectively worse seems to be a mistake. The potential value add in usability combined with the improvement in design language both put on-screen in the objectively better category. It is fine to prefer something that is different then the best practice, opinions and preferences are totally subjective and welcome and needed. But liking something more doesn't necessarily mean that it is better and in this case it seems certainly to not be true that enjoyment of the legacy feature equates to a better feature set.

 

[tdizzel]

Re: Why would anyone want onscreen buttons???

Software buttons have been the minimum standard for 3 years now. Last year, Kit Kat made full screen "immersive" mode the easiest thing in the world for devs to add to their apps. I think losing .4" on a 5.2" screen is a little aggressive; by pixel count the area has typically been 5%, which on 5.2" would be .26". So in a worst case scenario (on the home screen) things are 5.26% bigger with off-screen buttons - but nothing is added, things are just enlarged slightly to be spread out over the different areas. In a poorly made app, more content could be shown... but most don't, they just stretch because they want to show a preset amount of stuff. On well made content apps, they use immersive for anything you'd want to enlarge (images, video, text) and it's a non-issue.

I can't see any argument against meeting the minimum standard in design guidelines. Any utility "loss" is at best negligible and no functionality loss is possible. That being said, the guidelines do allow for capacative buttons - but there is a significant problem created and it is one that the Turbo and Note 4 (as well as all other hardware keyed devices created so far) share: the button schema is already legacy. There are ICS buttons on devices that will presumably run Lollipop and possibly the M version.

Another obvious drawback to those who have used onscreen buttons that try to use buttons that are offscreen - onscreen buttons can move, change, be customized, be resized, contextually adjust to apps, etc. If you pick up your phone or tablet upside down in landscape, those buttons can be in their normal position if you have them set up to do so... meaning you don't have to fumble around for the "correct" side of the device. Not as important on phones for most, but on tablets that is a pretty handy value add.

I understand that people have different preferences, but saying that on-screen buttons are objectively worse seems to be a mistake. The potential value add in usability combined with the improvement in design language both put on-screen in the objectively better category. It is fine to prefer something that is different then the best practice, opinions and preferences are totally subjective and welcome and needed. But liking something more doesn't necessarily mean that it is better and in this case it seems certainly to not be true that enjoyment of the legacy feature equates to a better feature set.

I have no idea what all that means, but I agree.