Square vs Round Screen - Edited image is surprising

[the future]

This is all so ridiculously apples and oranges. The Apple Watch is primarily not really a watch, but a computer display. All computer displays (and all "windows" on these displays), ever, have been rectangular, and for a good reason: it's more space efficient and easier to code for.

That the OP had to go to such deceiving lengths (bezels ...) to make the round display look *not that much bigger* (but still ungainly and full of empty spaces) speaks volumes. His thinly veiled patronizing of everyone who makes counterpoints as Apple fanboys also shows his intellectual dishonesty.

OP, please look at the Moto 270 AKA "tuna can" in person and tell us again that this monstrosity should have been Apple's role model for the Watch. Can you, for example, imagine one single (not super-nerdy) woman in the world who would be seen wearing that thing? Me neither.

 

[czecho7]

So no one here feels that the round elements in the Apple Watch are silly and shouldn't exist, because square?

Seems lopsided. Why does the friends button produce a circular interface instead of a list (wasn't a list shown initially?). The Activity Screen has a circular display of information that seems like a waste of space, so why do it?

So because it's a rectangular watch, none of the UI elements can be round?

 

[Chupa Chupa]

No, it makes an excellent case for showing why you can't slap a UI designed for a rectangle screen onto a round screen.

This comparison is awful, to think that the design considerations for a round screen would result in the exact same design is foolish.*

*Note I am not saying round is better and that an optimal UI could be achieved, but this comparison surely does nothing to prove that it cannot be done.

Not really and here is why: watches started off round because they emulated sun dials. Sun dials were round because the sun moves in a circular arch. The watches function defines the form.

The same should go with a watch that is emulating a reading device and is intended for text reading. Text is typically presenting in 180 degree lines as this is the sweet spot of readability. So if you put a text in a circle you either have to angle the text, which is more decorative than practical -- great for logos, terrible for information dissemination, or you end up with lots of empty space as OP's example, or you end up with cramped text with pixels cut off.

That is why Apple stuck with the rectangle shape. I know everyone loves to say Ives designs form over function, but with the Watch it's truly function defines form. A round watch would not work from a practice perspective if it is to have all the features it has and then some.

 

[Andropov]

This is a fantastic explanation of why a circular screen doesn't work. I remember reading this back in September and really enjoyed reading it again.

Thanks. It's very nice to know that someone appreciates what you do.

The problem is, you are a glass if half empty person, not half full.

It's the same negative viewpoint when it comes to widescreen displays.
I think positive when I see a widescreen.
What I see is a normal screen, with the ADDITION of extra display on either side to make it wider.
You may be one of the people who can only see negative, and you see a widescreen as removing the top and bottom of a 4:3 display

It's the way you choose to see it.

To me, making it a circle is adding on extra to a square. = positive viewpoint.
You are again only seeing it as a negative and are removing the corners of a square to make a circle.

If you can only see it this way, nothing I can do can change it I'm afraid

There is never any need to chop anything off of show any less.
It's simply a matter of displaying things within the space provided at the correct scale.

A silly example would be making the iPad Round for example. Not that I'm suggesting that would be a good idea.

You could see it as adding screen on, and being better, displaying more then before.
Or, as you have demonstrated above, I fear you would see it as removing the corners and seeing less.

And re the bezels, yes indeed.
The bezels I chose to show a round version are roughly that same size bezels/surround that is on the moto 360 which was designed a year ago.

Given a year of advancement, and Apple trying their best. I gave Apple the benefit of the doubt in their skills, and assumed Apple would at very least be able to match, if not better what Motorola was able to make a year earlier.

I think that was fair of me, unless you feel Apple cannot match Motorola for their ability to make a round screen at least as good.

The only "licence" I took was to remove the display driver area at the bottom of the Moto360 screen, as again, given Apple's skills and technical expertise, I gave them the benefit of being able to overcome that hurdle.

I feel given the above I was fair and reasonable in my expectations from Apple, don't you?

My point was about what is more efficient, not which one do I prefer. When wearing a watch, you have a limit on how big it can be: your wrist's width. Most people won't wear a watch wider than their own wrist, so it makes sense to design the watch in a way that all the available space is used, since it is limited.

This is not a problem in analog watches (no text is ever displayed, nor lists, buttons... and you don't need to physically interact with them). However, it is a problem in smartwatches. If you make the screen round you WILL have less display usable space for the same wrist width.

Also, it's important to make them as power-efficient as possible, therefore having unused screen is a BAD idea, even for OLED displays where pure black doesn't consume a lot of power. And you'd also have more pixels, which means a higher load for the GPU -> even less battery.

Rounded displays are also more expensive to make (they're cut from large panels, so there's a lot of wasted resources)...

And I can think of even more problems of such a design, but I think you get my point. Even if a rounded display looks cooler (although Apple has managed to design a very classy-looking square watch) it's too inefficient for various reasons (price, power-compsumption, ) to be considered an option.

Also, the way you design for a rounded interface is radically different than in a square one. You'd have to design the UI twice, and even if you do it's difficult to design efficiently for a rounded display. Here's a snapshot from a Calendar Android Wear App:

 

[Arran]

... but with the Watch it's truly function defines form. A round watch would not work from a practice perspective if it is to have all the features it has and then some.

Maybe they're cramming too many features in, then?

After all, if you need to read screeds of rectilinear text, isn't that what your iPhone in your pocket is for?

I really like that Apple coined the term "Glances". To me, that's what a wrist-worn device should be about. Reading "War and Peace" is not what it's for.

 

[Rogifan]

Maybe they're cramming too many features in, then?

After all, if you need to read screeds of rectilinear text, isn't that what your iPhone in your pocket is for?

I really like that Apple coined the term "Glances". To me, that's what a wrist-worn device should be about. Reading "War and Peace" is not what it's for.

Even still what makes round better? Nothing except that traditional watches are round so people feel a watch on their wrist is dorky if it's not round.

 

[Piggie]

Even still what makes round better? Nothing except that traditional watches are round so people feel a watch on their wrist is dorky if it's not round.

How about this then:

Given a free choice. People prefer round faced watches

 

[Piggie]

That the OP had to go to such deceiving lengths (bezels ...) to make the round display look *not that much bigger* .

You are of course fully entitled to you preference and you opinion, as am I and everyone else on these forums.

However, I feel I need to correct you on one of you remarks.

You imply that my use of a slimmer bezel to make the round watch look *not much bigger* is me going to "deceiving lengths"

Personally I don't think I have gone to "deceiving lengths"

As I have explained previously and quite rationally.
Motorola was able to make the screen they used a whole year ago.

Tech move fast in the screen industry as we all know, and I grant Apple with the skills and ability to be "at least as good" as Motorola. Don't you?

Given that, I presume Apple can match Motorola, and given a whole extra year of development, I felt it was not unrealistic to show a bezel as I have done in my comparison original image.

Let me show you, side by side my photoshopped image, next to a Real Life photo of Motorola's year old hardware design.

Also I don't feel, given Apple's skills, plus another whole years development time, my suggested look/bezel size would be totally out of the question.

Do you?

Note: This posting has nothing to do with me advocating a round watch over a square watch.
I am simply pointing out that I feel you are wrong in saying that I went to. In your own words: "Such Deceiving Lengths" in my original image.

I hope you can appreciate this.

 

[diamond.g]

So because it's a rectangular watch, none of the UI elements can be round?

Of course they can. I guess I don't understand all the hate for a round watch.

 

[Arran]

Even still what makes round better? Nothing except that traditional watches are round so people feel a watch on their wrist is dorky if it's not round.

Providing 3rd party developers with hardware which is hostile to large screeds of text might gently encourage them to limit their use of text.

That would be one way for Apple to enforce the lightweight nature of watch interactions. No bad thing, I'd say.

 

[Symtex]

It obvious the interface would be different if the face was round. If I was better at photoshop, I would show you a round like design for the UI that would match the face.

 

[Andropov]

How about this then:

Given a free choice. People prefer round faced watches

Then developers would need to design two radically different UIs of the same app for the watch.

You are of course fully entitled to you preference and you opinion, as am I and everyone else on these forums.

However, I feel I need to correct you on one of you remarks.

You imply that my use of a slimmer bezel to make the round watch look *not much bigger* is me going to "deceiving lengths"

Personally I don't think I have gone to "deceiving lengths"

As I have explained previously and quite rationally.
Motorola was able to make the screen they used a whole year ago.

Tech move fast in the screen industry as we all know, and I grant Apple with the skills and ability to be "at least as good" as Motorola. Don't you?

Given that, I presume Apple can match Motorola, and given a whole extra year of development, I felt it was not unrealistic to show a bezel as I have done in my comparison original image.

Let me show you, side by side my photoshopped image, next to a Real Life photo of Motorola's year old hardware design.

Also I don't feel, given Apple's skills, plus another whole years development time, my suggested look/bezel size would be totally out of the question.

Do you?

Image

Note: This posting has nothing to do with me advocating a round watch over a square watch.
I am simply pointing out that I feel you are wrong in saying that I went to. In your own words: "Such Deceiving Lengths" in my original image.

I hope you can appreciate this.

No. This argument is far from rational. If you are comparing a round display vs a square one you have to use the same bezels in both. Motorola did a completely different watch which lacked some things the Apple Watch does have (taptic engine, for example, and bigger heart-rate sensors).

My point being: an imaginary hypothetical rounded Apple Watch that coincidentally happens to have much narrower bezels (how convenient!) does not prove in any way that round displays are better against a real Apple Watch that does actually exist.

BTW, the Moto 360 has a 46mm diameter, a lot more than the Apple Watch (38mm or 46mm), so obviously the bezels are narrower, I hope I don't have to explain why.

Oh, and I don't hate rounded displays in smartwatches. But they don't have any benefit besides the look. ANY.

 

[Rogifan]

Providing 3rd party developers with hardware which is hostile to large screeds of text might gently encourage them to limit their use of text.

That would be one way for Apple to enforce the lightweight nature of watch interactions. No bad thing, I'd say.

And that can only be accomplished with a round display? Somehow I have a feeling that's not the reason Android OEMs are tripping over themselves to make round smartwatches. Apple's HIG is pretty clear that interactions should be short, so Apple needs to reject apps that don't follow the guidelines.

 

[Arran]

And that can only be accomplished with a round display? Somehow I have a feeling that's not the reason Android OEMs are tripping over themselves to make round smartwatches. Apple's HIG is pretty clear that interactions should be short, so Apple needs to reject apps that don't follow the guidelines.

Oh yes, they need to.

 

[Piggie]

Oh, and I don't hate rounded displays in smartwatches. But they don't have any benefit besides the look. ANY.

As I think many here seem to agree, this, for Apple is not a computing device/gadget, but not is, or becoming a piece of fashion.

Then I believe we have a fair argument in saying "The Look" as you say, actually could be said to be "THE" most important aspect.

The functionality is always going to be secondary when you get into fashion.

I feel some here are getting very mixed up between, Fashion, Tech, Function, Looks.

Arguing this is fashion, hence the price, and yet at the same time arguing function is all important.

Perhaps the confusion is because this could be a transition device.

Remember Apple has bit by bit been removing functionality from many other device year upon year in favour of looks.

The watch may be the biggest tipping point.

Personally the more Apple leaves behind function and focusses more on fashion the less I feel I would wish to join in with them, as it's moving away from what I want from a product.

----------

And that can only be accomplished with a round display? Somehow I have a feeling that's not the reason Android OEMs are tripping over themselves to make round smartwatches. Apple's HIG is pretty clear that interactions should be short, so Apple needs to reject apps that don't follow the guidelines.

Do you feel Apple should always reject apps that are more than a brief interaction, or only do this until they can produce a watch that can handle apps that would use the device more?

 

[BSben]

There is a good reason that there are no round TVs, no round newspapers, and very few round books. Round and text just don't mix well. If you want a watch that only tells the time, round is a good option, if you want text on your watch display a round display is just not very good. And looking at your two pictures, I prefer the rectangular watch.

 

[Night Spring]

How about this then:

Given a free choice. People prefer round faced watches

That may be true for watches with analog hands. But what about digital watches? I remember that a lot of them were square/rectangle. Am I misremebering?

 

[Piggie]

There is a good reason that there are no round TVs, no round newspapers, and very few round books. Round and text just don't mix well. If you want a watch that only tells the time, round is a good option, if you want text on your watch display a round display is just not very good. And looking at your two pictures, I prefer the rectangular watch.

Well, I suppose you have to ask yourself this.

Do you feel that a watch display, even a "Smartwatch" display should primarily be built for text as a priority?

If we are seeing photo's of faces, health graphics, emoticons, love heart graphics, the time, and other similar things, I would suggest they would be just as happy on a round face as a square face.

Displaying text, I could suggest is a minor role for such a device.
I mean we don't want to read books and web pages on a 1.5" screen do we now.

Again, I feel people may still be looking at this as a computer screen for text on the one hand, and yet promoting it as fashion on the other hand.

The other items you mention are of course designed heavily for text base use, and for heavy text based use a square/rectangle display would be more practical.

----------

That may be true for watches with analog hands. But what about digital watches? I remember that a lot of them were square/rectangle. Am I misremebering?

It's quite a mix really.
I think there have been some changes of fashion when it came to digital in the past. A square display being more futuristic I suppose as people before then were more used to round watches.

I think most shapes were used and still are to pander to different people's tastes.

A square digital is probably more of a "techie" look I suppose.
Though the line if very very blurred I'm sure and you can find example of each.

Indeed:
Round...........

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=r...ei=uzwHVeaAAfGp7AaU34Ao&sqi=2&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ

Or:
Square.........

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=r...UoAQ#safe=off&tbm=isch&q=square+digital+watch

I feel, if you quickly scan both those Google Image Links.
You will see what I mean about the square design having a harsher more techie look about it.
And if I could be so bold as to suggest less feminine generally.

 

[Night Spring]

Displaying text, I could suggest is a minor role for such a device.

I don't know how other people plan to use Apple watch, but for me, one of the main uses I'm looking forward to is notifications, which are text. So yes, displaying text is a main role.

As for fashion, it's not like there aren't fashionable watches that are square/rectangle. If it was impossible to make a non-round watch that is fashionable, then your objection has a point. Otherwise, I don't see any contradiction in making objects be both functional AND fashionable. In the case of a smartwatch with one of the main functions being to display text, that involves trying to come up with a fashionable looking rectangle. Now, I'm not the one to ask whether Apple succeeded, because I care very little about fashion. But your argument that just because it's not round, it can't be fashionable doesn't make sense.

PS: I tried google image for "women digital watch" and got an interesting selection of both square and round watches. I have to say, even the round ones all look pretty geeky to me.

 

[Piggie]

I don't know how other people plan to use Apple watch, but for me, one of the main uses I'm looking forward to is notifications, which are text. So yes, displaying text is a main role.

As for fashion, it's not like there aren't fashionable watches that are square/rectangle. If it was impossible to make a non-round watch that is fashionable, then your objection has a point. Otherwise, I don't see any contradiction in making objects be both functional AND fashionable. In the case of a smartwatch with one of the main functions being to display text, that involves trying to come up with a fashionable looking rectangle. Now, I'm not the one to ask whether Apple succeeded, because I care very little about fashion. But your argument that just because it's not round, it can't be fashionable doesn't make sense.

PS: I tried google image for "women digital watch" and got an interesting selection of both square and round watches. I have to say, even the round ones all look pretty geeky to me.

Oh no.
I'm not saying square is not fashionable

I am just observing people here seem to be confused.

On the one hand screaming, "THIS IS A FASHION DEVICE" Apple's entry into the fashion industry, where looks are everything, all else come second.

Yet at the same time, saying it has to be square so it can display lots of text, like a computer screen or newspaper as that's the best from a computing technical standpoint.

Many are flip/flopping their arguments as they can't decide what it is

 

[bnmcj1]

"Look, son. This is why a smartwatch should not be round. You see. Every digital content and every normal written piece/text area is square. People making round smartwatches are square.".

 

[Night Spring]

Oh no.
I'm not saying square is not fashionable

I am just observing people here seem to be confused.

On the one hand screaming, "THIS IS A FASHION DEVICE" Apple's entry into the fashion industry, where looks are everything, all else come second.

Yet at the same time, saying it has to be square so it can display lots of text, like a computer screen or newspaper as that's the best from a computing technical standpoint.

Many are flip/flopping their arguments as they can't decide what it is

Well, it's hard for me to keep track of what other people are arguing, but for me, function comes first. And while Apple may sometimes cut function in favor of making something a bit more fashionable (like they make devices thinner instead of keepng them thicker to increase battery life), I don't think they ever go to the extreme of "looks are everything, all else is second." I think they try to strike a balance between form and function. They may take more care than other manufacturers about how their devices look, but after all, if their devices don't do what they are supposed to, they wouldn't sell.

 

[Piggie]

"Look, son. This is why a smartwatch should not be round. You see. Every digital content and every normal written piece/text area is square. People making round smartwatches are square.".

Hi Dad

It's interesting you should bring that up, as it begs the question, and contradicts your above point rather starkly.
That a LOT of the graphical content Apple has created for the watch is circular.

The main home screen.
The circular health dial/progress thing.
The new circle of contacts they just showed off.
Almost all the watch faces.
Plus others.

----------

Well, it's hard for me to keep track of what other people are arguing, but for me, function comes first. And while Apple may sometimes cut function in favor of making something a bit more fashionable (like they make devices thinner instead of keepng them thicker to increase battery life), I don't think they ever go to the extreme of "looks are everything, all else is second." I think they try to strike a balance between form and function. They may take more care than other manufacturers about how their devices look, but after all, if their devices don't do what they are supposed to, they wouldn't sell.

I'd like to think so.
But, I have to say. for myself anyway, and others I know having read rants on these very forums. Apple do cut beyond a level of acceptance.
Take the one port on the new Laptop so many are up in arms over.
Would it have killed them to have had 2 ports I wonder, or destroyed their profit margin?

They just tip too far over the edge often, for me I'm afraid.

 

[bnmcj1]

Hi Dad

It's interesting you should bring that up, as it begs the question, and contradicts your above point rather starkly.
That a LOT of the graphical content Apple has created for the watch is circular.

The main home screen.
The circular health dial/progress thing.
The new circle of contacts they just showed off.
Almost all the watch faces.
Plus others.

----------



I'd like to think so.
But, I have to say. for myself anyway, and others I know having read rants on these very forums. Apple do cut beyond a level of acceptance.
Take the one port on the new Laptop so many are up in arms over.
Would it have killed them to have had 2 ports I wonder, or destroyed their profit margin?

They just tip too far over the edge often, for me I'm afraid.

You know, son. Always make the small gfx elements round so they match a finger touch without disturbing the UI . But the hardware - NEVER MAKE IT ROUND.

 

[Night Spring]

That a LOT of the graphical content Apple has created for the watch is circular.

The main home screen.
The circular health dial/progress thing.
The new circle of contacts they just showed off.
Almost all the watch faces.
Plus others.

----------



I'd like to think so.
But, I have to say. for myself anyway, and others I know having read rants on these very forums. Apple do cut beyond a level of acceptance.
Take the one port on the new Laptop so many are up in arms over.
Would it have killed them to have had 2 ports I wonder, or destroyed their profit margin?

They just tip too far over the edge often, for me I'm afraid.

Ha, I was wondering if you will bring up the single port.

I personally like the single port -- to me, it's like when they ditched the floppy drive. They are saying all connections will move to wireless and all you need is one port to (charge your device) rule them all.

It's a bit early to ditch all ports, but that's what I like about Apple, their willingness to boldly go where none has gone before.

As for the round UI elements for the watch, I'm not sure yet what to think about them. I know for the activity tracker, I have an iPhone app that shows the steps I took in a bar graph, and if I imagine that bar graph on a tiny screen like the watch, then compare to the circle "graph" apple is using, I think the circle gives the illusion of more space. I think that may be true for the other circular UIs Apple is using, but I'll have to actually use the watch to be sure.

I do think a circle watch big enough to fit a 42 square inside will be too big for my wrist. How big will that diameter be, do you know? I know I can figure it out, but I don't remember the equation off the top of my head.