The problem is that he isn't saying that. He's just saying resolution independence is not the problem, when in fact it's the first problem a convergent design must approach. Not the only problem, but definitely the first you must tackle before even trying to solve the puzzle.That statement is pretty correct, what that guy means about an UI that works equally well on different screens and input devices is much more than a simple resolution proportion.
Of course. That's why Canonical's approach takes typical viewing distance, screen size and proportions into the equation. Abstracting your UI objects from pixel resolution is the first and inevitable step, as I just said.Devices with different DPI but similar in phisical dimension represent a very different problem than devices with very different phisical dimension even if with similar DPI.
We agree (and so seems to agree the Canonical design team), but the statement says nothing about that.A different DPI can be solved by a resolution proportion approach, where the usability of device with very different phisical dimension cannot be solved in the same way.
Only you are talking about "a perfect resolution proportion UI". I'm not, the guy writing the article is not and the Canonical design team is not. Who are you replying to?Think about the unity side bar in the ubuntu touch, it takes about 1/5 of the smartphone's width in portrait mode, right?
So, in a perfect resolution proprortion UI, when I go on my 29'' tv-monitor, I should see a side bar with a width equal to the 1/5 of the tv's width?
Hardly. There's nothing in that statement talking about "the best use of the space available". Not a single word. The statement is a strawman argument replying to no one. Nobody's proposing to use the exact same distribution and proportion of UI objects on every device. IMO the statement is only trying to dismiss the absolute need to make UI objects resolution independent. Instead, the article and the statement tries to diverge the attention to "let's build a wholly different UI for each device using the exact same 'technology' for all of them" and the position of the KDE developers is pretty much that one. They are building the same "underlying technology" (the "framework") to show a wholly different UI dependent on platform. This is probably the opposite of convergence, but since KDE people are usually not interested in what the user finally sees and uses but the "underlying technology", they tend to mix concepts easily.A well designed UI makes the best use of the space available, so this statement continues to be true:
Underlying technology can of course be re-used but you simply can not make a UI which works equally well on a 75 DPI 24" screen with mouse & keyboard, on a 455 dpi touch phone, on a 300 DPI touch tablet and a 64" television with Kinect or something like that...
Just google for samples/demos of the Unity convergence. You'll see the same concepts on each device and a responsive design. Familiarity, muscle-memory and consistency is what it's all about (this has been the goal since the days of the Xerox Alto, by the way...). Of course, the "underlying technology" is also the same, that should be taken for granted. The problem with KDE devs is that they stop at the "underlying technology" step, because there's actually no design step being done before. Until KDE devs understand they must work AFTER designers, not BEFORE them, they'll never have a usable product. Someone would need to actually pay for UI/UX designers, though, and nobody seems inclined to invest on that front in KDE-land.