Thanks again Mark. I agree, but the AVD, set up at the Tab's 169 density, also comes back as high density, so the Tab seems to be consistent with Google's guidelines (if the AVD is, that is).
I'll look into your suggestion. Currently, I am not familiar with using wrap_content or Android:layout_width. Do you cover them in any of your books? On Nov 17, 10:34 am, Mark Murphy <mmur...@commonsware.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Kim <kimknap...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I am using dp's or dip's everywhere and unless I am totally confused, > > this is one case where using dp's is worse than using px's, because > > the Tab is multiplying my dp's by 1.5 and the Fire is not, but they > > are the same size screen with less than 3% variance in pixel density. > > Hence, the views on my Fire are 2/3 the size of the same views on the > > Tab. > > Your real problem is more with the Tab. ~160dpi should be medium > density; you should be closer to 240dpi to get to high density. > > > In any case, I still don't see how to work around this. If it was a 7" > > device with a pixel count of 600x400, all would be well with the 1.0 > > density factor :-). > > Using wrap_content, or android:layout_weight, or similar > dynamic-sizing constructs should be consistent with other devices. > > -- > Mark Murphy (a Commons > Guy)http://commonsware.com|http://github.com/commonsguyhttp://commonsware.com/blog|http://twitter.com/commonsguy > > Android 3.2 Programming Books:http://commonsware.com/books -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Android Developers" group. To post to this group, send email to android-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to android-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/android-developers?hl=en
