I have been battling with scaling and have seen so many comments regarding the importance of using dips. I do not use designer so...
is it true to say that when I declare in code 100dips for the width of a panel that looks really good on my Scale 2 device, the device has already corrected that by showing it as 200pixels by assuming I (and everybody) codes relative to a Scale 1 device?
In not using Designer, is there therefore anything wrong with finding the number of pixels on the Scale 1 device (where the design looks OK) and creating a multiplication factor to be used for every positioning number used?
I should possibly add that the outer edges of the design are a perfect square. It appears to work on two devices but the Cloud tester cannot be used for coded design and it will not work correctly to use Designer look-a-like panels to do that because dips are used anyway.
Any observations please?
is it true to say that when I declare in code 100dips for the width of a panel that looks really good on my Scale 2 device, the device has already corrected that by showing it as 200pixels by assuming I (and everybody) codes relative to a Scale 1 device?
In not using Designer, is there therefore anything wrong with finding the number of pixels on the Scale 1 device (where the design looks OK) and creating a multiplication factor to be used for every positioning number used?
I should possibly add that the outer edges of the design are a perfect square. It appears to work on two devices but the Cloud tester cannot be used for coded design and it will not work correctly to use Designer look-a-like panels to do that because dips are used anyway.
Any observations please?