For the sake of argument let’s take it as a given that the next iPhone will sport an 1136 × 640 display, with the same 326 pixels-per-inch resolution as the iPhone 4 and 4S, the same width, but an extra 176 pixels in height, changing the aspect ratio from 3:2 to 16:9.
Let’s further assume that this new iPhone will not be announced until later this year, say, around October, just like the 4S last year. How might Apple get developers on the right track to support a new aspect ratio at WWDC next month while maintaining their standard radio silence regarding as-yet-unannounced products?
The easiest way: By doing nothing at all. iOS 6 could be announced next month without Apple saying a word about supporting multiple aspect ratios. Then they could just announce the new iPhone in October and expect developers to get on board ASAP. Apple says “Jump”; iOS developers ask “How high?”
But, keep in mind, iPhone apps are already expected to be at least somewhat flexible in height. Use a well-written app while you’re on a phone call or making a recording with the Voice Memos app, and you get a double-height status bar (green for phone calls, red for recordings). But the double-height status bar doesn’t cover the content of most apps. Springboard tightens the spacing between its rows of app icons. Apps like Mail, Safari, and Calendar move the top of the window — the UINavigationBar — down to account for the double-sized status bar. The same is true for third-party apps.
In short, “windows” on iOS resize like windows on a Mac. Except instead of the user being able to resize the window in both dimensions to any arbitrary size, on iOS “windows” are expected to resize only in one dimension. (Will Hains is thinking along similar lines.)
What has occurred to me, though, is that Apple could, with the (presumed) upcoming WWDC introduction of iOS 6, further encourage developers to be flexible in this regard by changing the way notification banners are displayed. As it stands, notification banners are shown one at a time, and cover the content of the underlying app. WebOS seemed1 more elegant in this regard — WebOS notification banners stacked on screen, and the current app shrunk to fit the remaining space.
If Apple introduced something like this in iOS 6, they could encourage iOS developers to adopt the recommended APIs to be responsive to changes in available vertical screen space. For now, they could pitch this in the context of shrinking screen space in response to on-screen notification banners, but, come October, apps that do the right thing would automatically be responsive to, say, a new device with 176 more pixels.
Why Bother?
We can argue about just how difficult supporting a new iPhone screen size would be for developers, just how much complexity it would introduce, but no matter how easy you think it may wind up being, there’s no doubt that it would add some extra work, and some extra complexity. So why do it?
I suspect the answer is, why not? The design tension in post-iPhone mobile phones is between screen size (where bigger is better) and device size (where smaller is better). You want a physical device that is small enough to fit easily in your pockets and is comfortable and easy to use while holding it in one hand. But you want a screen that’s as big as feasible, so you can see more content — more words in email messages, web pages, and e-books; bigger pictures and video.
If Apple indeed increases the size of the next iPhone’s display to 4 inches, I do not expect them to increase the physical size of the device itself. There is plenty of room on the current iPhone for the rumored 4-inch display — just shrink the non-display areas on the front face. On the iPad, the thick bezel area surrounding the display serves an essential purpose — it gives you a place to rest your thumbs while holding the device. The non-display “forehead” and “chin” on the front face of the iPhone serve no such practical purpose. All Apple needs is enough room for a home button at the bottom, and the speaker, camera, and proximity sensor at the top.2
Why didn’t they start with a 16:9 display at the outset, in 2007? Who knows? They’ll never explain themselves. Maybe they couldn’t pull it off technically at the time. Maybe they’ve simply changed their minds. If Apple’s designers think 16:9 would be better today, they’ll switch. It’s that simple.
What Apple Won’t Do With Those Extra Pixels
Judging from my email, the most common theory out there about what Apple might do with those extra pixels is to make the app-switching dock a persistent system-wide presence. That way developers wouldn’t need to do a damn thing — apps would still get the same 960 × 640 screen area, and the switching dock (the thing you see when you double-press the home button) would be on screen all the time.
I say no way.
First, this would be antithetical to the iOS aesthetic. iOS apps get the whole display, minus only (and optionally!) the status bar. When you launch an app, the device, conceptually, is the app. A persistent app dock would ruin that.
Second, practically, this would be a disaster. An erroneous tap on the icons in the dock would instantly zap you out of the current app. Think about where it would be — right under the keyboard. Miss the space bar by a few pixels and pop — you’re zapped to another app, mid-sentence. I’ve experienced this problem firsthand with Android phones with soft keys underneath the display. It’s a usability disaster.
Third, making the switching dock a persistent on-screen element would solve no problem. Needing to double-press the home button to invoke it is not a hardship.
…via Daring Fireball
1 day ago -
From Drinks
[Illustration: Robyn Lee]
It’s nearly summer. What’s in your fridge? High time you stocked up on affordable white wine, a stash of bottles that you can open when a friend stops by (with another friend) or someone at your party doesn’t want to drink punch. You need bottles that can make your delivery Thai food dinner a little more special—without breaking the bank.
Over the past several months, we’ve tasted dozens of bottles under $15 in the hopes of finding a collection of wines we can proudly recommend to you. We looked for excellent values in both the crisp/light and fuller/richer categories. These are the wines we’d tell our friends to buy instead of that Yellowtail they keep picking up at the corner store—wines we’d actually buy instead of something more expensive. So without further ado, here are the May 2012 inductees into the Serious Eats Budget White Wine Hall of Fame.
Refreshing white wines are a category you can totally cover on a budget—especially if you’re willing to explore lesser-known grapes and unfamiliar regions.
There have been summers in my not-so-distant past when there wasn’t much in the fridge but cheap-as-can-be Gazela. It sells for around $5, and though it’s not at all complex, it’s a crowd-pleaser, with bright lime and green apple flavors and a touch of effervescence. We slightly prefer Casal Garcia Vinho Verde, which is about a dollar more. It’s simple, chuggable stuff, like Sprite with a little alcohol (not too much)—the perfect party wine, especially if it’s warm out. There’s some green apple flavor, a little lemon-lime, and a little spritz—but it’s not meant for analyzing, the bottle will be gone before you know it. If you’re ready to trade up, try Condes de Albarei Albarino (2011) which is a little richer but totally refreshing, with tons of grapefruity limey tartness plus an herbal side (think lemongrass and mint). If you like your tonic with lime, this is a wine you should try. It sells for around $12.
It’s often a good idea to explore lesser-known grapes when searching for the best budget wine. We scored with Domaine L’Enclos Vin de Pays (2010) from Gascony, France, which sells for around $7. This crazy value is a blend of Colombard and Ugni Blanc, and one sip will make you think of the beach: salty winds, seashells, lobster rolls. It’s slightly peachy with a blast of tartness—serve it with shellfish or any fried food (or better yet, fried shellfish, like soft shell crabs.)
While we’re talking shellfish, one of my favorite matches is a wine I’ve been buying for years, Pierre Boniface Apremont Vin de Savoie. The 2010 vintage has tons of apricot-like fruit, a punch of limey acidity (margarita-style), and amazing purity that lets you taste the minerals front and forward. It’s not a profound wine, but deeply refreshing, perfect for the beach, raw or grilled seafood, chips and salsa. The price goes up and down, but it’s well worth $15.
Cono Sur Sauvignon Blanc (2011) far outperforms its $9 pricetag, offering zingy, lemon-limey refreshment with an oyster-shell backdrop that’s quite pleasant. If you like New Zealand Sauvignon Blancs, this one from Valle Central in Chile should be on your must-buy list—look for the Bicycle on the label. Cono Sur also has a zippy Chardonnay in the bicycle lineup. Another Sauvignon Blanc winner: Touraine ‘Le Grand St-Vincent’ Sauvignon (2010) from the Loire region of France, which sells for about $12. It has an exotic, tropical fragrance that might make you expect sweetness, but this refreshing wine balances peachy fruit and a little richness with tart grapefruit flavors. Gulp it with tacos—fish or carnitas.
Graffigna Pinot Grigio from Argentina (2011) is a fun, remarkably full flavored, and tangy, like a lime-filled pitcher of sangria with lots of ripe peaches in it. For around $11, it’s a wine we’d stock up on. Drink with scallops, grilled chicken, or an avocado-and-shrimp salad (though it’s perfectly refreshing on its own.)
Falesco Vitiano Verdicchio Vermentino (2010) from Umbria in Italy is another bright, light option for around $10, crisp and fresh, with a little salinity and a delicate floral side that calls out for seafood—oysters or grilled lobster, anyone? This kind of wine makes us wish it were summer right now. Italy’s always a great place to explore grapes you’re not familiar with—we were recently captivated by a Bianchello from the Marches region, Claudio Morelli Bianchello del Metauro La Vigna delle Terrazze (2010). This wine, made from a type of grape that has been grown in the Marches for centuries, smells like honey, but it’s brightened by a searing, citrusy acidity. It’s practically screaming for sushi or rich crab cakes. Keep exploring Italy with Botromagno Gravina (2010) a minerally blend of malvasia and greco that has a refreshing herbal (bay leaf and thyme) character and a hint of honeydew melon. It’s much more interesting than most of what you find for $10, and the lemon-lime tartness will keep you refreshed on a hot day. Serve with linguine and clams.
Say you’re looking for something a little bit richer? We were knocked out by the deliciousness of the bottle of 2010 Domaine San Guilhem Vin de Pays des Côtes de Gascogne we tried, especially given that it sells for less than $10. This white blend is full and slightly creamy, with a ton of bright tartness and a delicate herbal/vegetal side to balance a bit of peach flavor. It has enough body to stand up to food—try a vegetable-laden omelet or a big tray of sushi. This wine from Gascony is worth stocking up on, even if you’ve never heard of the grapes it contains (it’s made from Colombard, Gros Manseng, and Ugni Blanc, which is also known as Trebbiano.) Terrific value.
My weakness for riesling is well documented, but I’ve often had trouble finding good examples under $18 or $20. But recently I’ve found a few more affordable options that offer incredible value. Take Dr. L Riesling (2010) from Loosen Bros., a mouthwatering wine that sells for around $10. It’s only 8.5% alcohol, which means there’s some residual sugar, but it balances its gentle sweetness with buzzy acidity (This may be especially prominent in the 2010, when many wines were so acidic that winemakers had to reduce the acidity in their wines.) Dr. L has a little fresh mandarin and watermelon flavor, and it’s absolutely perfect with Thai food, especially those dishes with a little sweetness, like pad thai. Another strong contender for best budget riesling: Selbach Riesling Incline (2010), which sells for $10 to $13. It has a zingy Meyer lemon brightness, swirls of oyster-shell minerality, and a bit of fennel flavor. Tart (this is NOT a sweet wine), tangy, lipsmacking, and only 10.5% ABV, so you can drink a few glasses. Try with grilled bratwurst or with crab or sushi. Bring to a pool party, convert all your friends into riesling lovers.
Kellerei Santa Magdalena Weissburgunder (2010) from Alto Adige in Italy has both the German (Weissburgunder) and the Italian (Pinot Bianco) grape name on the bottle. The wine leans toward herbal and lettucelike with a silky, creamy texture, and a bright, tart side that cleanses your mouth. It’s both full and refreshing—it’s ready to pair with vegetables or fish, or even egg salad sandwiches. Quite elegant for the $15 price tag.
Looking for domestic options? I can’t say enough good things about Montinore Estate’s Borealis ($13), and everyone I’ve poured it for has loved it. It’s refreshing but rich and incredibly food friendly. This white blend from Oregon features riesling, müller-thurgau, pinot gris, and gewürztraminer. With a remarkable clarity and purity of flavor, this wine seems crystalline and infused with aromatic jasmine and grapefruit, with palate-cleansing tartness to balance a whisper of residual sugar. Drink with roast chicken or turkey.
Disclosure: with the exception of the Domaine L’Enclos and Pierre Boniface, all wines were provided as samples for review consideration. Only top-reviewed wines were included here.
About the Author: Maggie Hoffman is the editor of Serious Eats: Drinks. You can follow her on Twitter @maggiejane.
…via Serious Eats
1 week ago -
Woah - what a week. I’m sitting in the lobby of a hotel in New York, and quite a lot has unfolded since I last checked in. The short version is: I flew to New York for the James Beard Awards, and then (holy s**t) I won one. I’m making my way back home now, and my fingers are crossed that some of my photos from the past few days turn out. In the meantime, I’ll leave you with this. It’s a Parmesan spread I make now and then, one I like for a number of reasons. You grate good Parmesan whisper-thin into a pot. Then combine that with a splash of white wine and a big glug of olive oil. That’s really it. It’s one of those stupid-simple, homemade, tastes-really-good things you can make in no time. If it gets lost in your refrigerator for a week, no worries, it’s that much better when you rediscover it. Once you’ve made this base, it can hang out in your fridge for a week, or two, - or even three. Ready to use whenever (and, on whatever) you like.
It’s also completely customizable on a whim. You can stir in any number or herbs, spices, dried or fresh fruits (before serving) to take the spread in whatever direction you like. I noted some suggestions in the recipe below. It’s good on crostini, sandwiches, and tartines. It’s good spread in the bottom of a tart crust. It’s good drizzled with a bit of honey or as part of a cheese / antipasti platter.
Thanks again to everyone for the nice notes. Every one of them feels good to read. xo -h
Continue reading Parmesan Cheese Spread…
…via 101 Cookbooks
2 weeks ago -
