JPDev@programming.dev to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · edit-210 months agoFitbit Clock Faceprogramming.devimagemessage-square132fedilinkarrow-up11.27Karrow-down122
arrow-up11.25Karrow-down1imageFitbit Clock Faceprogramming.devJPDev@programming.dev to Programmer Humor@programming.dev · edit-210 months agomessage-square132fedilink
minus-squarePsythik@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up16arrow-down2·10 months agoWatches should be round IMO. I’m happy with my Samsung Watch 4 Classic.
minus-squareAceticon@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up28·10 months agoYeah, but square screens are way cheaper to procure and to program for, and every little helps in an open source project aiming for $30.
minus-squareSwedneck@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkarrow-up13·10 months agohonestly just depends on what kind of watchface you want, square is cheaper and in some ways more convenient so if you don’t want an analog clockface there’s no reason to bother
minus-squareshea@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkarrow-up6arrow-down10·10 months agoit’s ugly and sticks out too much when it’s square. round is classy
minus-squareipkpjersi@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up5·10 months agoTrue but it can also look sleek/modern, or at least rectangular can imo.
minus-squareFarvana@lemmygrad.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up5·10 months agoIt’s a chunk of plastic on your wrist. It’s always going to be a bit tacky.
Watches should be round IMO. I’m happy with my Samsung Watch 4 Classic.
Yeah, but square screens are way cheaper to procure and to program for, and every little helps in an open source project aiming for $30.
honestly just depends on what kind of watchface you want, square is cheaper and in some ways more convenient so if you don’t want an analog clockface there’s no reason to bother
it’s ugly and sticks out too much when it’s square. round is classy
True but it can also look sleek/modern, or at least rectangular can imo.
It’s a chunk of plastic on your wrist. It’s always going to be a bit tacky.