I'm sure a lot of you will know about the number phi (the golden ratio = 1.61803399). If not, you can read more HERE. It's believed to be a 'beautiful' number, and many of the greek temples were built to specifications based on this. It's also seen in Da Vinci's Vitruvian Man and the Mona Lisa IIRC. (I'm sure there are others who have read the Da Vinci Code ) Anyway, I was playing with my vernier calipers (as you do ) and came across the idea that the iPod might be a 'perfect' design. The ratio of the height of the iPod to its width is 1.66 - almost the golden ratio but not quite. However, the ratio of the click wheel diameter to the width is almost exactly phi (I make it 1.62 but I can't measure the clickwheel exactly). Pretty much every ratio I can think to measure, on both the iPod and the Shuffle, are in the region of 1.55 - 1.70. I thought it was interesting, anyway. It's also worth noting that the shuffle is built beautifully accurately. It is exactly 6.00mm thick (10.00 including the clip)
Which generation are you referring to specifically, surely not every one can be the 'perfect design?'
The golden ratio just refers to the ratio of lengths of the sides, so it's possible that it could occur on any generation.
Not trying to cause offense, but I don't buy the golden ratio baloney whatsoever. Using this logic, anything with the rato 1.62 is "beautiful". Oh look, um... my monitor is 16:10, giving a ratio of 1.6, its close enough to 1.62 therefore it's "beautiful", right? Someone already has put it much better words than me: The rest of the article is a good read.
You can't deny that widescreens look tasty though. I would however be tempted to put it all down to coincidence. Any design which circulates around any number has patterns in it and is therefore beautiful.
You may find that the golden ratio in iPod design is not a coincidence. Every architect, artist and product designer know about it. Actually, an aesthetically pleasing human body pretty much follows this golden ratio also. Liz Hurley's face is a nice example --so are the bodies of many models.
It's a 5g Video iPod, I don't know if the different models are significantly different in their dimensions. I can't measure them if I don't have them They are the two that were to hand in my room, funnily enough I didn't think to have a look at my laptop - A Powerbook 12". Ratio a : b = 1.61 x : y = 1.60 Nexxo is right about Liz Hurley ( ) but apparently the same thing also applies to Tom Cruise to make him attractive to women.
As I said, the golden ratio in Apple products is quite intentional. Apple spends an awful lot of thought on the design of its products. Some details you may never even notice. It is not gender specific. Basically, the proportions of a healthy human body developing under ideal conditions will conform to the golden ratio. Any deviation from that reflects a deviation from the developmental ideal.
Yeah. I saw a program on it a few years back. The only ratio I can remember was the height : width of face but there were lots, including placement of eyes, nose, eyebrows, lips etc.
he might have something here.... maybe that ratio is comfortable or familiar to us humans.... edit: posted on a unrefreshed tab..... grrrrrr
And ratio of finger tip length to that of the next joint, of that joint to the third etc... It is surprising in how many different details it pops up. It's kind of re-iterative, like fractals.
For anyone else getting WP errors on that page, try http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/mighty_mouse_creates_an_optical_illusion.php . Interesting little tidbit. In any case, Apple's use of the golden ratio in their products is definitely intentional. The height-to-width, the width-to-clickwheel ratios for two follow those guides. I seem to remember there being a lot of commotion regarding this very thing when the Nano first came out since it didn't have the ratio.
