There will NOT be an iPad Mini

[freudling]

"When the truth is found
to be lies"

Having nothing to do with anything you've said in this thread, yes I know how iPad apps look scaled down to 7.85" size -- and anyone else can also do it easily and see for themselves and come to their own conclusions. I haven't seen a big problem despite what you keep saying.

You are incredulous.

Speaking only for myself, that's nap at all the way I use my current iPad. Sometimes it sits on a desk and I look at it from further than arms length, sometimes at arms length or closer depending on what I'm doing or looking at. Does that make me strange?

Apple has clearly established UI guidelines based on distance being a function of screen size. This is a fact. The distance people hold a device is a function of optics. There's a optimal focus point and frame of reference at X distance and is a function of screen size. You can't change nature.

... and I'm --still-- wondering what sanding my fingers down to 1/4 size has to do with any of this ...

A 7" tablet at 1024 x 768 compared to the then iPad's 1024 x 768 screen has 28% smaller pixels. Ergo... everything is scaled down by 1/4 size.

 

[hitekalex]

No, this difference is not imperceptible. It's vital. 2 mm is the difference between the size of an iPhone button and the size of the recommended .33" on an iPad. Have you seen how small 2 mm is on a ruler? It's small. Granted it's not as small a difference as 1 mm. However, it's shaving off 1 mm around the total surface of the button, not just 1 side.

Nonsense. 1mm difference is not perceptible. Certainly not enough to be a difference between "useful" and "useless". Human finger tips are just not that precise, and neither are the touch sensors in iOS devices. You can insist otherwise until you are blue in a face, but it won't make it so.

Second, it is a fact that the button size of .27" inches on the Mini does not meet Apple's UI guidelines full stop.

Nonsense. As it had already been pointed out to you - Apple UI guideline stipulates 44 point targets across ALL iOS touch devices. It just so happens that the targets are slightly larger in iPad due to different DPI. 0.27" on the iPad Mini is still compliant, there is nothing in UI guideline that states otherwise.

Yes, the iPad Mini's UI would be comprised. It's already been discussed in this thread. Go hijack somewhere else.

No. Your asserting that UI would be compromised doesn't make it so. Majority of people with any kind of knowledge on this topic either disagree with you, or at least don't see it as black and white as you do. You have been pointed to several articles by knowledgable people who believe that 7.85" iPad is feasible from all standpoints.

Take a step back, stop posting for a few days, and LISTEN to what people are telling you. You can continue repeating your assertions ad nauseum here, but it won't make them true.

 

[racer1441]

This argument is still going on? Someone needs laid.

 

[freudling]

Nonsense. 1mm difference is not perceptible. Certainly not enough to be a difference between "useful" and "useless". Human finger tips are just not that precise, and neither are the touch sensors in iOS devices. You can insist otherwise until you are blue in a face, but it won't make it so.

Nonsense. It is perceptible and it does matter.

Nonsense. As it had already been pointed out to you - Apple UI guideline stipulates 44 point targets across ALL iOS touch devices. It just so happens that the targets are slightly larger in iPad due to different DPI. 0.27" on the iPad Mini is still compliant, there is nothing in UI guideline that states otherwise.

Nonsense. 0.27" on the iPad Mini is not compliant because it's too small: it needs to be larger to meet Apple's requirements for increasing size based on the size of the screen. The larger the screen, the farther you hold it from your face and the bigger the elements need to be. And even if you're too incredulous to believe or too XXX to understand this, Apple's UI guidelines make no reference to the iPad Mini because it doesn't exist. Therefore, it is not the case that the Mini as proposed is compliant with Apple's UI guidelines.

No. Your asserting that UI would be compromised doesn't make it so. Majority of people with any kind of knowledge on this topic either disagree with you, or at least don't see it as black and white as you do. You have been pointed to several articles by knowledgable people who believe that 7.85" iPad is feasible from all standpoints.

Yes, the UI will be compromised, this is a fact.

1. Fitts principle;
2. Distance from face;
3. Shrinked UIs and content.

Everything becomes smaller. There is no escaping this. All content and all UI elements become smaller. Buttons get closer together and shrink in size. Content like digital magazines, PDFs become a pinch and zoom affair. On and on. This is fact.

Take a step back, stop posting for a few days, and LISTEN to what people are telling you. You can continue repeating your assertions ad nauseum here, but it won't make them true.

It is true. All of it. And you have said nothing. Everything you've said is based on nothing but your inability to comprehend and understand facts. Everything I've posted is a fact. It's all math, and it's inescapable. There is no argument. There is no mystery.

Tweeners demand that their UIs be tweaked and changed. It's because the pixels are smaller and everything shrinks down. Things need to be scaled up to take account of the screen and UIs and content must change.

 

[MacAgnostic]

1. Fitts principle;

<Forgive me, I don't know how to insert an image within the text, so it appears at the bottom>

Fitts's Law

See the Fitts formula at the bottom, where:
T is the average time taken to complete the movement.

a represents the start/stop time of the device (intercept) and
b stands for the inherent speed of the device (slope).
These constants can be determined experimentally by fitting a straight line to measured data.

D is the distance from the starting point to the center of the target.
W is the width of the target measured along the axis of motion.

In the case, where we are simply reducing the size of the iPad by 19% to create an "iPad mini":
a and b remain constant;
D and W change proportionally, e.g. the target size is reduced by 19% and the distance to the target is also reduced by 19%.

Since the formula divides D by W the resultant T will not change.

 

[jomo25]

I recently got a Vizio VTAB1008 for free. I've been using it to try it out while on vacation. My wife is using the iPad. I have to say, I like the Vizio's general form factor. All the suckiness is due to Android and the underpowered processor of the tablet. But other than that I like it. And I can see if there was an 8" ish iOS device, I'd buy it for sure. Already told my wife if they do come out with one, I'm getting it.

It's just a lot more portable, but has a big enough screen to not be stuck with only mobile versions of all the sites. It truly is just a consumption device (whereas with the iPad I can author as well). But I see the market now.

 

[freudling]

<Forgive me, I don't know how to insert an image within the text, so it appears at the bottom>

See the Fitts formula at the bottom, where:
T is the average time taken to complete the movement.

a represents the start/stop time of the device (intercept) and
b stands for the inherent speed of the device (slope).
These constants can be determined experimentally by fitting a straight line to measured data.

D is the distance from the starting point to the center of the target.
W is the width of the target measured along the axis of motion.

In the case, where we are simply reducing the size of the iPad by 19% to create an "iPad mini":
a and b remain constant;
D and W change proportionally, e.g. the target size is reduced by 19% and the distance to the target is also reduced by 19%.

Since the formula divides D by W the resultant T will not change.

You are mistaken and you misunderstand Fitts. Your conclusions in the context of our discussion are wrong. Do you want me to demonstrate how and why? I'll bet you do.

"Come on Freudling, tell us!"

Just let me know and I'll take you back to school once again.

 

[MacAgnostic]

You are mistaken and you misunderstand Fitts. Your conclusions in the context of our discussion are wrong. Do you want me to demonstrate how and why? I'll bet you do.

"Come on Freudling, tell us!"

Just let me know and I'll take you back to school once again.

Actually, I am far more intrested in what anyone else might have to say.
...It's all math...

 

[freudling]

Actually, I am far more intrested in what anyone else might have to say.
...It's all math...

Ok, suit yourself.

 

[Ay_Zimmy]

With a 7 inch screen or whatever they are "planning" could operate with the same iOS as the regular iPad size. It would make the iPad more mobile.

 

[freudling]

With a 7 inch screen or whatever they are "planning" could operate with the same iOS as the regular iPad size. It would make the iPad more mobile.

No it could not. Read the thread.

 

[Booji]

This argument is still going on? Someone needs laid.

Seriously. But its funny to follow. I can't wait until I get my Mini!

 

[Mackan]

Well, if Apple decides to introduce an iPad mini, then they have done their best to water it down feature wise. You can probably even forget 3G/LTE capacity. Probably only WiFi.

In other words, Apple want you to buy an iPhone, an iPad mini, an iPad, and a MacBook Air to cover all your mobile needs.

Ever wondered why they haven't added 3G capacity to the MacBook Air? Yeah, to make you buy the iPad. But the iPad can't fully replace a laptop, so... We could have fantastic products out there, but we don't.

 

[Arran]

Whether or not Apple release an iPad mini, I'll bet the competition are seeing their sales dry up as customers sit tight to see what Apple does. Apple's 7" tablet competitors must be royally pissed: Apple is costing them sales without releasing, or even announcing, a product. I'd be hopping mad myself.

Personally, this customer has been sitting tight for some months. The iPad mini is EXACTLY what I want. Well worth waiting for.

 

[Piggie]

Whether or not Apple release an iPad mini, I'll bet the competition are seeing their sales dry up as customers sit tight to see what Apple does. Apple's 7" tablet competitors must be royally pissed: Apple is costing them sales without releasing, or even announcing, a product. I'd be hopping mad myself.

Personally, this customer has been sitting tight for some months. The iPad mini is EXACTLY what I want. Well worth waiting for.

I hate to break it to you, but there are consumers who are sitting tight, waiting for something because they don't want any iPad or anything associated with the Apple ecosystem.

Myself, I have an iPad but I don't feel good about it, I only bought it as it was the best at the time. I'd rather not have an Apple product for a variety of reasons if I had other options.

It's a bit like buying a fur coat as you are cold, but hating everything about the fur industry, and hoping before long there will be a man made material you can change to as whilst your fur coat may be warm, you really would rather not be wearing it.

Other options are hopefully coming along.

 

[hitekalex]

Actually, I am far more intrested in what anyone else might have to say.
...It's all math...

You are generally correct - it's rather simple math. The relevant component of Fitts here is ID or "Index of Difficulty".

ID = log2 (D/W +1)
where D is the distance-to-target and W is the size of target.
​

In case of full-size iPad, D = 12" (roughly how far away I hold my iPad from my face), and W = 0.33".

In case of iPad Mini, D = 10" (slightly closer distance due to smaller size / weight / one-handed operation), and W = 0.27".

The Fitts ID in first case is 5.18, and in the case of Mini it's 5.22 - the difference of >1%. If you hold Mini 0.5" closer (9.5") - the Fitts ID drops to 5.17, actually making it "less difficult" than full-sized iPad.

The obvious point here is that the difference in Fitts "difficulty index" is immaterial. And in any case, can be easily overcome by holding (lighter/smaller) Mini slightly closer to your face.

There is nothing related to Fitts that points to infeasibility of 7.85" iPad Mini.

 

[knucklehead]

Having nothing to do with anything you've said in this thread, yes I know how iPad apps look scaled down to 7.85" size -- and anyone else can also do it easily and see for themselves and come to their own conclusions. I haven't seen a big problem despite what you keep saying.

You are incredulous.

Vocabulary word of the day? Repletion does help help learning, but using it over and over again in the same environment can make a bit obvious. Try making todays word something related such as skeptical (skep-ti-k uh l).

Speaking only for myself, that's nap at all the way I use my current iPad. Sometimes it sits on a desk and I look at it from further than arms length, sometimes at arms length or closer depending on what I'm doing or looking at. Does that make me strange?

You can't change nature.

Seems like I do it all the time in practice. I bet most other users of handheld devices do too.

... and I'm --still-- wondering what sanding my fingers down to 1/4 size has to do with any of this ...

A 7" tablet at 1024 x 768 compared to the then iPad's 1024 x 768 screen has 28% smaller pixels. Ergo... everything is scaled down by 1/4 size.

I've been waiting for this one -- This is GOLDEN.
I'm gonna save it for a birthday party game. The kids can play "PIN THE TAIL ON freudling's MISTAKE"
Everyone's a winner, 'cause ya just can't miss.

"What you're saying doesn't make any sense" (Yes - A Serious Man again here, and previous post)

 

[Arran]

I hate to break it to you, but there are consumers who are sitting tight, waiting for something because they don't want any iPad or anything associated with the Apple ecosystem.

Agreed. Sorry if I sounded like an apple fanboi.

From a purely selfish perspective, I'm heavily invested in the Apple ecosystem and want to extract as much value as I can. But I wholeheartedly agree that you can't have a healthy market without real competition.

 

[ucfgrad93]

I hate to break it to you, but there are consumers who are sitting tight, waiting for something because they don't want any iPad or anything associated with the Apple ecosystem.

Myself, I have an iPad but I don't feel good about it, I only bought it as it was the best at the time. I'd rather not have an Apple product for a variety of reasons if I had other options.

It is nice to have options. You need to make the decision on which device best fits your needs. If it not an Apple product, then that is ok.

 

[poloponies]

Myself, I have an iPad but I don't feel good about it, I only bought it as it was the best at the time. I'd rather not have an Apple product for a variety of reasons if I had other options..

You do appreciate how ridiculous that sounds? Life is very liveable without an iPad. If you purchased one then it was obviously useful for your needs. The whole "I'd rather not have an Apple" approach is tired and childish. It's either the device you want or it isn't but nobody's forcing you to buy it and there are countless non-Apple tablets out there already.

 

[knucklehead]

You do appreciate how ridiculous that sounds? Life is very liveable without an iPad. If you purchased one then it was obviously useful for your needs. The whole "I'd rather not have an Apple" approach is tired and childish. It's either the device you want or it isn't but nobody's forcing you to buy it and there are countless non-Apple tablets out there already.

You can't call his sentiment incorrect - it simply is what it is.

There's a lot of other people out there that feel the same way.
There's a coiled up demand for a competing system that isn't there yet -- and it looks anyone faces a mighty tough challenge to get a compelling one established.

 

[MacAgnostic]

You are generally correct - it's rather simple math. The relevant component of Fitts here is ID or "Index of Difficulty".

ID = log2 (D/W +1)
where D is the distance-to-target and W is the size of target.
​

In case of full-size iPad, D = 12" (roughly how far away I hold my iPad from my face), and W = 0.34".

In case of iPad Mini, D = 10" (slightly closer distance due to smaller size / weight / one-handed operation), and W = 0.27".

The Fitts ID in first case is 5.18, and in the case of Mini it's 5.24 - the difference of about 1%. If you hold Mini 0.5" closer (9.5") - the Fitts ID drops to 5.17, actually making it "less difficult" than full-sized iPad.

The obvious point here is that the difference in Fitts "difficulty index" is immaterial. And in any case, can be easily overcome by holding (lighter/smaller) Mini slightly closer to your face.

There is nothing related to Fitts that points to infeasibility of 7.85" iPad Mini.

I see, I got D wrong, at least for stabbing at the screen; for navigating the surface of the screen D would scale with the size of the screen.

It was stated earlier that a larger screen would be held farther from your face; it stands to reason that a smaller iPad (19% smaller) would infact be held closer (perhaps even 19% closer) to your face.
In that case, D/W would remain the same.

 

[hitekalex]

I see, I got W wrong, at least for stabbing at the screen; for navigating the surface of the screen W would scale with the size of the screen.

It was stated earlier that a larger screen would be held farther from your face; it stands to reason that a smaller iPad (19% smaller) would infact be held closer (perhaps even 19% closer) to your face.
In that case, D/W would remain the same.

W is the function of logical screen resolution and tap target size (programmed in the apps). The physical size of W is Target-Size / Logical-DPI. Apple's prescribed target size is 44 points, regardless of device type. The logical DPI of iPad is 132. So that's how you end up with 0.333" target for iPad (44/132).

7.85" iPad with the same 1024x768 resolution means higher DPI - 163 to be exact. So the W in that case is 0.27" (44/163).

The actual Index of Difficulty determined by Fitts is logarithmically scaled. If you do the math - the difference in Fitts ID between the two use cases is under 1%. And yes that assumes you hold Mini about 20% closer to your face, which you'd naturally do anyway.

 

[MacAgnostic]

W is the function of logical screen resolution and tap target size (programmed in the apps). The physical size of W is Target-Size / Logical-DPI. Apple's prescribed target size is 44 points, regardless of device type. The logical DPI of iPad is 132. So that's how you end up with 0.333" target for iPad (44/132).

7.85" iPad with the same 1024x768 resolution means higher DPI - 163 to be exact. So the W in that case is 0.27" (44/163).

The actual Index of Difficulty determined by Fitts is logarithmically scaled. If you do the math - the difference in Fitts ID between the two use cases is under 1%. And yes that assumes you hold Mini about 20% closer to your face, which you'd naturally do anyway.

I must need more caffine today. I'll edit my post to say what I meant (I was actually referring to D).

 

[hitekalex]

I must need more caffine today. I'll edit my post to say what I meant (I was actually referring to D).

Yes, D would scale with screen size. Just as people hold iPhones closer to their face than iPads - they would hold iPad Mini slightly closer than 9.7" iPad.

I was just watching the way my wife holds her Nook Color - she is holding it by one hand similar to a smartphone, probably about 10" away from her face.