There will NOT be an iPad Mini

[hitekalex]

"I can't figure out if you're really this dense, or just trolling at this point.. "

freudling - I am going to conclude from your last post that's the answer is "both".

I am done with you. Sticking your nose into puddle after puddle of your stupidity stops being fun after a while.

 

[freudling]

"I can't figure out if you're really this dense, or just trolling at this point.. "

freudling - I am going to conclude from your last post that's the answer is "both".

I am done with you. Sticking your nose into puddle after puddle of your stupidity stops being fun after a while.

When in doubt... when you don't have a point... attack the person and call them stupid.

See ya around...

Sips giant barrel of coffee.

 

[dancj]

It would be similar to going from 15" MacBook Pro (non-retina 1440x900 resolution) to 13" MacBook Air (same resolution). I have never heard of anyone claiming 13" MBA being "unusable" because Apple decided to squeeze the same resolution from 15" to 13" screen.

But that doesn't work with a touchscreen that you have to use your fingers to hit buttons with. A change in the viewing size is easily fixed by holding the device a bit closer. A change in the size of the widgets that you have to hit with your fingers wouldn't.

 

[freudling]

But that doesn't work with a touchscreen that you have to use your fingers to hit buttons with. A change in the viewing size is easily fixed by holding the device a bit closer. A change in the size of the widgets that you have to hit with your fingers wouldn't.

You're pretty much right.

Also, Apple clearly states that while the size of devices may change, the size of the user's fingers doesn't. And neither does their vision.

 

[buddgeez]

Can everyone just stop with this rumour? This has become one of the worst, overhyped Apple rumours I've ever seen.

First, the sources for these rumours are crap: often times it's some Chinese publication putting it out.

Second, the size will be a waste. Jobs is right, 7" tablets are tweeners. They generally suck for content. Smartphones are now so useful you really need a compelling reason to drop the handheld for a tablet. The iPad is just big enough to justify its existence in this respect. There's no way Apple is going to release it for this reason... In other words, it's a dead category. The only reason this stuff gets perpetuated is because of link whores and Apple's ever present disinformation machine.

"Keep em' guessing; distract them; thwart their offensive efforts; cause confusion..."

So you work for apple right?

 

[freudling]

So you work for apple right?

In the end, whether I currently work for Apple or whether I did work for them... does it really matter? I'd never admit those things and even I did disclose my background, it wouldn't stop incredulity and is therefore a waste of time.

 

[hitekalex]

But that doesn't work with a touchscreen that you have to use your fingers to hit buttons with. A change in the viewing size is easily fixed by holding the device a bit closer. A change in the size of the widgets that you have to hit with your fingers wouldn't.

In case of 15" -> 13" MacBook running at the same res - you have to hit smaller targets with a mouse. It is completely analogous to hitting slightly smaller iPad buttons with fingers. Works fine in both cases.

 

[freudling]

In case of 15" -> 13" MacBook running at the same res - you have to hit smaller targets with a mouse. It is completely analogous to hitting slightly smaller iPad buttons with fingers. Works fine in both cases.

No it does not work fine in both cases.

1. Some people do complain about smaller pixels on an Air.
2. As has been discussed, the targets on a Tweener are too small and too close together after scaling down. Too small according to what can be derived from Apple's guidelines.
3. Also, a mouse pointer is much more precise compared to a fleshy finger so smaller targets that are closer together aren't as big of a deal.
4. Fitts shows how certain targets on a desktop are infinite in size so size within reasonable range becomes virtually irrelevant...

I could go on...

I thought you were done with this thread?

 

[knucklehead]

Also, Apple clearly states that while the size of devices may change, the size of the user's fingers doesn't. And neither does their vision.

You do need sandpaper. Jobs was right. It is true and it's a fact. And because of this, it is not a case of Jobs disinformation. It's a case where he was telling the truth.

Blatantly incorrect as usual. Once again, here is what Steve Jobs actually said:

“So that the user can sand down their fingers to around one-quarter of their present size”.

One quarter of their present size, NOT one quarter smaller.

Regardless of what Jobs said

They should use a cheese grater.

"A what?"

 

[freudling]

Blatantly incorrect as usual. Once again, here is what Steve Jobs actually said:

“So that the user can sand down their fingers to around one-quarter of their present size”.

One quarter of their present size, NOT one quarter smaller.

"A what?"

We've already been through this, and you've been learning:

Tweeners must have their UIs tweaked and changed to account for the size of the device.

 

[knucklehead]

We've already been through this, and you've been learning:

Tweeners must have their UIs tweaked and changed to account for the size of the device.

I give you credit for consistency -- You never seem to understand what's going on, or be able to make sense.

You do need sandpaper. Jobs was right. It is true and it's a fact. And because of this, it is not a case of Jobs disinformation. It's a case where he was telling the truth[/B]

Blatantly incorrect as usual. Once again, here is what Steve Jobs actually said:

“So that the user can sand down their fingers to around one-quarter of their present size”.

One quarter of their present size, NOT one quarter smaller.

Those statements cannot possibly work together -- you seem to be the only person around that is not capable of understanding that.

You're a "special" guy.

----------

I've done hard testing with Apps scaled down on the iPad to tweener sizes. Pages, Safari, Facebook...

In Safari for instance:

1. Buttons are too close together and too small to the point that my fingers were over top of two buttons at once in different areas.

Exactly how did you do this "hard testing".

Exactly what buttons in Safari are you talking about?

 

[freudling]

I give you credit for consistency -- You never seem to understand what's going on, or be able to make sense.



Blatantly incorrect as usual. Once again, here is what Steve Jobs actually said:

“So that the user can sand down their fingers to around one-quarter of their present size”.

One quarter of their present size, NOT one quarter smaller.

Those statements cannot possibly work together -- you seem to be the only person around that is not capable of understanding that.

You're a "special" guy.

----------



Exactly how did you do this "hard testing".

Exactly what buttons in Safari are you talking about?

You're a "special knucklehead".

Tweeners must have their UIs tweaked and changed to account for the size of the device.

 

[knucklehead]

You're a "special knucklehead".

Tweeners must have their UIs tweaked and changed to account for the size of the device.


Once again, you demonstrate your inability to answer the simplest of questions.

Try to answer the simple questions freudling:

Exactly how did you do this "hard testing".

Exactly what buttons in Safari are you talking about?

Larry "Clive ... What do you propose?"

Clive "Passing grade"

 

[dancj]

In case of 15" -> 13" MacBook running at the same res - you have to hit smaller targets with a mouse. It is completely analogous to hitting slightly smaller iPad buttons with fingers. Works fine in both cases.

No because shrinking the screen on a mac doesn't make it harder to point accurately with a mouse that has a one pixel point. Shirking an iPad would make it harder to be as accurate with your fingers.

I'm not sure why you're having trouble with the concept.

 

[knucklehead]

No because shrinking the screen on a mac doesn't make it harder to point accurately with a mouse that has a one pixel point. Shirking an iPad would make it harder to be as accurate with your fingers.

I'm not sure why you're having trouble with the concept.

Are you talking about Fitts's law?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts%27s_law

I'm having trouble with what you're saying.

Could you point you where I missing that in the WIKI page?

 

[hitekalex]

No because shrinking the screen on a mac doesn't make it harder to point accurately with a mouse that has a one pixel point.

Do you really not understand that smaller UI targets are more difficult to point and click on? Otherwise, you'd see 11" laptops with 1900x1200 resolutions. This is simple concept that should be apparent to a 6 year old, but apparently not you.

Shirking an iPad would make it harder to be as accurate with your fingers

I agree with that, but 44-point targets scaled down from current iPad to 7.85" screen end up being 0.27" in size.. Which is still large enough to be useful, otherwise people could never use touchscreen smartphones.

 

[freudling]

Are you talking about Fitts's law?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitts%27s_law

I'm having trouble with what you're saying.

Could you point you where I missing that in the WIKI page?

Oh knucklehead.

I'm willing to bet: you've never even heard of fitts law before I mentioned it in this thread...

The point is that having smaller hit areas on a computer isn't as troublesome as it is on multi-touch devices because a mouse pointer is much more precise and can hit something as small as 1 pixel. Fingers are much less precise. So smaller hit areas become harder to hit. They're harder to hit because your finger can cover them up... sometimes you can't even see what you're trying to hit. They're also harder to hit because they can be too close to another button next to it and your meaty fingers touch both at the same time offering up a spurious input... none of this is a problem when you have a point and click device: you can make targets very small, and many software makers do it (e.g., Adobe) to make room for lots of features on screen.

----------

Do you really not understand that smaller UI targets are more difficult to point and click on? Otherwise, you'd see 11" laptops with 1900x1200 resolutions. This is simple concept that should be apparent to a 6 year old, but apparently not you.

I thought you were done in this thread?

There is an optimal size to hit, but with a point and click device, you can make your targets much smaller because the mouse arrow is precise. And this is what many software makers do like Adobe: it allows them to fit a large number of features on screen. It's what defines UI design on desktops: smaller hit areas and many more features... and smaller hit areas to not cover up as much of the desktop... it's about a multi-tasking environment where a pixel saved is a pixel earned... not to cover up a users desktop as much as possible. Multi-touch defines UI design: the interfaces are simpler and hit areas much bigger because of fingers. In other words, it's not just Fitt's: speed from point A-B. It's the input device, and in this case, the input device is the fingers

And stop making personal attacks: it just shows how frustrated you get because of your lack of understanding UI design.

I agree with that, but 44-point targets scaled down from current iPad to 7.85" screen end up being 0.27" in size.. Which is still large enough to be useful, otherwise people could never use touchscreen smartphones.

Once again you are incredulous and are wrong. iPHONE MIN TARGETS OF .27" ARE NOT LARGE ENOUGH ON A 7.85" SCREEN BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HOLD THE DEVICE FARTHER FROM YOUR FACE THAN AN IPHONE AND THE SCREEN SURFACE AREA IS MUCH BIGGER.

Therefore, you're whole tweener position is debunked.

 

[hitekalex]

I thought you were done in this thread?

No, I am just done debunking your repetitive and misguided drivel - I have already done enough of that throughout the thread (as did several others).

If there are other self proclaimed "tablet experts" from BB Geek Squad - I reserve my right to set them straight

 

[MacAgnostic]

Shirking an iPad would make it harder to be as accurate with your fingers

I agree with that, but 44-point targets scaled down from current iPad to 7.85" screen end up being 0.27" in size.. Which is still large enough to be useful, otherwise people could never use touchscreen smartphones.

In fact it is the SAME size (0.27") as the iPod Touch.

The ONLY relevant issues are, is one forced to view at a greater distance, and if so, would impact usability?
No evidence has been presented that this is so. Just bold faced assertions and strawman arguments.

 

[hitekalex]

In fact it is the SAME size (0.27") as the iPod Touch.

The ONLY relevant issues are, is one forced to view at a greater distance, and if so, would impact usability?
No evidence has been presented that this is so. Just bold faced assertions and strawman arguments.

You won't get any disagreement from me

As I said in my very first post in this thread - it's full of hot air, and very short on any real evidence or first hand experience.

 

[freudling]

In fact it is the SAME size (0.27") as the iPod Touch.

The ONLY relevant issues are, is one forced to view at a greater distance, and if so, would impact usability?
No evidence has been presented that this is so. Just bold faced assertions and strawman arguments.

Yes evidence has been presented.

1. Derived directly from Apple's Guidelines: an iPhone gets .27" buttons, an iPad 9.7 gets .33" buttons. The spectrum is .06". Therefore, implicit in Apple's guidelines... the buttons MUST be bigger on the 7.85" device than the iPhone to account for the increased distance it's held from your face and the surface area of the device. This is fact and there is no arguing it.

2. People's argument is that because the resolution could be the same 1024x768 where the 9.7" UIs could be scaled down without changing the UIs in anyway. Therefore, no fragmentation. This is a fallacy and is wrong. First, as just pointed out, the button sizes scale down too much when scaling down an App to fit a 7.85" screen. Second, as discussed, everything gets smaller and thus everything is closer together. Buttons are too small and too close together:

Tweeners must have their UIs tweaked and changed to account for their size.

----------

No, I am just done debunking your repetitive and misguided drivel - I have already done enough of that throughout the thread (as did several others).

If there are other self proclaimed "tablet experts" from BB Geek Squad - I reserve my right to set them straight

You haven't debunked anything. All you have done is shown your lack of understanding UI design and have made several flawed assumptions and conclusions along the way.

 

[MacAgnostic]

Yes evidence has been presented.

1. Derived directly from Apple's Guidelines:
...

Did you derive this or is it stated that way?
Please provide an appropriate link.

 

[knucklehead]

Oh knucklehead.

You can't answer the simple questions?

Try to answer the simple questions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by freudling
I've done hard testing with Apps scaled down on the iPad to tweener sizes. Pages, Safari, Facebook...

In Safari for instance:

1. Buttons are too close together and too small to the point that my fingers were over top of two buttons at once in different areas.


Exactly how did you do this "hard testing"?

Exactly what buttons in Safari are you talking about?

How can someone who made your claim not be able to answer these extremely simple questions?

"Secret test -- Hush hush"

 

[MacAgnostic]

"secret test -- hush hush"

ok

 

[freudling]

"Secret test -- Hush hush"

Go into Photoshop, scale down a set of Apps you want to test, then open those images on an iPad at HTTP and test the touch targets.

Photoshop is a program made by Adobe. It runs on something called computers. You can download a free trial.