Try to answer the question asked freudling. Why can't you do a simple thing like that?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
There will NOT be an iPad Mini
- Thread starter freudling
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Try to answer the question asked freudling. Why can't you do a simple thing like that?
Thank you!
I completely agree. Although everyone says an iPad mini makes sense, it really doesn't. You say devs won't have work to do, but they will; buttons designed for a 10" screen will be too tiny for a 7".
Another thing that does not make sense is the price point. Sure, Apple can release an iPad 'mini' in October for $299, but a few months later in March 2013 a newer iPad will come out leaving the iPad 2 at $299.
Remember how last year that "low end iPhone" that everyone was talking about actually turned out to be the 3GS? Well, it just might turn out that that iPad 'mini' everyone is freaking out about was actually released in 2011.
Is that how you tested them?
Because you didn't actually answer knucklehead's question, you mearly replied with what amounts to an insult.
The error in your assumptions is that:
Because Apple allows .27" buttons on an iPhone, then it's therefore ok on a Tweener. However, the actual inch size of the buttons end up being .33" on a full size iPad. It's one thing to set out point sizes, but in the real world the important thing is physical size in inches. There's the spectrum.
And with your logic, why not just allow .27" buttons on a full-size iPad 9.7? Right, it doesn't add up because it's not supposed to be that way. The buttons must be bigger to account for 2 main things:
1. The distance at which the device is held form the face (it's optics: larger screens are held further away. The eyes focuses at x point and the frame of reference is at x point. The larger the screen, the farther the device needs to be held from the face and the smaller the buttons look and the harder they are to hit);
2. The surface area of the device.
That's not evidence. The only thing Apple Human Interface Guideline states is this:
What you've stated above - that's just your assertion.
That's another example of your assertion. You have presented zero evidence in support of the above.
It is not my assertion. On your logic, physical inch sizes mean nothing. Only point sizes. Apple offers these point sizes in the context of the scree resolutions they have shipping. People's argument is that because a scaled down App from an iPad 9.7... because it's button sizes translate to the same size as the iPhone, that it's OK. But it's not because it fails to account for the INCREASED distance the device is held from the face and the surface area of the screen. These are the two variables that drive minimum button size requirements.
And on your implied support of others' flawed logic, button sizes could be .27" on a 9.7 iPad because they're the same size as what they are on an iPhone. It's wrong.
Did you know that this portion of the Apple's Human UI Guideline predates the iPad? In other words, it was created when only iPhone was shipping?
You are extrapolating the Apple's guideline into something it is not, and it doesn't state. You certainly have a right to interpret this guideline any way you want, but your interpretation is just your opinion.. nothing more.
I said nothing in support of others or your logic. The only thing I will say - your claims related to "un-useability" of 7.85" iPad are not backed up by any real practical experience or usability testing (and no photoshopping down screenshots does not qualify).
You are well entitled to your opinions - but you are confusing them with facts.
Yup, one could just as easily claim that it was stated this way to ensure the possibility of a future 7.85" iPad.
To derive additional meaning is an assumption.
Special note to freudling:
If you've invested in a dictionary since your last vocabulary disasters, pull it out and look up the definition of "about".
knucklehead's helpful tip of the day.
It is not my opinion. It is a fact that the button sizes on an iPad 9.7 are .33". They are BIGGER than an iPhone's and it is a fact as to what Apple bases its minimum UI element sizes on:
1. The distance at which the device is held from your face.
2. The surface area of the device.
Apple redesigned iOS's UI and core Apps custom for the iPad to account for these variables and this is the physical size they ended up with.
No, you are confused, and yes, photoshopping screen sizes does qualify.
The problems with an iPad Mini are as follows, and this is fact:
1. Having the same button sizes as an iPhone would not account for the increased distance the device would be held from the face and the increased surface area. The larger the display, the farther it's held from the face and the larger the hit targets need to be to reduce errors. Therefore, the argument that scaling down a 1024x768 screen to a 7.85" screen where no UI changes would need to be made... therefore, not fragmentation, is debunked.
2. All elements on scaled down Apps get closer together. Imagine reading a PDF on a full size iPad then reading it on a tweener. The difference is marked. It's not enough to just scale down Apps and not do anything. The form factor demands UI changes.
3. At 163 DPI, which is what everyone is proposing, the device would not qualify as a Retina display. Apple would never release a brand new product... a mobile product, not sporting a Retina display. It would need an extra 100 ppi to qualify as a Retina display. Therefore, the argument of the device being 163 DPI with no need to change UIs is debunked because Apple would never release a Mini with 163 dpi. It wouldn't be Retina.
4. The form factor in between a smartphone and an iPad has no market. It's a failed enterprise and this has been demonstrated in the market. Even if Apple makes it, it'll fail because nobody needs it.
Steve Jobs said it best:
Apple has done extensive user testing on user interfaces over many years, and we really understand this stuff. There are clear limits of how close you can physically place elements on a touchscreen before users cannot reliably tap, flick or pinch them. This is one of the key reasons we think the 10-inch screen size is the minimum size required to create great tablet apps.
But then people think Apple would actually just let people scale down their Apps to fit smaller pixels cramped into a 7.85" screen without doing anything to the interfaces. It's absurd and doesn't make any sense. And since the category is dead and would result in fragmentation it makes even less sense.
Tweeners must have their UIs changed and tweaked to account for their size.
Oh, look!
Along with restating dreived assumptions and opinions, freudling has regurgitated all this EMO. crap as fact.
Along with restating dreived assumptions and opinions, freudling has regurgitated all this EMO. crap as fact.
That 44x44 points translates to .33" on iPad is a fact. That .27" buttons on a larger device are in-compliant with Apple UI Guideline - that's just your interpretation. Apparently, several other people who posted here have a different interpretation (which is what makes it "interpretation").
It really does not. The type of testing that would qualify as "hard evidence" is building a prototype 7.85" device with 1024x768 resolution, performing usability testing of multiple apps by multiple users over a period of time, gathering and scientifically summarizing the results, and presenting those results to all to examine.
You continue to repeat the same assertions, in hope that repetition strengthens your argument. It does not.
Tweeners must have their UIs changed and tweaked to account for their size.
----------
It is not an interpretation when you know what axioms the guidelines are derived from. .27" does not account for the increased distance the device is held from the face and the increased surface area.
It really does qualify as evidence. You can test these Apps by scaling them down and testing them on an iPad. You can see visually and compare the tap targets by interacting with the interfaces. You can visually see what happens to the interfaces, how much closer the buttons and UI elements get to together, and it's measurable.
Repeating something that's true doesn't make it false.
It may seem like an axiom to you, because you have already drawn your conclusion, and now just trying to rationalize it post-factum . When I read what the guideline actually states:
...I don't see this as clear cut as you do. In fact, I can easily interpret it as Apple stipulates "44 x 44 points" tappable elements irrespective of device size" (note the underlined portions of the guideline).
It really doesn't. Even assuming you indeed performed this sort of testing (you haven't posted any results for anyone to examine), and even assuming one can truly test a useability of a touch tablet without a working prototype (one can't) - your opinion on the end result is subjective and not deterministic. Multiple people without any preconceived notions would have to participate in this type of testing to make it meaningful.
Just as continually asserting something to be true doesn't make it any more so.
Common freudling -- you said you have Safari scaled down in Photoshop.
Just open up the file, look at it, and tell us what buttons you're talking about.
How could it be any more simple than that?
The axiom is this:
The larger the screen, the farther away the device is held and the smaller hit areas become. Period.
It really does and it is measurable.
Tweeners must have their UIs changed and tweaked to account for their size: for the distance the device is held from the face and its surface area. Because it's held farther from the face and the surface area is bigger in comparison to an iPhone, it is not possible to simply scale down an App and do nothing to the UI. The elements are too small and too close together. In addition, 163 dpi as proposed is 100 ppi less than what's required for Retina at 7.85". Apple would never release a brand new mobile product without a Retina screen. Further, tweeners are a dead category and nobody needs them.
Ergo:
Apple will not release an iPad Mini.
Hmm...
I agree. My guess is that there will NOT be a smaller tablet from Apple in the near future. Why? The iPad series is new. Apple loves experimenting, but the iPad is still new in the market - two years old. I will be surprised if there is one. Also, this would be so big it would probably have to wait until the next WWDC, which Apple won't like much.
I agree. My guess is that there will NOT be a smaller tablet from Apple in the near future. Why? The iPad series is new. Apple loves experimenting, but the iPad is still new in the market - two years old. I will be surprised if there is one. Also, this would be so big it would probably have to wait until the next WWDC, which Apple won't like much.
@ctyrider - you're making a mistake in thinking you can have a reasonable argument with someone who doesn't have the mental capacity to process alternative viewpoints.. someone who is religiously married to their opinions.. someone who backpedals, shifts, turns and makes up strawmen to cover up for his lack of intelligence.
To put it another way - don't feed the trolls
Even if your assertions about UI is correct, surely the assertion about Apple never releasing a non-retina device can't be a fact. We are not Apple, so we don't know what they are thinking, and even if it's true that at this moment, they don't plan to release a non-retina device, they can always change their mind.
I'd be more sympathetic to your position if you said it is highly unlikely that Apple will release an iPad mini. but to state it the way you do, as a factual assertion -- that just isn't rational.
To put it another way - don't feed the trolls
LOL.. Sagest piece of advise I have seen in this entire thread
The New York Times and Bloomberg seem to think otherwise.
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1404815/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1404815/
@ctyrider - you're making a mistake in thinking you can have a reasonable argument with someone who doesn't have the mental capacity to process alternative viewpoints.. someone who is religiously married to their opinions.. someone who backpedals, shifts, turns and makes up strawmen to cover up for his lack of intelligence.
To put it another way - don't feed the trolls
Your mistaken about the trolls and the unrationals. It is you who is this. It is you who continues to post in a thread that I started. It is you that is incredulous and refuses to believe facts. It is you who lacks an understanding of interface design.
The conclusions are rational and inescapable.
----------
I guess if the New York times thinks it's so, then it must be true. Fallacy: appeal to what some people think is an authority.
If you read this thread and think rationally about it, you'll realize why there are so many reasons why Apple won't release a Mini.
Forget the technical stuff. Nobody needs a tweener device. It's a dead category, no matter how good someone makes it.
Steve Jobs is right, not because he's Steve Jobs, but because when you do user testing, and when you yourself realize how true the following is after trying to use tweeners, you'll be singing the same tune as me:
The seven-inch tablets are tweeners: too big to compete with a smartphone, and too small to compete with an iPad.
----------
Think about what you're saying... stop and think about it. Imagine Apple up on stage unveiling a brand new product. A new mobile device. All new iPhones, iPads, and iPods have the Retina display. They're now transitioning their Macs over to Retina: it just hit the Mac with the MacBook Pro. They would never take a step backwards and release a new product with old technology. They will release an innovative product sporting the latest and greatest in what they have to offer.