Anyone have any ideas??? Since XP is running their version - why doesn't Apple come out with something that uses inkwell to its full capacity?
I have a feeling that when and whether Apple comes out with a tablet will have very little to do with what XP is running on. For one thing, XP is only barely adapted to the format.
If you're going to do a tablet right, it's not just a funny-looking notebook that happens to ship with HWR. The primary interface is a pen, and that has a number of consequences as far as the interface and navigation and interaction are concerned. That's one issue. You don't release a tablet to design a tablet. You design something that becomes a tablet because that's the best solution to a particular problem. Apple's been experimenting with tablet-like designs for almost 20 years now. When they've got something that makes sense as a product, they'll release it.
I have a feeling that when and whether Apple comes out with a tablet will have very little to do with what XP is running on. For one thing, XP is only barely adapted to the format.
If you're going to do a tablet right, it's not just a funny-looking notebook that happens to ship with HWR. The primary interface is a pen, and that has a number of consequences as far as the interface and navigation and interaction are concerned. That's one issue. You don't release a tablet to design a tablet. You design something that becomes a tablet because that's the best solution to a particular problem. Apple's been experimenting with tablet-like designs for almost 20 years now. When they've got something that makes sense as a product, they'll release it.
Agreed. Pretty much, end of topic discussion, unless anyone has any inside info \
Two years ago this semed a lot less feasible than today, and even now someting that works both for Apple and consumers is probably a ways off yet. The M$ tablets are a horrible kludge, basically expensive awkward underpowered notebooks. We know from a long history of pinting that the ideal size will be something in the orbit of 5x7 to A5 size, see your multitude of paperbacks and trade paperback books, by far the single most popular reading format, and of course A5 ish (US standards are a bit different) spiral notebooks. I long ago gave up on using standard letter size notebooks and far prefer the half size for almost all my notetaking. The paper is big enough that I can sketch an outline, write a few paragraphs, etc etc, and I can keep a couple handy at all times. When they're full, I write some relevant info on the cover and put them away on a shelf or storage box, lovely and compact. A real useful reading and writing tablet *MUST* (can only) take this format.
But that imposes problems.
1. There really isn't an adequate display tech yet, something low power that can be read in a variety of lighting conditions. These are coming though.
2. Resolution independence. Actually the issue is deeper than straight resolution independence. Most web pages, display elements, and app interfaces have a minimum PPI range. Fitting that would make anything on a 5x7 screen impossibly squinty. At the same time, scaling things up would make for way too much scrolling/useable window space. I think an evolution of PDF text and the lens metaphor is in order to solve this dilemma. We will need a displaytech that can intelligently scale text and web content to consistently achieve the best balance between size, legibility, and on screen content.
When issues one and two are convincingly solved the tablet of AI whet dreams will be feasible irrespective of the state of handwriting recognition, which also needs to be better, but even in it's current state could be tolerable provided the display issue are solved.
While I certainly entertain the idea of having a Mac tablet I just don't see what would be the real use for it. Yeah, I know you could check your email while sitting on your couch - wirelessly if you like, you could take it to school and take notes, etc. But how much would it cost? Rumor sites are saying its supposed to be larger than a PDA yet smaller than a laptop. For those dimensions, it would have to be more expensive than any PDA, and cheaper than the low-end iBook. We're talking 600-900 dollar range. Airport enabled and all. Could it happen? Is the price right? Some might just pay 999 for an iBook which is pretty portable already. Handwritting recognition is cool, but I don't think it's a must-have. We'll see.
When issues one and two are convincingly solved the tablet of AI whet dreams will be feasible irrespective of the state of handwriting recognition, which also needs to be better, but even in it's current state could be tolerable provided the display issue are solved.
Actually, the issue of screen resolution is not independent of the issue of handwriting recognition: If the screen is also the input device, than the output resolution is also the input resolution, and higher is definitely better. The best case would be something like a Wacom Cintiq, textured to be paperlike and sensitive to both pressure and pen angle (two more significant aids to HWR), but with a resolution closer to print than to traditional displays.
Also, I think that the sort of modularity allowed by XHTML will have to mature somewhat, and be deployed more broadly. Right now, web pages are designed for large, low-resolution 4:3 displays. There are provisions for publishing to various media, and they will have to be used to create an "eBook" medium for tablets, because the compact size will lend itself much more to basic, book-like layouts than the current arrangements. Right now, with the preponderance of content hardcoded in HTML 4, the risk of an "Internet, Jr." experience is still too high.
And, of course, Aqua isn't resolution independent...
Also, I think that the sort of modularity allowed by XHTML will have to mature somewhat, and be deployed more broadly. Right now, web pages are designed for large, low-resolution 4:3 displays. There are provisions for publishing to various media, and they will have to be used to create an "eBook" medium for tablets, because the compact size will lend itself much more to basic, book-like layouts than the current arrangements. Right now, with the preponderance of content hardcoded in HTML 4, the risk of an "Internet, Jr." experience is still too high.
And, of course, Aqua isn't resolution independent...
yep and there are more problems than just that, internet junior being a big one. But for me, such a data collection and viewing device could be useful regardless of it's web connectivity. However, most people will want this, and so they should, if the device is to replace (at times) a notebook (the paper and electronic kinds) or at least augment the traditional keyboard based computer.
Already we are seeing the attempt by some sites to tailor their content to match differnt formats, a few tech/news sites around the web offer PDA friendly pages, but this arrangement is far from ideal. A web page designed around a relatively big low resolution screen isn't really a bad thing (IMHO) . It keeps data overhead lower and forces a level of efficiency on designers. TV has gotten by with a lot less resolution for a long time, and will probably define the dimensions of a lingua franca of screen size dimension for the next 10-20 years. HDTV -- provided a high refresh, progressive scan output -- offers enough screen real estate and resolution for a variety of formats and work, computers will want more, but the presence of this standard will in the coming years influence the shape of computer resolutions as well. So what do we need to meet the needs of a flexible web format that can adapt to tall-narrow vs wide and low resolution vs high?
I think something like what goes on in PDF's would be helpful, but incomplete. Another way might be to define a sort of tile size that requires web pages to be a multiple of that size. 320x320 would do. Keep in mind that I have absolutely no idea how this would be done, but hear me out.
A web page would load cleanly into any multiple of 320x320. That size itself would seldom get used, if ever, but 640-wide web pages would drop easily into an 800 wide screen (which seems the practical limit for small devices like the ones we're talking about) however, that same page would also load cleanly into a 960 wide window, and preserve the essence of the layout while taking advantage of the greater width, likewise 1280. I'm not talking about scaling so much as a sert of rules that translate formatting from one set of multiples to another regardless of the font size you choose to browse with, or design choice of the web designers. A kind of "write once read anywhere" (or perhaps "read any-how?") of page formatting with 640 and 960 hard marks that allow both larger and smaller devices to seamlessly partake of the same page.
Just a thought I had, mebbe I shoulda gone into CS/IT? Meh, just thinking out loud, I'm sure others have though the same.
Not that this is any kind of guarantee of anything, but a quick look at Aqua, and you notice pretty quickly that the thing was (somewhat) designed with future tablet compatability in mind ... I mean, why else would we have "The Dock"? ... for reasons other than plausable deniability I mean?
This is no guarantee that Apple will make a tablet, but it merely points out that Apple considered this and has done their best to keep their options open, and to make certain, that, should ever an Apple tablet arise, it would not be a seperate semi-compatible kludge OS like Windows CE, but instead, the full blown OSX.
Maybe Apple's waiting for the price of such a device that can handle OSX to get to the point where people will be willing to pay for such a thing ... I'm sure the last thing Mr Jobs wants is bring out a separate branched version of OSX for Apple to support that only works on tablets.
"Hello: Tech Support Genius"
"Hello, will my mouse-bat-follicle-goose-creature-ampersand - spawn-whapcaplet-loose-liver-vendetta - & - prang software run on the OSX tablet OS? I know it runs on OSX"
"Huh? Uh, I'm sorry, I'll, uh, have to check with the Genius of Genius' ... what was the name of that software again?"
What would be nice is if they can engineer a screen on the PowerBook or iBook that bends all the way back and supports pen input. There would be no objection on that from me!
What would be nice is if they can engineer a screen on the PowerBook or iBook that bends all the way back and supports pen input. There would be no objection on that from me!
No, cos then you'd have the keyboard on the bottom. It would be better if the screen twisted all the way around and then bends all the way back, like current tablet PCs. I'd rather see a tablet-only device tho, but that's just me.
I too eagerly await an Apple tablet. It seems to me that a 5x7 format, as rumored by MacWhispers et al., would be the most useful as far as portability and holdability goes (the two major tablet factors that I think will kill the Windows attempts).
I however envision the Apple Tablet as the rumored video iPod (iPod Extreme?). I can't count the times that I've lugged an iBook and a CD wallet full of DVDs across the country (six pounds and three inches of pack space!) just to not be bored out of my mind on the plane/in the airport/on the bus. Being able to "rip" my DVDs to a compressed format (MPEG4? it has built-in DRM and, hey, I don't care!) and load them all onto my nifty little tablet would be H O T hot. Ditto for iMovies (much easier than exporting to tape and lugging the camera around to show your friends).
Now combine that with the Apple/TiVo semi-partnership and you could even get a few weeks of the Simpsons to carry around and watch when you have time. (Because let's face it who has time to sit on a couch and watch a television anymore? )
And if you believe as I do that Apple's music download service is actually part of a much larger digital media delivery service (TV on demand, movies on demand, etc. etc.), well, that's just icing on the cake eh?
Edit: and I forgot perhaps the coolest application of a tablet (at least for me). Tablet + iChat + BT phone == OMG VIDEOPHONE LIKE IN BLADE RUNNAR!!!1 I've been wanting one of those for years.
Quote:
Originally posted by OverToasty
"Hello: Tech Support Genius"
"Hello, will my mouse-bat-follicle-goose-creature-ampersand - spawn-whapcaplet-loose-liver-vendetta - & - prang software run on the OSX tablet OS? I know it runs on OSX"
"Huh? Uh, I'm sorry, I'll, uh, have to check with the Genius of Genius' ... what was the name of that software again?"
Is it way too late at night or is that a G.E.B. reference? If so I toss the mad props in your direction.
Paper back book size fits in with SO many of the rumors. Amorph, Matsu... you've got so many great ideas about why now is NOT the time for an Apple Tablet. Any thoughts on what CURRENT technology could be applied towards one?
Already we are seeing the attempt by some sites to tailor their content to match differnt formats, a few tech/news sites around the web offer PDA friendly pages, but this arrangement is far from ideal. A web page designed around a relatively big low resolution screen isn't really a bad thing (IMHO) . It keeps data overhead lower and forces a level of efficiency on designers.
You should take a look at XHTML. The basic idea is that the actual markup describes content, not presentation, and it's up to the style sheets to provide the presentation (formatting, in so many words, although style sheets can do more than that). The whole point is to simultaneously make traditional web pages easier to design and maintain, and to make it easier to extend them to new media. The ideal is that if you have to accomodate some new medium, you just write a new stylesheet and qualify it with the appropriate @media identifier. Done.
Quote:
I think something like what goes on in PDF's would be helpful, but incomplete. Another way might be to define a sort of tile size that requires web pages to be a multiple of that size. 320x320 would do.
Actually, you're trapped in the traditional assumption that pixels are a meaningful measure of size. They aren't. The W3C does define a logical "pixel" where there are 96 pixels per inch, but if you have a higher-resolution screen than that it'll either be smaller than intended (wrong, but likely to happen anyway), or scaled (i.e., standard compliant).
If we're going to have a high-resolution tablet, say, 200dpi or better, than we need standards that are resolution independent. As it happens, again, the web standards are there. Sizes can be given as percentages, as points, even as inches and centimeters, and also as pixels, although these are logical 96dpi "pixels", not screen pixels, in a proper implementation. This allows a design to look more or less the same on an 8" 640x480 screen as it does on an 8" 6400x4800 screen, except that the text will look much, much better on the latter.
This way, resolution means what it's supposed to mean: The granularity of the image, not the size. The same page on a higher resolution screen should be sharper, not smaller, the way it already is with printers and scanners and the like.
Quote:
Just a thought I had, mebbe I shoulda gone into CS/IT? Meh, just thinking out loud, I'm sure others have though the same.
Lots and lots of programmers and IT people have no formal background in either.
Paper back book size fits in with SO many of the rumors. Amorph, Matsu... you've got so many great ideas about why now is NOT the time for an Apple Tablet. Any thoughts on what CURRENT technology could be applied towards one?
Some bits of current technology simply aren't there yet. But I'm supposed to be positive. Whoops.
Ignoring cost issues: The Toshiba 1.8" HDDs are nice, although mechanical storage media are fragile and inefficient for this sort of application. Wacom has some nice tech in the Cintiq, and Apple can compliment it nicely with InkWell. Quartz is resolution-independent, even if Aqua isn't. There are some good CPUs, and similar tech for the application, and TI and AMD both have very nice low-power wireless chips for Bluetooth and AirPort. Apple might be able to muster distributed-computing protocols and Rendezvous to offload any heavy lifting to a nearby desktop, offering the possibility that you could run Photoshop on your tablet, with a little help from the tower in the next room. Software and service releases due shortly should make it easier for a tablet to offload even more to a nearby desktop (e.g., library sharing in iTunes), and stay up-to-date (iSync), while also holding its own as a standalone machine (as long as you didn't, say, try to run Photoshop...). UNIX gurus could revel in X11's efficient, if limited and simple, ability to serve GUIs to remote clients.
So, if you were willing to pay a lot of money for a funny-looking notebook with HWR and the slick ability to lean on a nearby machine for data, storage and computational power, Apple could build one. But I doubt that it would set the market on fire; at any rate, it would be an imperfect and pricey attempt.
No, cos then you'd have the keyboard on the bottom.
Duh..Tablets don't HAVE keyboards. The screen would be an optional (because they are probably expensive) touchscreen and Jag already has handwriting recognition. Simple, elegant, in a word, Apple.
I'm sure Apple will add this, look at how far the 12" PB screen bends back. We just need another 100 degrees or so and I'm sure Apple can engineer a hinge to do just that.
I particularly enjoyed your first reply in this thread. My take on tablet computing is quite similar.
Apple, MS, Sun, IBM, and many other companies have been working on tablet designs for quite a while. So far, no one has been able to produce a viable product. Tablet computing will happen, but functionality at current and near-future price/performance points isn't very compelling. The amount of R&D required for polishing pen based interfaces is a major factor in why tablets haven't materialized. Apple likes to do things 'right' and InkWell only scratches the surface when designing a GUI for this form factor.
But the abstraction of data from presentation format is a far more interesting topic...
Quote:
Originally posted by Amorph
You should take a look at XHTML. The basic idea is that the actual markup describes content, not presentation, and it's up to the style sheets to provide the presentation (formatting, in so many words, although style sheets can do more than that). The whole point is to simultaneously make traditional web pages easier to design and maintain, and to make it easier to extend them to new media. The ideal is that if you have to accomodate some new medium, you just write a new stylesheet and qualify it with the appropriate @media identifier. Done.
Actually, you're trapped in the traditional assumption that pixels are a meaningful measure of size. They aren't. The W3C does define a logical "pixel" where there are 96 pixels per inch, but if you have a higher-resolution screen than that it'll either be smaller than intended (wrong, but likely to happen anyway), or scaled (i.e., standard compliant).
html was originally intended to abstract content from presentation. This is a noble goal and a concept that is well addressed by academia. Similarly, Model/View/Controller design philosophy is stressed in most computer science under-graduate degree programs. However, full abstraction is only promoted because short-cuts tend to produce overly-married architectures rather than overly abstracted architectures. Total abstraction is not the optimal amount of separation even if it is superior to the level of abstraction found in most of today's architectures.
html was originally spec'd with this in mind. However, in real world use, it often proves simpler to hard-code multiple presentation formats. When put into a production environment, html was quickly extended, allowing developers to more efficiently produce quality results for their target user-base.
MVC is a great concept to have in a developer's toolbox, but shouldn't be preached in a vacuum. Presentation format effects data and data effects presentation format. Total abstraction usually proves to be counter-productive exercise IMHO.
I think APple needs to create a tablet mac in order to try to get back into the bussiness sector. I just saw a really gorgeous prototype called the Newton2.
Oh really Einstein! That was in response to someone who suggested something like the iBook or PowerBook that flipped all the way back. Something like a hybrid model which still works in tablet mode.
Comments
Originally posted by Vistago
Anyone have any ideas??? Since XP is running their version - why doesn't Apple come out with something that uses inkwell to its full capacity?
I have a feeling that when and whether Apple comes out with a tablet will have very little to do with what XP is running on. For one thing, XP is only barely adapted to the format.
If you're going to do a tablet right, it's not just a funny-looking notebook that happens to ship with HWR. The primary interface is a pen, and that has a number of consequences as far as the interface and navigation and interaction are concerned. That's one issue. You don't release a tablet to design a tablet. You design something that becomes a tablet because that's the best solution to a particular problem. Apple's been experimenting with tablet-like designs for almost 20 years now. When they've got something that makes sense as a product, they'll release it.
Originally posted by Amorph
I have a feeling that when and whether Apple comes out with a tablet will have very little to do with what XP is running on. For one thing, XP is only barely adapted to the format.
If you're going to do a tablet right, it's not just a funny-looking notebook that happens to ship with HWR. The primary interface is a pen, and that has a number of consequences as far as the interface and navigation and interaction are concerned. That's one issue. You don't release a tablet to design a tablet. You design something that becomes a tablet because that's the best solution to a particular problem. Apple's been experimenting with tablet-like designs for almost 20 years now. When they've got something that makes sense as a product, they'll release it.
Agreed. Pretty much, end of topic discussion, unless anyone has any inside info
But that imposes problems.
1. There really isn't an adequate display tech yet, something low power that can be read in a variety of lighting conditions. These are coming though.
2. Resolution independence. Actually the issue is deeper than straight resolution independence. Most web pages, display elements, and app interfaces have a minimum PPI range. Fitting that would make anything on a 5x7 screen impossibly squinty. At the same time, scaling things up would make for way too much scrolling/useable window space. I think an evolution of PDF text and the lens metaphor is in order to solve this dilemma. We will need a displaytech that can intelligently scale text and web content to consistently achieve the best balance between size, legibility, and on screen content.
When issues one and two are convincingly solved the tablet of AI whet dreams will be feasible irrespective of the state of handwriting recognition, which also needs to be better, but even in it's current state could be tolerable provided the display issue are solved.
Originally posted by Matsu
When issues one and two are convincingly solved the tablet of AI whet dreams will be feasible irrespective of the state of handwriting recognition, which also needs to be better, but even in it's current state could be tolerable provided the display issue are solved.
Actually, the issue of screen resolution is not independent of the issue of handwriting recognition: If the screen is also the input device, than the output resolution is also the input resolution, and higher is definitely better. The best case would be something like a Wacom Cintiq, textured to be paperlike and sensitive to both pressure and pen angle (two more significant aids to HWR), but with a resolution closer to print than to traditional displays.
Also, I think that the sort of modularity allowed by XHTML will have to mature somewhat, and be deployed more broadly. Right now, web pages are designed for large, low-resolution 4:3 displays. There are provisions for publishing to various media, and they will have to be used to create an "eBook" medium for tablets, because the compact size will lend itself much more to basic, book-like layouts than the current arrangements. Right now, with the preponderance of content hardcoded in HTML 4, the risk of an "Internet, Jr." experience is still too high.
And, of course, Aqua isn't resolution independent...
Originally posted by Amorph
Also, I think that the sort of modularity allowed by XHTML will have to mature somewhat, and be deployed more broadly. Right now, web pages are designed for large, low-resolution 4:3 displays. There are provisions for publishing to various media, and they will have to be used to create an "eBook" medium for tablets, because the compact size will lend itself much more to basic, book-like layouts than the current arrangements. Right now, with the preponderance of content hardcoded in HTML 4, the risk of an "Internet, Jr." experience is still too high.
And, of course, Aqua isn't resolution independent...
yep and there are more problems than just that, internet junior being a big one. But for me, such a data collection and viewing device could be useful regardless of it's web connectivity. However, most people will want this, and so they should, if the device is to replace (at times) a notebook (the paper and electronic kinds) or at least augment the traditional keyboard based computer.
Already we are seeing the attempt by some sites to tailor their content to match differnt formats, a few tech/news sites around the web offer PDA friendly pages, but this arrangement is far from ideal. A web page designed around a relatively big low resolution screen isn't really a bad thing (IMHO) . It keeps data overhead lower and forces a level of efficiency on designers. TV has gotten by with a lot less resolution for a long time, and will probably define the dimensions of a lingua franca of screen size dimension for the next 10-20 years. HDTV -- provided a high refresh, progressive scan output -- offers enough screen real estate and resolution for a variety of formats and work, computers will want more, but the presence of this standard will in the coming years influence the shape of computer resolutions as well. So what do we need to meet the needs of a flexible web format that can adapt to tall-narrow vs wide and low resolution vs high?
I think something like what goes on in PDF's would be helpful, but incomplete. Another way might be to define a sort of tile size that requires web pages to be a multiple of that size. 320x320 would do. Keep in mind that I have absolutely no idea how this would be done, but hear me out.
A web page would load cleanly into any multiple of 320x320. That size itself would seldom get used, if ever, but 640-wide web pages would drop easily into an 800 wide screen (which seems the practical limit for small devices like the ones we're talking about) however, that same page would also load cleanly into a 960 wide window, and preserve the essence of the layout while taking advantage of the greater width, likewise 1280. I'm not talking about scaling so much as a sert of rules that translate formatting from one set of multiples to another regardless of the font size you choose to browse with, or design choice of the web designers. A kind of "write once read anywhere" (or perhaps "read any-how?") of page formatting with 640 and 960 hard marks that allow both larger and smaller devices to seamlessly partake of the same page.
Just a thought I had, mebbe I shoulda gone into CS/IT? Meh, just thinking out loud, I'm sure others have though the same.
This is no guarantee that Apple will make a tablet, but it merely points out that Apple considered this and has done their best to keep their options open, and to make certain, that, should ever an Apple tablet arise, it would not be a seperate semi-compatible kludge OS like Windows CE, but instead, the full blown OSX.
Maybe Apple's waiting for the price of such a device that can handle OSX to get to the point where people will be willing to pay for such a thing ... I'm sure the last thing Mr Jobs wants is bring out a separate branched version of OSX for Apple to support that only works on tablets.
"Hello: Tech Support Genius"
"Hello, will my mouse-bat-follicle-goose-creature-ampersand - spawn-whapcaplet-loose-liver-vendetta - & - prang software run on the OSX tablet OS? I know it runs on OSX"
"Huh? Uh, I'm sorry, I'll, uh, have to check with the Genius of Genius' ... what was the name of that software again?"
Originally posted by Aquatic
What would be nice is if they can engineer a screen on the PowerBook or iBook that bends all the way back and supports pen input. There would be no objection on that from me!
No, cos then you'd have the keyboard on the bottom. It would be better if the screen twisted all the way around and then bends all the way back, like current tablet PCs. I'd rather see a tablet-only device tho, but that's just me.
I however envision the Apple Tablet as the rumored video iPod (iPod Extreme?). I can't count the times that I've lugged an iBook and a CD wallet full of DVDs across the country (six pounds and three inches of pack space!) just to not be bored out of my mind on the plane/in the airport/on the bus. Being able to "rip" my DVDs to a compressed format (MPEG4? it has built-in DRM and, hey, I don't care!) and load them all onto my nifty little tablet would be H O T hot. Ditto for iMovies (much easier than exporting to tape and lugging the camera around to show your friends).
Now combine that with the Apple/TiVo semi-partnership and you could even get a few weeks of the Simpsons to carry around and watch when you have time. (Because let's face it who has time to sit on a couch and watch a television anymore?
And if you believe as I do that Apple's music download service is actually part of a much larger digital media delivery service (TV on demand, movies on demand, etc. etc.), well, that's just icing on the cake eh?
Edit: and I forgot perhaps the coolest application of a tablet (at least for me). Tablet + iChat + BT phone == OMG VIDEOPHONE LIKE IN BLADE RUNNAR!!!1 I've been wanting one of those for years.
Originally posted by OverToasty
"Hello: Tech Support Genius"
"Hello, will my mouse-bat-follicle-goose-creature-ampersand - spawn-whapcaplet-loose-liver-vendetta - & - prang software run on the OSX tablet OS? I know it runs on OSX"
"Huh? Uh, I'm sorry, I'll, uh, have to check with the Genius of Genius' ... what was the name of that software again?"
Is it way too late at night or is that a G.E.B. reference? If so I toss the mad props in your direction.
Originally posted by Matsu
Already we are seeing the attempt by some sites to tailor their content to match differnt formats, a few tech/news sites around the web offer PDA friendly pages, but this arrangement is far from ideal. A web page designed around a relatively big low resolution screen isn't really a bad thing (IMHO) . It keeps data overhead lower and forces a level of efficiency on designers.
You should take a look at XHTML.
I think something like what goes on in PDF's would be helpful, but incomplete. Another way might be to define a sort of tile size that requires web pages to be a multiple of that size. 320x320 would do.
Actually, you're trapped in the traditional assumption that pixels are a meaningful measure of size. They aren't. The W3C does define a logical "pixel" where there are 96 pixels per inch, but if you have a higher-resolution screen than that it'll either be smaller than intended (wrong, but likely to happen anyway), or scaled (i.e., standard compliant).
If we're going to have a high-resolution tablet, say, 200dpi or better, than we need standards that are resolution independent. As it happens, again, the web standards are there. Sizes can be given as percentages, as points, even as inches and centimeters, and also as pixels, although these are logical 96dpi "pixels", not screen pixels, in a proper implementation. This allows a design to look more or less the same on an 8" 640x480 screen as it does on an 8" 6400x4800 screen, except that the text will look much, much better on the latter.
This way, resolution means what it's supposed to mean: The granularity of the image, not the size. The same page on a higher resolution screen should be sharper, not smaller, the way it already is with printers and scanners and the like.
Just a thought I had, mebbe I shoulda gone into CS/IT? Meh, just thinking out loud, I'm sure others have though the same.
Lots and lots of programmers and IT people have no formal background in either.
Originally posted by clonenode
Paper back book size fits in with SO many of the rumors. Amorph, Matsu... you've got so many great ideas about why now is NOT the time for an Apple Tablet. Any thoughts on what CURRENT technology could be applied towards one?
Some bits of current technology simply aren't there yet. But I'm supposed to be positive. Whoops.
Ignoring cost issues: The Toshiba 1.8" HDDs are nice, although mechanical storage media are fragile and inefficient for this sort of application. Wacom has some nice tech in the Cintiq, and Apple can compliment it nicely with InkWell. Quartz is resolution-independent, even if Aqua isn't. There are some good CPUs, and similar tech for the application, and TI and AMD both have very nice low-power wireless chips for Bluetooth and AirPort. Apple might be able to muster distributed-computing protocols and Rendezvous to offload any heavy lifting to a nearby desktop, offering the possibility that you could run Photoshop on your tablet, with a little help from the tower in the next room. Software and service releases due shortly should make it easier for a tablet to offload even more to a nearby desktop (e.g., library sharing in iTunes), and stay up-to-date (iSync), while also holding its own as a standalone machine (as long as you didn't, say, try to run Photoshop...). UNIX gurus could revel in X11's efficient, if limited and simple, ability to serve GUIs to remote clients.
So, if you were willing to pay a lot of money for a funny-looking notebook with HWR and the slick ability to lean on a nearby machine for data, storage and computational power, Apple could build one. But I doubt that it would set the market on fire; at any rate, it would be an imperfect and pricey attempt.
No, cos then you'd have the keyboard on the bottom.
Duh..Tablets don't HAVE keyboards. The screen would be an optional (because they are probably expensive) touchscreen and Jag already has handwriting recognition. Simple, elegant, in a word, Apple.
I'm sure Apple will add this, look at how far the 12" PB screen bends back. We just need another 100 degrees or so and I'm sure Apple can engineer a hinge to do just that.
Apple, MS, Sun, IBM, and many other companies have been working on tablet designs for quite a while. So far, no one has been able to produce a viable product. Tablet computing will happen, but functionality at current and near-future price/performance points isn't very compelling. The amount of R&D required for polishing pen based interfaces is a major factor in why tablets haven't materialized. Apple likes to do things 'right' and InkWell only scratches the surface when designing a GUI for this form factor.
But the abstraction of data from presentation format is a far more interesting topic...
Originally posted by Amorph
You should take a look at XHTML.
Actually, you're trapped in the traditional assumption that pixels are a meaningful measure of size. They aren't. The W3C does define a logical "pixel" where there are 96 pixels per inch, but if you have a higher-resolution screen than that it'll either be smaller than intended (wrong, but likely to happen anyway), or scaled (i.e., standard compliant).
html was originally intended to abstract content from presentation. This is a noble goal and a concept that is well addressed by academia. Similarly, Model/View/Controller design philosophy is stressed in most computer science under-graduate degree programs. However, full abstraction is only promoted because short-cuts tend to produce overly-married architectures rather than overly abstracted architectures. Total abstraction is not the optimal amount of separation even if it is superior to the level of abstraction found in most of today's architectures.
html was originally spec'd with this in mind. However, in real world use, it often proves simpler to hard-code multiple presentation formats. When put into a production environment, html was quickly extended, allowing developers to more efficiently produce quality results for their target user-base.
MVC is a great concept to have in a developer's toolbox, but shouldn't be preached in a vacuum. Presentation format effects data and data effects presentation format. Total abstraction usually proves to be counter-productive exercise IMHO.
http://www.theapplecollection.com/de...o/Newton2.html . But you also have to remember how poor the original Newtons sold.
Originally posted by Aquatic
Duh..Tablets don't HAVE keyboards.
Oh really Einstein!