Originally Posted by melgross
As the summation agrees with what I've been saying, I don't understand why you disagree.
Because it clearly dose NOT agree with you've been saying...it says the opposite and I even quoted it for you.
If you want to find someone that has done some analysis and agrees with you go ahead and quote them. Do not attempt to twist this analysis to come to the exact opposite conclusion. Again I quote:
"Everything would then simply stay the same. Buttons and touch targets would be smaller, but not unusably so. The "slack" that currently exists between 3.5-inch iPhone interface elements and 9.7-inch iPad elements would just disappear, and you'd have the same basic iPad look with the same basic iPhone feel.
Keeping the current iPad interface and scaling it down would mean developers and users could run the same iPad apps they do today. Universal binary sizes could likewise remain the same, since no new interface sizes or asset sizes would be necessary. White space wouldn't increase, so the visual density of apps would remain the same.
It's the simplest solution, and those are the ones Apple typically implements."
Unless the app recognized the mini as a smaller device with the same resolution as the iPad 2, and changes the layout to match the smaller size, everything will be smaller by the percentage of the screen size, boxes, text, pictures, etc. the same layout will be smaller.
Around 19%. For the very smallest buttons allowed the difference is going from around 1/3" to around 1/4". The button becomes exactly the same size as it would be on the iPhone.
While much of that will be fine, a fair amount won't. But it will be worse if the mini had a retina screen. On my retina iPad, details are much finer. Most of that would be lost on a retina mini. It would simply be too fine to see. Again, unless its redone for the smaller screen size.
Retina makes ZERO difference for UI element sizes. A 44x44 point button on retina is rendered as 88x88 pixels while it is rendered as 44x44 on the non-retina. Physically they are the same size. If someone is depending on retina to render correctly then it doesn't work correctly on the iPad 2. That would be a poorly designed app and their art assets are created wrong.
I understand all you've been saying here, but much of it is flat out wrong, because the devices are assumed to be a certain resolution at a specific size. When designed, the UI's are designed for that size. This is exactly why Apple quadrupled the number of pixels on the phone and tablet. With a smaller screen, everything will be smaller. I'll say it a thousand times if required. The standards only app,y when used at the no inal screen size. Once a different screen size is used, those size standards go out the window.
You do not understand and it is not wrong. Apple SPECIFICALLY STATES 44x44 POINTS SHOULD BE THE MINIMUM UI TARGET SIZE. The Apple HIG takes into account screen density when it states that for ALL Apple iOS devices. There are not two difference minimums for iPhone and iPad. There are not two different minimums for retina vs non-retina. The reason why this works just fine for a 7.85" iPad Mini is because it is the same pixels per inch the iPhone. While everything is smaller the they are NO SMALLER THAN THEY WOULD BE IF RENDERED ON THE IPHONE.
Therefore ANY UI element that meets the Apple HIG recommendations will have an interaction target of sufficient size to be usable on the iPad Mini. THIS IS WHY WE DESIGN IN POINTS AND NOT PIXELS.
I understand that selection boxes will be fine, and they are sized the same as the original iPhone had them, and doubling the Rez has no effect, because the developers have accommodated that already. But their are many other elements that have been developed just for the retina display that can't be used at a lower resolution, either at all, or well.
No, this is wrong and no you do not understand. Developers did nothing to accommodate for that...it is built into IOS. THIS IS WHY THE UI IS LAID OUT FOR 1024x768 AND NOT 2048x1536 ON THE RETINA IPAD. THIS IS WHY WE DESIGN IN POINTS AND NOT PIXELS. We had to do nothing except provide art assets for both retina and non-retina resolution for any UIImage. There is no retina vs non-retina nib. You make two nibs for a universal app: iphone and ipad. Not four for iphone, iphone retina, ipad, ipad retina.
The notable exception is anything that uses OpenGL.
A lot of this is lure convenience. I have books with formulary inside. Previously, I continually had to double tap them to read them, because the detail was lost in the more coarse screen. Now, I can read them without tapping, but they are still small, and a lot of the Greek letters used in the formula's are difficult to render. Cut that size down, and again, I'll have to double tap, because they will be sharp, but too small to read.
Only because you have old eyes.
If it can render clearly on the iPad 2 it will render clearly on the non-retina iPad Mini just fine. If it can render clearly on the iPad 3 then it would render clearly on a retina iPad mini. The iPad 3 formula will be around 19% larger than the iPad mini formula. It is not half the size as you keep claiming. If that difference makes it unreadable for you then it was pretty much borderline to begin with.
My main argument here is not about a mini iPad, which I'm for, but for a retina screen mini, which at this time, I think will be too expensive, and too soon for developers to take into account, as they will now have three different things to develop for. When Apple discontinues the iPad 2, the time will be right.
Developers have to do nothing between a retina and non-retina iPad Mini just as they had to do nothing between a retina and non-retina iPad or iPhone beyond providing the 2x images to UIImage. If an app is designed for the iPad Retina (meaning it includes the 2x assets) then they will work just fine on the iPad Mini.
Cost is an entirely different issue. It is not going to happen for a $249 base model iPad Mini. Apple could charge more for a retina iPad Mini given the number of SKUs present. They may not choose to do so.