or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple to show 'a little more' at Oct. 23 'iPad mini' event
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple to show 'a little more' at Oct. 23 'iPad mini' event - Page 6

post #201 of 226
Originally Posted by nht View Post
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.

 

Okay. But they DO have to do things between a retina iPad and retina iPad mini. And between a non-retina iPad and non-retina iPad mini.

post #202 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I'm also saying that I don't think all the fragmentation that will occurs is great, but with a 1024x768 tablet, the problem will be less, for now. I would expect that next year, we could see a retina mini.

 

There is no fragmentation.  That's the beauty of a 7.85" iPad Mini.  All universal apps just work.

post #203 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Okay. But they DO have to do things between a retina iPad and retina iPad mini. And between a non-retina iPad and non-retina iPad mini.

 

No, my conclusion and that of many other devs is that we do not have to do things between a retina iPad and a retina iPad mini other than providing art assets at the desired resolution.

post #204 of 226
Originally Posted by nht View Post
No, my conclusion and that of many other devs is that we do not have to do things between a retina iPad and a retina iPad mini other than providing art assets at the desired resolution.


Yes, because text isn't smaller when you make it smaller.

post #205 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I've done the same thing too.

 

If you really had then you would have seen the flipboard example that looks kinda like this screen cap (only portrait) I made of the McGraw Hill chemisty textbook:

 

 

and then shrunk down to the 7.85" screen size for comparison:

 

 

 

 

These are BOTH readable and usable. (click images to see at full resolution).

 

That is the size difference between the iPad and iPad Mini. Both images are 1024x768.  The 2nd image is shrunken down to the 7.85" (dia) size and then padded out to maintain the 1024x768 size so it shows up as 7.85" on a normal iPad.  The 2nd image fuzzy because of the shrinking process...it will not be fuzzy on the real iPad Mini.

 

Just like the Flipboard example here: 

 

http://seveneightyfive.fscked.com/flipboard.html

 

If you designed your textbook to be only borderline readable using an iPad 3 then yes, it'll suck on an iPad Mini.  But it would have been your fault for designing a craptasitic textbook in the first place.


Edited by nht - 10/18/12 at 7:57pm
post #206 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


Yes, because text isn't smaller when you make it smaller.

 

The text is 19% bigger on the regular iPad than on the iPad Mini.  I have no idea why you believe otherwise.  Unless you picked an uber-tiny font to use in your book or app design then it will still be readable on the mini.  

 

It's like moving down one font size in terms of readability.  

 

If you chose a 14 point font for your text on the iPad it would be about the same size as 12 point when rendered on the iPad mini (it is STILL 14 point...it's just smaller).

If you chose a 6 point font for your text on the iPad you were just being silly...although the text on the bottom of the calendar is pretty small...but I kinda view the skeuomorphic design kinda silly to begin with...

 

See the image comparison above and those on seveneightyfive.

post #207 of 226
Originally Posted by nht View Post
The text is 19% bigger on the regular iPad than on the iPad Mini.  I have no idea why you believe otherwise.

 

That's what I'm saying.

post #208 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

That's what I'm saying.

 

So when you scale everything down to the mini the layout remains exactly the same and it's still readable because the text isn't all that much physically smaller than before...

 

So why do you need to change anything?  Did you even look at the two images?  Or open up the flipboard one in your ipad?

post #209 of 226
I can't find a Mac mini at any of my local resellers.
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
OK, can I have my matte Apple display, now?
Reply
post #210 of 226
iPad mini with colors. The background of colors in the invitacion means that iPad mini will come in colors. Great!!!

D
post #211 of 226
Originally Posted by Dpineda View Post
iPad mini with colors. The background of colors in the invitacion means that iPad mini will come in colors. Great!!!


Every event has colors. That is completely meaningless.

post #212 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dpineda View Post

iPad mini with colors. The background of colors in the invitacion means that iPad mini will come in colors. Great!!!
D

 

 

Welcome to AI!

 

That would be interesting... 

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #213 of 226

Waiting for the elevator photos...

 

1cool.gif

 

 

I will buy an iPad mini and could even consider an iMac or Mac mini... 

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #214 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneaburns View Post

This is probably wrong but there are 7 colors bands on the invitation if you count the one running down the middle.  Signifying the 7" device? (rounding down ;) )

Or possibly, it'll come in colors. 1wink.gif

post #215 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Is this the Nokia statement you're thinking of? It was just a few days ago at the ITU roundtable discussion on (F)RAND policies.

“There are situations were injunctions against unwilling licensees are a necessary remedy for intellectual property rights holders, such as a total refusal to negotiate a licence, or refusal to pay compensation determined by a competent court,”

read a statement from 
Nokia
.


BTW, the original 10 patents that Nokia asserted against Apple, demanding an injunction as one remedy, were all standards-essential as far as I know.  From Nokia themselves:


"The ten patents in suit relate to technologies fundamental to making devices which are compatible with one or more of the GSM, UMTS (3G WCDMA) and wireless LAN standards," Nokia said.

You are taking a very specific area of abuse, and translating it to a general policy which Nokia disagrees with. The quote below comes in the paragraph right above the first quote you supplied.

"Two areas where specific (F)RAND clarifications have been proposed are (1) availability of injunctions with SEPs, and (2) determination of a common royalty base for licenses. Neither of these is really suitable for more prescriptive regulation, which would only involve significant risks for the delicate balance of the (F)RAND bargain."

No one would disagree that a company that outright refuses to negotiate a license (as Google does) as regards to FRAND, or refuses to obey a proper court order to pay a FRAND license could have an injunction ordered. But this is an extreme. The paragraph I quoted shows Nokia's true belief in how FRAND disputes should not be handled.

Not all standards based patents are FRAND. You have to understand that.
post #216 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Yeah. The iPad 3 right now is just "iPad". It's marketed as "the new iPad". "The new" gets dropped when the new model is released. Seems pretty simple.

It seems simple to you. But as I explained, after a couple of years, we get two, or more just "iPad" designations. That leads to a lot of confusion. So this year will be referred to last years iPad. And next year, it will be referred to as being the iPad from two years ago. Then the iPad from three years ago, as opposed to the iPad from two years ago, as opposed to last years iPad, as opposed to this year's New iPad.

If this isn't confusing to you, then you have a unique mind.
post #217 of 226
Originally Posted by melgross View Post
…after a couple of years, we get two, or more just "iPad" designations. That leads to a lot of confusion.

 

I REALLY don't get how that could be confusing for anyone. "Oh, no! They all have the same names! How will we ever tell them apart?"

 

 

These even have the same chip names and they can be told apart.

post #218 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

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."



http://admin.imore.com/solving-7-ipad-mini-interface




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.




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.



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 TH/EY 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.



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.


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. 



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.

Yeah, yeah, I know, I don't understand this, and I don't understand that. But the analysis says that they will be smaller, but not, and read this word carefully "unusably" so. It didn't say that it would be comfortable, as it is now. It didn't say that it would be pleasant, just "not unusable". This is like saying that text is legible, but not readable.

I'm not impressed by a lot of your analysis. As I said earlier, unless there's some way for the app to detect the screen size, and reformat, anything written for a 10" retina screen will have elements that are too small. All the rest of your post has said nothing to refute that.

I'm not even arguing the buttons, though you keep bringing them up, so I have to respond to it.
post #219 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

There is no fragmentation.  That's the beauty of a 7.85" iPad Mini.  All universal apps just work.

Good luck with that thought.
post #220 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

If you really had then you would have seen the flipboard example that looks kinda like this screen cap (only portrait) I made of the McGraw Hill chemisty textbook:


and then shrunk down to the 7.85" screen size for comparison:


These are BOTH readable and usable. (click images to see at full resolution).

That is the size difference between the iPad and iPad Mini. Both images are 1024x768.  The 2nd image is shrunken down to the 7.85" (dia) size and then padded out to maintain the 1024x768 size so it shows up as 7.85" on a normal iPad.  The 2nd image fuzzy because of the shrinking process...it will not be fuzzy on the real iPad Mini.

Just like the Flipboard example here: 

http://seveneightyfive.fscked.com/flipboard.html

If you designed your textbook to be only borderline readable using an iPad 3 then yes, it'll suck on an iPad Mini.  But it would have been your fault for designing a craptasitic textbook in the first place.

You first example crapped out, and the second doesn't show up at the right size.
post #221 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

The text is 19% bigger on the regular iPad than on the iPad Mini.  I have no idea why you believe otherwise.  Unless you picked an uber-tiny font to use in your book or app design then it will still be readable on the mini.  

It's like moving down one font size in terms of readability.  

If you chose a 14 point font for your text on the iPad it would be about the same size as 12 point when rendered on the iPad mini (it is STILL 14 point...it's just smaller).
If you chose a 6 point font for your text on the iPad you were just being silly...although the text on the bottom of the calendar is pretty small...but I kinda view the skeuomorphic design kinda silly to begin with...

See the image comparison above and those on seveneightyfive.

14 point text is pretty big. Even 12 points is fairly big. Just look at the text size on the iPad from our forum we're posting in now. Fairly small. Even smaller in the edit window. 19% is about a fifth, and that's a lot. I see a lot of retina apps using smaller type than they used to. It's because they can, while still being readable. The text in this edit window is pretty readable to me, but at a 19% smaller size, it will be more difficult, and more difficult to insert a cursor in the proper place without enlarging first, which is more of a bother.

But I hope that apps, and web pages will adapt. But apps that have small type, and despite what you think, a lot do, it will be more difficult if they are relying on the 10" retina screen for readability when shrunk down to the smaller screen. Thank heavens Apple isn't going to a 7" model.

I'm not saying that everything will be a problem, because I don't believe that. But there will be a certain percentage that will. They will have to be rethought. There will need to be some way for developers to be aware of the different screen size along with the resolution.
post #222 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I REALLY don't get how that could be confusing for anyone. "Oh, no! They all have the same names! How will we ever tell them apart?"



These even have the same chip names and they can be told apart.

Buying a "computer" is different from buying an iPad. People think about them differently.

If I said this MBP is from two years ago, people don't get tied up about it. But if I said that this iPad is from two year's ago, they want to know which one it is. Strange? Maybe, but that's the way it is. Why do you think we all got tied up in knots arguing about the name for the new iPhone?
post #223 of 226
Originally Posted by melgross View Post
If I said this MBP is from two years ago, people don't get tied up about it. But if I said that this iPad is from two year's ago, they want to know which one it is. Strange?

 

Incredibly. Makes no sense. If I see three iPads at three different price points available at once, my first reaction is to ask the difference. "Well, this one's faster, and this one's faster still, plus some other additions on both." Boom, I now know the difference. It would be perceived as offering an iPad for everyone and covering the market, just like the iPhone. If I'm "unique" in thinking this way, maybe I should define a product lineup for some company. 

post #224 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

You first example crapped out, and the second doesn't show up at the right size.

 

If you click on the flipboard link from your iPad then you should see the flipboard app as it would appear in an iPad Mini.

 

What do you mean by "doesn't show up at the right size"?  The app should be 7.85" across diagonally with gray borders to fill out the remaining space on your iPad screen.

 

If by the first example you mean the text book one then yes, it is less than optimal using the forum software but I tested it with my iPad.  Click on the 7.85" version, get the annoying popup then save the image.  Then open it in Photos and you will see the Chemistry book as it would be rendered on the 7.85" iPad. 

 

Take a ruler and measure diagonally and you will see that these images are all iPad screen captures shrunken down to fit into 7.85".

post #225 of 226
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post


14 point text is pretty big. Even 12 points is fairly big. 

 

That's an example. A 12 point font will be around 10 points, etc.  It's not quite right but a good enough guide for what to expect.

 

Quote:
19% is about a fifth, and that's a lot. 

 

A fifth smaller.  NOT half size as you claimed.  Whether that's "a lot" depends on your vision and the starting size of the text.  As you can clearly see in the Chemistry Textbooks the font size started at a reasonable size and ended at a reasonable size.  Will it be "comfortable"?  For who?  50+ year olds?  Probably not.  15 year olds.  Probably fine.

 

Same goes for your retina examples where the font may be too small for you.  Sure.  "Too small for you" is the operative distinction.  May not be too small for your daughter.

post #226 of 226

There will be a live stream of the event on Apple TV!

 

My Apple TV already shows the event.

 

 

Can finally get away from watching updates on various sites and waiting to see the video.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple to show 'a little more' at Oct. 23 'iPad mini' event