One reason often given that Apple wouldn’t make a smaller (cheaper) iPad, is that apps would have to be re-designed to fit a third screen size. The iPhone has always been 3.5″ and the iPad has always been 9.7″, giving developers 2 screen sizes to support, if they want to have their app on all iOS devices. Adding a third size to the mix would have to gain consumers and Apple a lot, to be worth the increased fragmentation in the App store. The problem is that, as buttons shrink, they get difficult to press, given our fat fingers. (This isn’t a big deal on computers, because the point on a mouse is always 1 pixel.)

However, it looks like Apple have built in a redundancy that would allow existing iPad apps to shrink to 7.85″ and still be usable.

The original iPhone screen was 163 PPI, and Apple’s design guidelines state 44px by 44px is the smallest comfortable size for a button (or any tappable area) at that pixel density. The design guidelines for the iPad uses the same minimum pixel-size, despite it’s screen having a lower density. The result is that the smallest allowed button on an iPad is physically bigger than on an iPhone. Shrinking the iPad to 7.85″ and giving it the original iPad’s resolution (1024 x 768) gets to the 163 PPI of the original iPhone. It would run iPad apps simply shruken to fit the screen, and despite everything being smaller, buttons are still big enough to comfortably use.

 χ 

A model bus telling when the next buses are due. Read the rest of this entry »

 χ 

 That’s why Microsoft is so much more interesting today: while Google seems to think they don’t need to change anything and Apple’s customers are brainwashed by marketing, Ballmer has shut up about Apple publicly and Microsoft is making radical changes.

 χ 

I’m the webmaster of the Backyard Productions website, and we just won an award for best IAC club website.

 χ 

The UK government is considering amendments to copyright law, and the right to parody is one of the amendments being considered. This is an exception the US already have in their laws, and allows the use of copyrighted material for parody (e.g. Spoof songs, campaigns, commentary).

The government last considered this in 2006, but lobbying by incumbent industries prevented a change. Read the Open Rights Group’s article for more info, if you’d like to add your voice to the debate in parliament.

We have one more week to tell policy makers that we need a right to parody. You can help by *writing to the consultationcopyrightconsultation@ipo.gov.uk *to tell them why you think this is a good idea.

 χ