There's been a lot of discussion surrounding why Apple would release an iPad mini, but maybe even more concerning how Apple would go about implementing it. iMore originally heard back in May that the so-called iPad mini would be almost identical to the current 9.7-inch iPad, simply shrunk down to a 7.x-inch form factor. (I'm using 7.x-inch in lieu of a specific size since we haven't heard a specific size yet, but AppAdvice's A.T Faust III made a great case for 7.85 inches, so feel free to substitute that in.)

Some people, designers and end-users alike, feel the iPad interface won't scale down elegantly -- that touch targets will be too small and interface elements will feel too cramped. I've had the same concerns.

With that in mind, it's worthwhile considering the different 7.x-inch options Apple might choose to implement, and the benefits and compromises inherent with each.

Note: Joel Bernstein of Cast Irony did a lot of the heavy number lifting on this subject already. Rather than repeat it here, just go read his article first.

Interface realities

The original iPhone had a 320x480 pixel and point resolution, for a density of 163 ppi. The original iPad had a 768x1024 pixel and point resolution, for a density of 132 ppi. When Apple went to Retina displays, they doubled the pixels vertically and horizontally (@2x), but left the point resolution the same. In other words, where older iPhones and iPads had 1 pixel per point, and new Retina iPhones and iPads have 4 pixels per point.

This means the pixel density of the Retina iPhone jumped to 326 ppi and the Retina iPad jumped to 264 ppi, yet the point size, however, remained the same. That's why the physical size of buttons, sliders, and other default (UIKit) interface elements did not change from non-Retina to Retina devices -- they simply looked sharper.

The reason Apple stuck to @2x is that other, rather than arbitrary scaling factors, is that it allowed existing @1x apps to run without appearing blurry (due to pixel scaling interpolation) or shrinking beyond useful size on the already small 3.5-inch iPhone screen (due to physical scaling). @1x apps on @2x displays may look decidedly low-res, but all their pixels fall exactly on the point grid.

(To better understand the complexities that come with non @2x scaling factors, see Marc Edwards' explanation on Bjango.com.)

When Apple introduced the iPad, however, they didn't scale the iPhone interface. They created a new screen size, screen resolution, and aspect ratio, and used a lower pixel density. Because big tablets are generally held further away than small phones, the difference in pixel density isn't readily apparent to the naked eye.

Having a lower point density, however, does make a difference when it comes to usability -- interface elements are slightly bigger on the iPad than on the iPhone.

There's an important reason for this -- accuracy decreases over distance.

The iPhone is small enough that it can generally be used one handed, and small enough that even when a finger is displaced, it's a short, incredibly easy-to-judge distance. The odds of missing even a smaller button are low.

The iPad is big enough that it cannot generally be used one handed, and big enough that when a finger is displaced, it's a longer, not always as easy-to-judge distance. The odds of hitting a bigger button are higher.

The 9.7-inch iPad has considerably more screen space than the 3.5-inch iPhone, and Apple wisely leveraged it with bigger interface elements to increase usability.

(That's especially important for children, seniors, and people who have found pre-iOS computing devices intimidating or inaccessible, and might be in a higher stress state to begin with when faced with interface elements.)

Apple's 7.x-inch options

Given the above, there are several ways Apple could go about producing a 7.x-inch iPad mini, including scaling the iPhone interface up, creating a new interface size, and scaling the iPad interface down.

Scaling up from iPhone

Instead of scaling the iPad iOS interface down from 9.7- to fit 7.x-inches, Apple could theoretically scale up the iPhone iOS interface from 3.5- to 7.x-inches. Gabe Glick on MacStories.net has gone over some ideas in this vein already.

In order to be a proper, scaled-up iPhone, a 7.x-inch iPad would have to have the same screen pixel and point size as the iPhone, and the same aspect ratio. That would mean 640x960 pixels at a 3:2 aspect ratio, which at 7.85-inches pixels works out to 137ppi. That might sound similar to the original iPad's 132 ppi, but the original iPhone was 163ppi and that's what the 3.5-inch iPhone interface was designed for. (Apple redesigned the interface for the 132 ppi iPad.) Scaling up would mean really big interface elements. Really big.

If, instead of stretching 640x960 to fit 7.x-inches, Apple instead kept the pixel size the same and simply added more pixels to reach 7.x-inches, or did some combination of scaling up and adding pixels, they'd run into a few problems.

Design once, deploy everywhere is every bit the joke today that develop once, deploy everywhere was a decade ago. It doesn't work. Pixel-perfect designers will always want pixel perfect design. Excellence isn't "free".

Given that reality, technologies like Auto Layout and HTML5 might make apps and interfaces more resilient to scaling, but they don't and won't make them bullet proof or let them automagically swell or cramp to fit any arbitrary screen size.

Apple does have some non-@1x or @2x scaling options on the Retina MacBook Pro, but they're not set as default, and either way, a mouse-driven interface used at a greater distance than a mobile device is far more forgiving of stretching and spacing. Apple went with @2x (pixel doubling) on the iPhone and iPad for a reason.

There have been a variety of 7.x-sized Android tablets on the market for a long time now, and many of them simply have run scaled up phone-sized versions of Android apps, to deleterious effect.

Apple CEO Tim Cook pointed that out at the iPad 3 event, calling the Android apps "blown up" or "stretched out" phone apps. (Circa March, 2012 Android Twitter app on the top, Loren Brichter's Twitter for iPad below.)

Increasing the size of iPhone interface elements and/or the amount of white space between them doesn't lead to good looking, great working apps. It doesn't properly leverage the increase in screen size. And it seems to be of limited benefit to the platform.

Introducing a new interface size

When Apple introduced the iPad in 2010, they didn't simply scale up the 3.5-inch iPhone iOS interface. They created a new interface for iOS that better utilized the 9.7-inch, 768x1024 at 132 ppi iPad size.

Apple did provide the ability to run iPhone apps boxed or in fuzzy-double-chunky 2x size, but that very fuzzy-double-chunkiness put considerable pressure on developers to create either iPad-specific apps, or iPad-specific interfaces combined into a universal app.

If a 7.x-inch iPad brings with it an entirely new screen size , for example, 1152x1536, than this approach might make sense. Rather than having blurry @1.5x iPad apps, a new interface that keeps pixels on the grid, and somehow exists between the single column view of the iPhone interface and the double/multiple column view of the iPad interface, could well be a better alternative.

Likewise, if Apple changes the aspect ration, neither cropping nor letter- or pillar-boxing existing apps is a good long-term solution.

Either way, separate apps mean separate downloads and potentially separate purchases for users, and triple-packed universal binaries mean larger download sizes and larger storage requirements for users, even if they only have one of the device sizes to run the app on.

Since current universal apps already have to support both @1x (for iPhone 3GS and iPad 2, both still on the market), and @2x (for iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, and the new, gigantic iPad) assets for both interfaces, the file sizes are big to begin with.

A third screen size would mean apps and interfaces specifically designed to look and work great at 3.5-inches, 9.7-inches, and 7.x-inches. But it would also mean having to buy Angry Birds, Angry Birds HD, and Angry Birds 7 (or whatever developers come up with as classification), or having to download Infinity Blade 3 at a whopping 2+ GB.

And if an initial iPad mini isn't Retina, it will be one day. adding @1x and @2x assets will make an already bloated universal binary even more so.

Universal binaries are often too big for the 50MB 3G/4G download limit as it is, how many more would be pushed over the limit to support a unique 7-inch interface?

Multiple screen sizes increases complexity and overhead for developers and users alike. This solution might provide the best apps, but at considerable opportunity cost.

Scaling down from iPad

As mentioned, this is the solution iMore originally heard Apple was going with. Essentially, iOS 6 as it's running on the current iPad would simply run, scaled down, on the 7.x-inch iPad. Pixel size would be the same the 9.7-inch iPad, 1024x768. (Getting 2048x1536 down to 7.x-inches for around $200 may not be doable until future generations.)

Pixel density would be around the same as the original 3.5-inch iPhone, 163 ppi. (Or 326, the same as the iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S, if and when it goes Retina.) Quite the coincidence, as noted by Daring Fireball's John Gruber.

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.

A 7.85-inch iPad would still require two hands to use, but the shorter distances would allow slightly better accuracy, again equalizing out the slightly smaller interface elements and touch targets.

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.

How other platforms have handled 7.x-inch form factors

Other tablet vendors have had 7.x-inch form factors on the market for a while, and different platforms have handled the interface size and usability challenges differently.

Android

The original Samsung Galaxy Tab had a 7-inch screen and ran Android 2.2 Froyo. While Samsung made optimized versions of contacts, calendars, email, reading, and music apps for the 7-inch screen, in general, apps ran very much in the model of the "stretched out" or "blown up" smartphone interface on a tablet Apple CEO Tim Cook referred to at the iPad 3 event.

Amazon forked Android to create the 7-inch Amazon Kindle Fire, which runs a proprietary interface designed to facilitate buying and consuming content from the various Amazon stores. That focus allows for a big, bold look that's easy to use as intended.

Perhaps not satisfied with their own Android 3.0 Honeycomb efforts, or the efforts of their partners' tables, including updated Samsung tabs and the HTC Flyer, Google has just released their own Google Nexus 7 tablet. It runs the latest Android 4.1 Jellybean operating system.

On Google+, Dianne Hackborn shared a lot of insight into how the Nexus 7 handles interface scaling. Here's a brief excerpt:

Some people have commented that the UI on the Nexus 7 isn't a scaled down version of the 10" UI. This is somewhat true. It is also not just the phone UI shown on a larger display. Various parts of the system and applications will use one or the other UI (or even a mix) depending on what works best. For example parts of the system UI (status bar and navigation bar, settings) use the phone layout since they too compact in 600dp of width. Other apps use the tablet UI or even a mix -- for example Gmail uses the tablet UI in the conversation list, but the message screen is either a single pane like a phone or dual-pane like a tablet depending on whether the screen is currently portrait or landscape.

BlackBerry

The BlackBerry PlayBook launched a completely new platform for RIM, and that meant they didn't even try to scale the existing BlackBerryOS interface to tablet scale. Instead, they started fresh and they made a purpose-built -- if clearly webOS influenced -- interface entirely for the 7-inch form factor.

According to Kevin Michaluk of CrackBerry.com, the 7-inch scale was usable but cramped.

From a user experience standpoint, I'm less sold on the BlackBerry Tablet OS than I'd like to be. Part of this is due more to the size of the PlayBook's display than anything else - at 600 pixels tall when held in landscape you just don't have a lot of pixels to work within the web browser, or in apps where the keyboard is displayed which takes up half the screen. It doesn't kill the experience, but it certainly makes the experience less enjoyable than it would be if you had a larger display. And while it took a little getting used to, I personally enjoy the gesture-based navigation. But I'm a 30-year old wannabe techy (who acts like he's 19 most of the time). My main concern here is that between the bezel gestures and multi-tasking homescreen there's a lot going on. It's a bit "gadgety" for lack of a better word. One of the reasons Apple's iOS products are so successful is that people of all ages, literally from 2 to 92, can figure them out quickly with little frustration.

For BlackBerry 10, their upcoming new smartphone platform, RIM will now be facing a similar challenge -- scaling down and re-imagining the 7-inch PlayBook experience to run on a 4.x-inch or smaller BlackBerrys.

webOS

Sadly, the 7-inch webOS tablet, called the TouchPad Go, was never released. It was manufactured, however, and some of the units did make their way into the hands of webOS enthusiasts. Interestingly, the TouchPad Go took exactly the same path to 7-inches that iMore heard Apple is taking -- they shrank their existing 768x1024, 9.7-inch TouchPad screen down to a 768x1024 7-inch screen, and took the existing interface down with it. The pixels were smaller, so everything from buttons to touch targets were simply smaller.

According to Derek Kessler of webOS Nation, there was little to no loss of usability, though the original Touchpad felt more natural in portrait orientation while the Go felt more natural in landscape.

With webOS not altered in any way for the seven-inch screen, all of the touch targets are smaller on the Go (like the screen they're approximately half the size in area, dimensionally about ¾ the size). For everything we tested this didn't prove to be a major problem. The only place where the smaller screen size coupled with no changes proved to be an issue was with the keyboard, where the XS setting for key height was laughably small (approximately a quarter inch tall). Thankfully, webOS 3.0 still packs the adjustable size keyboard, and where we tend to use the S on a ten-inch TouchPad we find M more comfortable on the Go.

The seven-inch screen was no hindrance to use, with every app functioning as expected and working just fine at the smaller size. The higher pixel density, while welcome, wasn't really that noticeable in practice. What is noticeable is how much smaller text is. Even in landscape orientation we found that we often had to zoom into easily read text on most websites.

And it's interesting to note that shrinking 768x1024 down to 7-inches is slightly smaller than the rumored 7.85-inches Apple is rumored to be considering.

Conclusion

If you've ever watched an Apple engineer "test" an app -- by which I mean grab a device and start rapidly putting it through every permutation of interactivity imaginable, trying to break the experience in every way possible -- you know that it'll be a challenge for anything truly unusable to exit Apple. Of course there will be disagreement over the degree of usability, and the compromises Apple takes to get there, but that's always the case.

When rumors of the original iPad first started to circulate there was endless debate about how Apple could implement the multitouch keyboard. It had to be a fan. No, a circle. No, a fanning circle! But when the iPad debuted in 2010, it was just a keyboard, not dissimilar to the iPhone keyboard before it. Later, Apple added a split keyboard. That's Apple's modus operandi.

If and when Apple decides to bring the 7.x-inch iPad mini to market, they'll more than likely do it the same way they do most things -- in the simplest manner possible.

Additional resources

• The 16:9 iPhone
• The 4-inch iPhone

Weather Neue is an iPhone weather app designed for minimalists. Instead of a plethora of features and options, Weather Neue simply consists of one screen that gives you the current weather conditions, a 3 day forecast, and other basic weather information.

When you launch Weather Neue it will cycle through a bunch of random temperatures while it loads, making it more interesting that just a static load screen with a loading indicator. Weather Neue goes through the same thing if you shake to refresh.

Once loaded, Weather Neue displays a very clean screen. At the top of the screen, you see the name of the city you're currently located at and beneath that, a word and symbol that describes the current conditions. For example, "Clear" and the graphic of the sun. In big, bold text in the center of the screen is the current temperature and below that in small letters is the current humidity, wind speed, and the wind direction. At the bottom of the screen, you'll see the forecast of highs and lows for the current day and the next 3 days.

If you tap the name of the city at the top of the screen, a settings screen will slide up from the bottom that lets you toggle metric units on and off and select between one of the four available themes (see screenshots to see all the themes).

The good

• Looks nice
• Minimalist design
• Provides the necessary information

The bad

• Cannot look up the weather at any location other than your current location

The conclusion

Weather Neue is a very basic weather app, but that's precisely its appeal.

Free - Download Now

The iPad provides one of the best digital reading experiences available, and a great RSS reading app only makes that experience better. We've already taken a look at the best personalized magazine apps for iPad, including Flipboard, Zite, and Pulse but for those of us who like a more traditional style of RSS, and more control over our news feeds, nothing beats a dedicated RSS app. Reeder, The Early Edition 2, and NewsRack are all great choices but which one is best? And which one is best for you?

Let's find out.

Note: We didn't include NetNewsWire in this shootout because it's under new management and rumor has it a new version is on its way. When that new version is released, we'll update this shootout accordingly.

Note

Reeder vs. Early Edition 2 vs. NewsRack: Interface and experience

Reeder was one of the first good RSS apps released in the App Store and it keeps getting better. Upon launching Reeder for iPad you'll see a list of your feeds in the main viewing area and a small navigation pane off to the left that allows you to toggle between starred, unread, and all items.

To start reading you can tap into any section and you'll be presented with those articles in a list view. Again, you can use the left hand navigation pane to drill down further and sort by individual feeds and most recent.

Tapping on an article allows you to read it and tapping the title will take you to the full blown web version. Along the top you'll have options to mark as favorite, mark as unread, share it or send to a read it later service, and view in Readability mode.

Reeder has additional settings with the general iOS Settings app that will allow you to adjust and fine-tune many details such as how many days worth of articles you'd like to filter in. Reeder is simple by default but gives power users the control they want at the same time.

The Early Edition 2 presents RSS feeds differently. While it appears to be a personalized magazine style app, you still have complete control over what you read and what feeds filter in. That could make The Early Edition 2 the best of both worlds for some -- you get beauty and functionality all in one.

Using the metaphor of a newspaper, everything from the type to the animations let The Early Edition offer you the latest digital news wrapped in an almost old world print look and feel.

You can also choose to sync via Google Reader or use standalone mode.

The Early Edition 2 uses swipe gestures to allow you to access different submenus and lists. Swiping down with one finger will bring up the top main menu. From here you can sort by unread, articles posted today, and all articles. You can see your sync status, view features articles, and adjust your settings as well. Swiping to the right with two fingers will bring up a submenu that allows you to toggle between sections and feeds. You can also refine what you're reading into indivudal feeds or sections.

I did have some problems with gesture recognition at times, for example bringing up the feature section when it's not what I swiped for. Overall, gestures are fast and powerful, but there's a danger in relying on gestures instead of buttons.

NewsRack is organized in a simliar fashion to Reeder. All your feeds will aggregate in the left hand pane while your content will appear in the main window to the right. You can drill down into different sections and read either by unread, individual feed, or only view your starred articles.

You can also use a one finger swipe to the left or right to hide the navigation pane and enjoy full screen articles. It you frequently use the Mail app on your iPad you'll notice the simliarity. This makes for a great choice for readers that aren't as advanced and don't need a ton of options or want a difficult navigation menu to work with.

When it comes to reading news feeds, Reeder provides the best overall experience. It has all the advanced options power users needs, but hides them well enough that new users won't feel overwhelmed.

Reeder vs. Early Edition 2 vs. NewsRack: Google Reader integration

Reeder, Early Edition 2, and NewsRack all offer Google Reader integration but each handles it a bit differently.

Reeder requires you to sign into your Google Reader account the first time you launch it. From there you don't have many other options. If you'd like to add feeds you'll have to do it through the Google Reader site. The Reeder for iPhone app recently received an update that allows users to add and delete feeds from Google Reader natively. Hopefully the iPad app will get the same treatment in the near future.

Early Edition 2 and NewsRack also integrate Google Reader but both allow you to edit your subscriptions natively without the need to ever leave the app. So if you frequently find yourself adding feeds, removing them, and editing sections, Early Edition 2 and NewsRack will give you that ability.

Tie between NewsRack and Early Edition 2.

Reeder vs. Early Edition 2 vs. NewsRack: Sharing, read later, and additional features

While Reeder, The Early Edition 2, and NewsRack all allow you to browse news feeds, mark them as read, and sort them in many different ways, each also has additional features to appeal to power users.

Reeder has tons of options you can tweak and configure to get it to perform in the exactly the way you'd like. You can edit how many days worth of feeds you'd like to add, which social and sharing services you'd like enabled, and more. Reeder supports Instapaper, Pocket (formerly Read It Later), and Readability as well. Once you sign into your account via Settings you're good to go.

You can also adjust image caching through Settings. You can choose between caching images for only starred items or all unread items, as well as to only cache when you're on Wi-Fi.

You can change the order unread items appear and what swiping motions will do. You can customize them to do things such as star articles or send them to the read it later service of your choice.

The nice thing about the way Reeder is that more advanced options are hidden away in the iOS Settings app so, if you don't need them, they don't clutter things up in-app.

The Early Edition 2 also provides support for all the popular social, sharing, and read later services. Once you're in an article you can choose the share link at the top to send articles to the service of your choice. You can also share them via e-mail as well.

All of The Early Edition 2's settings are pretty obvious but if you don't pay attention to the walk-through the first time you launch the app you'll miss out on how to access feeds and settings, and may feel a bit lost. Once you watch the walk-through, the motions become rather fluid, but it'd be nice if they could figure out a way to hint or help you find what you need even after you've been using the app for a while.

The Early Edition 2 has several different views from indivdual paper view to clippings to features, to individual thread view. It almost feels like too much and the too many different ways, and can interfere with the overall experience at times.

NewsRack, like Reeder, is easy to navigate through. There aren't too many settings and additional functions, and all the controls you need are at the top including sharing, starring, and marking as unread.

You can tap into the app's settings via the gear at the bottom of your feeds list in order to choose how many articles you'd like to sync and adjust what mobilizer views you'd like. NewsRack also supports image caching and lets you control when you'd like the app to download images. You can choose between read, unread, and starred. You can also choose to only download images over Wi-Fi is you'd like.

When it comes to additional features, Reeder and NewsRack provide just enough to please power users but both do it in a clean, simple manner. Early Edition 2 is extremely powerful but the layout is confusing at times.

Tie between Reeder and NewsRack.

Reeder vs. Early Edition 2 vs. NewsRack: cross-platform syncing

Odds are you don't only read news feeds on your iPad but want to read them while on the go with your iPhone and at work or home from an actual computer.

Reeder offers not only an iPad app but an iPhone and Mac app as well. All three are separate purchases and will run you around $13 for the whole package. There are currently no versions for Windows or other smartphone platforms.

Early Edition 2 currently only supports iPad so if you'll have to get other apps to read on the iPhone, other smartphones, or Mac or Windows PCs.

NewsRack works on iPhone, iPad, and Mac. The iOS version is a universal binary which means you'll only have to buy it once and it'll work on both your iPhone and iPad. The Mac version is separate but the entire bundle will run you around $13 as well. There's no version of Windows or other mobile platforms.

Tie between Reeder and NewsRack.

Reeder vs. Early Edition 2 vs. NewsRack: Conclusion

Reeder, Early Edition 2, and NewsRack are all great RSS apps in their own right but differ greatly when it comes to the actual experience of reading news on your iPad.

The Early Edition 2 is the best choice for those who want something close to the personal magazine experience, but want to maintain the power and control of a pure RSS app. If you want to enjoy your digital news curled up on the couch with a beverage to the side, just like a classic newspaper, check out The Early Edition 2.

NewsRack is a great choice for anyone wanting a traditional RSS experience on the iPad. It's powerful but not overly complicated. If, for some reason, you simply don't like Reeder, take a look at NewsRack.

Reeder is the best choice for anyone on a Mac, iPhone, or iPad and wants a consistent RSS experience between all three platforms (and when the updated iPad version hits, it should only get better.) It has a great interface and keeps everything clean while still offering all the options a power RSS reader needs.

Right now Reeder is the best app for reading RSS feeds on the iPad.

Reeder - $4.99 - Download Now

Early Edition 2 - $4.99 - Download Now

NewsRack - $4.99 - Download Now

NFL players and coaches are starting to embrace the iPad to assist in game day preparations. The Denver Broncos appear to be the first team to reveal that they use it as a digital playbook rather than just an entertainment device according to TNW.

While detailed information is sparse, I was able to piece together some of the app's features from different reports, including one by FOX Sports. According to FOX, the app has three main features: game film, playbook and notifications.

The company behind the app, PlayerLync, pushes automatic updates to players, letting coaches add video to the system, and no matter where the players are, they get the updates. It sounds pretty awesome to me. Additionally, push notifications are sent to the devices to remind players and coaches of meetings and practices, giving everyone one less excuse for being late.

We can see the iPad rolling out across the world as the future for communicating sporting tactics to team players and coaches; it just makes so much sense. Firstly there is the environmental impact, no paper is a good thing as it cuts down on the destruction of trees and forests. Paper is always very easy to lose and render unreadable after heavy use. As with any sort of confidential printed material, if it gets in the wrong hands, it could be a major problem. Thankfully the iPad can add an additional security layer over this problem too. A remote wipe could be initialized if the iPad somehow made its way into the wrong hands.

In my opinion it is only a matter of time before we see a much more widespread adoption of iPad's in mainstream sports. It makes so much sense to equip players and coaches with constantly updating information on a small easy to carry tablet. Maybe it will start to roll out in the World's Soccer leagues too, it could be extremely useful not only for tactics but for other things too. FIFA has finally approved the use of goal line video technology this week to provide proof if a ball has crossed the line or not. Maybe the iPad could be the solution to accessing this type of data on the fly; we will have to wait and see. Have you noticed any of your favorite sports teams using the iPad? Let us know if you have!

Source: TNW