Everyone in the tech blogging sphere, from major publications to anyone with a WordPress install (hello!) is still banging on about the 7-inch iPad, but there remain fundamental problems with the reporting.

A 7.85-inch iPad would work with Apple’s Human Interface Guidelines, so devs wouldn’t have to do anything.

This has most recently been trotted out by Joel Bernstein and others but isn’t a new argument. I called bullshit on it back in March, and no-one has changed my mind since. While a device of that size might technically enable well-authored apps to work within a ‘comfortable’ range for touch interaction, most devs design for the current form factor and how that feels, not for specific numbers. Games and apps are designed for hitting targets on a ten-inch device. A quick ’n’ dirty comparison here between an iPad and a smaller version (admittedly, in this case, 7 inches, not 7.85) shows how Apple’s own GarageBand would be affected if not reworked for the smaller form factor. At best, the app would be fiddlier, harder and less fun to use. Couple that with a display that’s reportedly not going to be ‘Retina’ (Daring Fireball said it could use the same display ‘sheets’ as the iPhone 3GS), and you have a device that’s by default worse to use than the larger iPad, requires additional development time for devs, and worse to look at.

Sounds much like the competition, not the iPad.

A 7-inch iPad would be just like the iPod mini.

No it bloody wouldn’t. The iPod mini arrived into a market that only had the original iPod for company from an Apple standpoint. Right now, there are already two existing ‘mini’ iOS products: the iPod touch and the iPhone. A better analogy here would be that a 7-inch iPad would be like some kind of halfway house between the iPod and the iPod mini, an iPod sort-of-in-the-middle, if you will. (And, yes, I get that some—although far from all—people are referring to the iPod mini as an example of Apple expanding the market sectors it aims at, but one can easily argue that retaining the iPad 2 did that, in enabling a lower-priced iPad to be sold.)

Apple has to respond to the growing threat of other 7-inch tablets.

Anyone writing something like this, please either do a tiny bit of research on what makes Apple tick, or do us all a favour and just stop writing articles about tech. Thanks.

Note that I don’t doubt Apple could make a 7-inch iPad. In fact, I’d be amazed if prototypes of that size didn’t exist from day-one in Cupertino (along with a range of sizes beyond the original iPad’s form factor). But if Apple releases one into the wild, it’ll have a lot of questions to answer surrounding usability and quality, and I’d hope there would be something in the device that makes it more than a me-too product beyond it being an iPad.

The one thing that makes me cautious on dismissing the 7-inch iPad rumour entirely (if not much of the writing about the device) is that iPod touch sales are in the toilet and that line continues to decline. Perhaps an iPad mini could be a replacement of sorts—a new, more powerful small(ish) iOS device. Apple’s happily killed products before, to ensure it didn’t stagnate (including the original and popular iPod mini, which was unceremoniously dumped in favour of the iPod nano), but the company has also regularly evolved existing products. So while we could see a new iPad, there’s the possibility the iPod touch will grow a bit, in terms of screen size and/or feature set, and perhaps be rebranded; although the first of those things would still require dev work for fully optimised apps, it could with a Retina display still look really good (if not as pin-sharp as the iPhone and existing iPod touch), although there remains the issue that ‘phablet’-sized devices hardly set the world alight when they came from other vendors.

I yesterday reported on the BBC mis-quoting the Paul Chambers ‘Twitter joke trial’ tweet. The organisation edited the tweet, drastically changing its context, and turning a gooky if perhaps ill-considered social media message into one that resembled whatever it is the CPS presumably thinks Chambers meant.

The BBC’s version:

Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit… otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!

The original:

Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!

The changes in bold:

Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!

As far as I can tell, the BBC article was subsequently edited at least twice, and, oddly, the tweet is still incorrect, omitting ‘and a bit’. Not good. The Guardian also messed up in a similar fashion in its latest article on the case. Along with writing my blog post, I mentioned the Guardian error on Twitter, copying in the Guardian account and that of its writer, and I filed a complaint with the BBC. The replies I got were interesting.

First, the Guardian. Writer Martin Wainwright (@mswainwright) took the time to write to many people who contacted him, apologised and said he’d simply gotten too busy. He then, amusingly, retweeted the entire tweet before the edited article went live. (Let’s hope the CPS wasn’t watching, eh?) He also sent me the following message:

Thanks ever so. I’ve had a curious day today: student bins, transit of venus, weather (twice), Ibsen’s Doll’s House, the Tweet, sheep racing in Barnsley and the poor Heathcliff actor. This is an explanation, not an excuse I hasten to add, tho’ one intrsesting thing is that the Northerner (my main love these days) gets you very used to corrections and comments in the thread and maybe I’ve eased off a bit knowing how many pleasant people there are who put me right kindly. Or it’s just age (62).  Anyway, sorry this isn’t a proper Tweet at all but thanks v much & to others who may come across this.

In short, then: writer in a hurry; makes an error; gets corrected; makes corrections; apologises. Note that the article’s headline was also amended, as was some of the copy, to make the former less accusatory and the latter more accurate. All good.

So, the BBC. My complaint stated that the edit was not in anyone’s interests, introduces bias, and changes the tweet’s meaning and context. I suggested that either the article should have stated the tweet was edited, included it in full, or included ‘censored’ profanity (i.e. Cr*p!), and noted that in the text. Here’s the reply I received from Laura Ellis, Head of New Media, BBC English Regions:

Initially we omitted the sections of Mr Chambers’ tweet that we thought may cause offence because they contain swear words.

I do not believe this fundamentally alters the sense of the tweet that he posted, however, we have since reconsidered and in the interest of absolute clarity we have included the full tweet.

Some quick points. First, if an entire case hinges on the meaning infused within 140 characters of text, it does everyone a disservice to change those 140 characters in any way, regardless of the ‘offence’ they could cause. Frankly, one might argue images of broken, battered, bloodied bodies in warzones might cause offence, but the BBC has shown plenty of those in the past, because it’s in the interests of the story. So mild profanity is no excuse, especially when it changes the context of the tweet. (Clearly, Laura disagreed, and also ignored my point about how the BBC could have gotten around the problem via cunning use of asterisks.)

This entire event also throws into light questions surrounding integrity and reporting in general. Journalists are too busy these days, which can lead to errors. And in some cases corrections will be made, despite, apparently, some organisations not initially thinking such things necessary. Even in the best-case scenario for corrections—i.e. what happened with the Guardian—there’s still the likelihood that information has been picked up by other sources and spread around the web. I’m not sure what the solution is, but I sure hope the industry finds one soon.

(Should you wish to donate to the trial fund for Paul Chambers, you can do so here.)

As reported by David Allen Green at New Statesman, The High Court is unable to agree on the Twitter Joke Trial appeal. Chambers was convicted by Doncaster Magistrates’ Court under section 127(1) of the Communications Act for sending a ‘menacing’ communication—a tweet. In the short article, he notes:

A split divisional court is exceptional, and it appears that this may be only the second time it has happened this century.

Something that’s less exceptional is news organisations continually misquoting the original tweet. Here it is in its entirety, courtesy of The Guardian:

Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!

Note a few things here. There’s the opening word: “Crap!” If you’re being a menace with intent to blow something up, it’s safe to say you probably won’t start with that word. If you’re writing a goofy tweet, in part due to your frustration at an airport being closed, on the other hand… There’s that double exclamation point at the end, just to nail home the fact this is a joke. And there’s the fact that it’s very obviously a joke, unless you’re some kind of bone-headed simpleton.

So well done, BBC News, for misquoting the tweet yet again [UPDATE: After quite a lot of fuss online, the article was updated at about 5pm UK time, including the swearing but still omitting the second exclamation mark. However, plenty of sources picked up on the BBC News report and haven’t updated their copy, so much of the damage remains. UPDATE UPDATE: The BBC presumably kicked to death a sub-editor and now includes both exclamation marks. PHEW! Although as ‘andrew’ points out in the comments, now ‘and a bit’ is MIA, so perhaps that sub-ed shouldn’t have been kicked to death after all.]:

The message Chambers tweeted said: “Robin Hood Airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit… otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!”

Just so you can see what’s going on here, I’ve helpfully placed in bold the bits the BBC cut:

Crap! Robin Hood airport is closed. You’ve got a week and a bit to get your shit together otherwise I’m blowing the airport sky high!!

The original tweet is clearly a dumb joke, but the BBC edit actually does appear menacing. Dire, misleading reporting like this at the very least doesn’t help one of the more ridiculous tech-oriented verdicts in British history get overturned; worse, it rather backs the arguments from the CPS and others that this was a menacing tweet when it wasn’t. It’s been claimed by the CPS that the original tweet lacked context (ignoring the context of the rest of Chambers’ feed, presumably), and yet the BBC strips context from the tweet by removing a huge chunk of it, and doesn’t state that the words have been edited. What’s the problem? Isn’t there enough space on the infinite web to run the whole thing? Does the BBC have to pay for each letter it uploads? It’s a bloody disgrace.

If you’re feeling significantly angry about the whole thing, more money is needed for the next stage of this seemingly never-ending slice of stupid by the British authorities, and so if you can spare a few quid, donate to the trial fund.

UPDATE: Tons of people on Twitter have said they think the edit is down to the BBC removing profanity. That’s still not acceptable. First, the article states clearly that the quote is what Chambers said. That in itself isn’t technically inaccurate, but the article also does not say the quote was edited. Secondly, the BBC did not link to the full source. Thirdly, there are ways around the profanity issue—the BBC could have part censored the offending words in the tweet (‘sh*t’ or ‘s——’, for example), and stated that in the copy. Finally, it also removed the second exclamation point, presumably for style guid reasons, but this again affects the context of the tweet and distorts it from the original meaning.

Sadly, the BBC is not alone. The Guardian’s latest take includes the edited tweet (despite the same writer printing it in full in 2010) and runs with the not-at-all-loaded headline: ‘Twitter joke trial: man who threatened to blow up airport wins fresh hearing’. Classy. [UPDATE: The Guardian article now has a new headline, ‘Twitter joke trial: new hearing for man who tweeted about blowing up airport’, and the full tweet text, including both exclamation marks.]

The BBC and Guardian journalist have now responded to me regarding the points made in this post.

You might have noticed that Jony Ive recently got knighted, and he spoke to the Telegraph about all things design. Naturally, he was asked about Apple’s software design, including iCal’s nasty stitched UI. He apparently winced a bit, but diplomatically offered the following quote:

My focus is very much working with the other teams on the product ideas and then developing the hardware and so that’s our focus and that’s our responsibility. In terms of those elements you’re talking about, I’m not really connected to that.

Initially, this seems surprising—Apple’s hardware and software people being so separate. However, the perceived clash between Apple’s minimal hardware and increasingly ‘real world’ software interfaces actually stem from the same foundation of usability. In other words, both methodologies are designed to make things easier for users—the hardware should get out of the way, and the software should be welcoming, intuitive and, where possible, familiar. Apple certainly doesn’t always succeed in terms of software UI design, but in aping real-world items, it often gives users a head-start they wouldn’t otherwise have (while simultaneously typically infuriating tech-savvy users).

Quite how Jesus Diaz extrapolated this into What Jony Ive Wishes He Could Say About Apple’s User Interfaces, I don’t know. There’s quite a lot of projection within his piece, and he bangs on about the usual things people (including myself) have banged on about in the past, but it’s clear Apple has fairly set thinking regarding software interfaces, and it’s not about to follow Microsoft down the path of UI minimalism. Sales figures suggest the company’s right, but the way things are—and Ive’s quote—doesn’t suggest Ive himself wants to kick Scott Forstall in the face. It just suggests that Apple’s got what the company perceives as the right person on hardware and the right person on software.

Over at Daring Fireball, John Gruber seems quite convinced about the latest iPhone rumours, which claim the device will move to a 16:9 display, which in portrait will be 9:16. On Gizmodo, Jesus Diaz wrote a rebuttal to this rumour, making salient arguments: no-one’s been screaming for this; the iPhone still outsells other smarphones; fragmentation would be introduced; universal apps would be tough, because 16:9 is further from the iPad’s 4:3 display than the current iPhone’s 3:2.

Of course, some people have been clamouring for a larger iPhone screen, but as far as I can tell, these are the reasons:

• Video would be in full widescreen, without black bars (if not necessarily 720p).
• Bigger screens are better, just because.
• Everyone else is doing it, and, more specifically, it’s what those Android guys do.

These don’t seem particularly compelling arguments to me, and if Gruber’s right in the next iPhone sporting a screen that effectively adds 176 or so pixels to the top of the display (making it 1136 × 640 rather than 960 × 640), you get black bars around all non-optimised apps, and those that are optimised will require more work for developers. Fixed-width apps (i.e. many games, most interactive books, lots of music-creation apps, and so on) will require another bespoke layout. Games that are more flexible (3D racers, say, or 2D action puzzlers like Angry birds that have scrolling levels) will require clever gameplay balancing and plenty of testing regarding any on-screen controls. Even ‘flexible’ apps will require a ton of usability testing and optimisation. In many cases, the ‘extra’ space would be largely empty, because filling it with something important would risk alienating every single current iPhone and iPod touch user.

For more flexible apps, there could be minor benefits—an extra tweet, an extra couple of lines of text—but 16:9/9:16 is sub-optimal for books, magazines, photos and other content types, and so it strikes me as a strange decision. Gruber argues:

I suspect the answer is, why not? The design tension in post-iPhone mobile phones is between screen size (where bigger is better) and device size (where smaller is better). You want a physical device that is small enough to fit easily in your pockets and is comfortable and easy to use while holding it in one hand.

But I still simply say: why?