The Secret Behind the iPod Scroll Wheel
Grump sent in a story saying "Ask any iPod user what they like the most about their device, and most will probably mention the scrollwheel. Here is the story behind the company that makes it (hint: it's not Apple). Great not just for the history, but insight as to both how Apple's design process works, and how the scroll wheel itself works."
25 years ago, Tektronix graphic terminals had scroll-wheels for cursor movement (this was before mice became widespread). And Hewlett-Packard had an innovative scrollwheel that was usable in both directions (in conjunction with the cursor keys) on the 9836 series desktop computers.
The company that designed the scroll wheel is Synaptics. They have another product called the Fingerprint TouchPad that is basically a tiny fingerprint scanner/authentication device. I've always thought that this kind of device would be great if it was integrated into something I have hold to use, such as my cell phone or mouse. Biometric security isn't absolute security, but it can be one level of security that is nearly invisible if implemented correctly. Neat stuff.
Cool little article, although, I have heard of synaptics before - actually L-O-N-G before. Anyone who installed Linux on an old HP laptop can tell you that!
DAMN YOU OCTODOG! DAMN YOU TO HELL!
Obviously you don't RTFA too often - I'd say about half of the stories on Slashdot use text directly lifted from the article in the summary.
I don't see what the problem with this is. Why should someone bother writing a summary for a story submission, when there's a perfectly good one available in the article itself?
I suppose it technically is plagiarism, but considering that the story submitter doesn't really stand to benefit from it I don't see how it matters. Have you ever heard yourself say "Damn, that was a kickass summary. That story submitter must be a freaking genius!"?
No? Didn't think so.
This space intentionally left blank.
You can get more information on the geeky side from http://www.synaptics.com/technology/cps.cfm
That's not a clickwheel, it's a thumbwheel. Sony actually has a patent on clicking thumbwheels in Japan. But anyway, the problem with thumbwheels is the same as mouse wheels, you have to "pedal" the thing to go through long lists. That is, you have to remove your thumb from the wheel when you've scroll all the way one direction, then put your thumb back on at the other end and scroll again.
It works, but in very long lists it is noticeably inferior to a circular wheel you can stay on. Try scrolling through your list of all songs on your Rio. It doesn't work well, and this is proably why the Rio has you select the first letter of the song first and then go to the list (at least the Karma does).
I love the ipod, but hate the scroll wheel. I use my ipod in my car frequently. sometimes scrolling through that thing is worse then driving and talking on a cell phone. i look down, i'm one 'click' above the artist/song that i want, look at road, look down, scroll ever so slightly, end up one notch past what i want, look at road, look down, scroll ever so slightly, one notch past again, and so on.
the new click wheel looks a lot nicer and would probably solve that problem, but i have the old one.
Cheers! Yes, that is pretty much how I was thinking it worked.
Aside: I remember having an old Sony Trinitron 14" TV once, and it had a similar system for changing channel. It was very annoying if a fly decided to walk across the buttons, because the channels would change as the fly walked across!
I have an original 5Gig iPod. No touch sensitivity here, the scroll-wheel is mechanical. So the wheel was done for design reasonss, not purely for touch sensitivity.
Also, look at the very latest iPods - I allowed myself a wry smile here, as I'd always mainted that capacity disregarded, the original iPods are better designed than all but the newest ones because they don't depend on a row of buttons at the top. Apple clearly agreed, the buttons have disappeared and the pure scroll-wheel interface has returned.
So there's two strikes regarding the wheel being chosen for design, as opposed to cost features.
Cheers,
Ian
Circular controllers:
- can control an unbounded parameter (just continue turning)
- can control a bounded parameter with arbitrary precision, e.g. one turn of the wheel doesn't have to go through to whole scale (ie. radio station tuning)
- set the parameter relative to it's last value
Up-down controllers:- can not control unbounded parameters at all
- offer a precision limited by their size
- offer reference on where you are on an absolute scale (and thus a specific position always correlates to a specific value)
That said, up-down controllers can be made to emulate the behaviour of circular ones. You can make an up-down controller simulate relative behaviour by automatically returning the "knob" to the neutral position after the user is done. That way, the up-down controller can be used to set the current value +/- a certain range, and with enough phases the user can control an arbitrary range.Obviously this is very easy on the computer, and fairly difficult with real devices. I've seen it done a couple of days ago in ChaosPro, a fractal generator. It's not the way you'd expect a scroll bar in a computer to work, though, but it's a lot better than the various virtual circular controllers some applications insist on using - circular controller really don't lend themselves well in computer GUIs, I think.
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
Apple's contrbition to the "invention" of the GUI is to copy and make prettier. Show me examples of things they've invented in the GUI and I'd be shocked if there isn't prior art.
1. Pull-down menu
2. Drag'n'drop
3. Direct windows manipulation (moving & resizing)
I hope you can find now a decent posttraumatic treatment?
I'd like to know how many Apple employees actually use the one-button mouse. After all, OS X takes advantage of a two-button scroll wheel mouse; Safari even opens links in a new tab if you middle-click. And using X11 programs with a one button mouse is just pathetic.
English is easier said than done.