The Secret Behind the iPod Scroll Wheel

clickwheel? by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 02:33 · Score: 2, Funny

Do they mean the clickwheel? Or is this actually about the previous generations with the scrollwheel?

Re:clickwheel? by hattig · 2004-09-21 02:36 · Score: 1

This is about all 3 types of scrollwheel, including the clickwheel.

It doesn't say how they work though. I assume on the later ones it detects static electricity or something from the finger and with a timer it seems how fast you are rotating or something?

Pretty useless article from a geek point of view.
Re:clickwheel? by ahecht · 2004-09-21 02:55 · Score: 5, Interesting

Like all touchpads (and touchlamps as well), the device measures a change in capacitance (Synaptics calls it Capacitive Position Sensing). Each section of the wheel (divided by the lightning-bolt lines) can be measured individually, so it knows which section your finger is on. From that, it is pretty easy to figure our how fast your finger is moving.
You can get more information on the geeky side from http://www.synaptics.com/technology/cps.cfm
Re:clickwheel? by hattig · 2004-09-21 03:01 · Score: 5, Interesting

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!
Re:clickwheel? by hattig · 2004-09-21 03:04 · Score: 1

Yeah, that's what I meant, I just expressed it poorly :p

It's quite clever how they can detect the amount of change in capacitance to get 1/1000" accuracy too!
Re:clickwheel? by BasilBrush · 2004-09-21 03:11 · Score: 2, Informative

As someone else mentioned, it's probably capacitance between the pad and your finger. No need for a timer. The pad with the highest capacitance gives you the absolute position of your finger, and the sequence gives you the direction of movement. The pointy shapes no doubt make the capacitance vary more gradually from one pad to the next, so that the absolute position can be determined more accurately by interpolation.

RIM Blackberry by MalaclypseTheYounger · 2004-09-21 02:34 · Score: 1

I like the wheel on my RIM Blackberry, seems like this has been around a little bit longer than the iPOD. The clicking interface along with the scrolling up and down is pretty nifty.

--
Check out the best P2P sharing website: MEDIACHEST.COM

Re:RIM Blackberry by uqbar · 2004-09-21 02:41 · Score: 1

I'm with you on this one. I don't like the interface of the iPod for whatever reason. But the clickwheel on my Rio Carbon works well for me - it is much like my Blackberry and this familiarity works well.

Nothing really new there... by Pig+Hogger · 2004-09-21 02:35 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.

Re:Nothing really new there... by pmc · 2004-09-21 02:45 · Score: 5, Funny

And, to bring scolling to the audio world, I have a very old (15 years) Sony Tuner that has a scroll wheel for choosing between the preset stations (up to 30). And it does the cute trick of the faster you spin the faster the choices go by. I don't think this was particularly innovative then either, but I think it's the oldest device I have with such an interface.
Re:Nothing really new there... by Aphrika · 2004-09-21 02:52 · Score: 3, Interesting

Pong had scroll wheels of a sort for cursor movement too - translating rotational into linear motion. I think that was around 30-odd years ago. Since then we've had the early 80s consoles and jog dials.

However, I find it quite interesting how old ideas are reborn - if someone said 10 years ago that there'd be a big rotational dial on the front of the biggest selling music player in 2004, I wouldn't have believed them... same with analogue controls on synthesizers which have recently made a comeback.
Re:Nothing really new there... by emorphien · 2004-09-21 02:56 · Score: 2, Informative

I never really thought much of the scroll wheel on the iPod either, but I knew it was just a variation of the track pad like my laptop has (which is also a synaptics).

--

Presently here, but not there.
Re:Nothing really new there... by puz · 2004-09-21 02:59 · Score: 1

I really miss the scroll wheel that used to be on the keyboard of a HP workstation. IIRC, regular spinning provided horizontal movement and spinning while holding down the shift key provided vertical movement. It was more productive than a mouse IMO. I wonder why it did not catch on.

By the way, it works by a rotary encoder consisting of a slotted wheel and two photo interruptors. Rotating causes square waves PI/2 apart in phase. Angle is determined by the count, and direction by which wave is leading in phase.

--
Download Mazes and Puzzles from www.puz.com
Re:Nothing really new there... by Pig+Hogger · 2004-09-21 02:59 · Score: 2, Interesting

I have a very old (15 years) Sony Tuner that has a scroll wheel for choosing between the preset stations (up to 30). And it does the cute trick of the faster you spin the faster the choices go by.
Was it Marrantz who had a tuner with an electromagnetic brake that slowed-down the tuning wheel wherever a station signal was stronger???
Re:Nothing really new there... by puz · 2004-09-21 03:05 · Score: 5, Informative

The Pong system is a little different from the scroll wheel in that it senses the ABSOLUTE angle of a variable resistor whereas the scroll wheel detects RELATIVE angle of a rotary encoder. I know because I actually built a PONG system using GI's famous AY chip.

--
Download Mazes and Puzzles from www.puz.com
Re:Nothing really new there... by Bio · 2004-09-21 03:07 · Score: 5, Funny

And I had a telephone, that had a scroll wheel to dial numbers. There were 10 holes in the wheel with digits printed underneath. There was even a mechanism to rotate the wheel back into its rest position, after you moved it.
Re:Nothing really new there... by catwh0re · 2004-09-21 03:15 · Score: 4, Interesting

Another more recent (but before the original non-touch wheel iPod) are in B&O home phones, where you scroll your list of phone contacts on a very small touch-sensitive scroll wheel... and select your contact with a centre button.
The only difference in the apple design is that it's significantly larger.
On a design perspective, nothing is original, it's design brilliance however to know when to use already created design elements in contrast to making a new one (MS can you hear me?) It's also no trick that the ipod is the same dimensions as a cassette. The ipod mini.. same dimensions of a business card. (The design ethic here is: Why pick shapes that people aren't already used to having?)
Re:Nothing really new there... by amper · 2004-09-21 03:18 · Score: 2, Informative

And let's not forget Roland's "Alpha-Dial" that appears on many of their musical instrument products...
Re:Nothing really new there... by Whalou · 2004-09-21 03:25 · Score: 1

Just like an Etch-a-Sketch

--
English is not this .sig mother tongue...
Re:Nothing really new there... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 03:42 · Score: 4, Funny

ATARI PONG scroll wheel changed my life..I now live in a basement and I'm still a virgin.
Re:Nothing really new there... by That's+Unpossible! · 2004-09-21 04:05 · Score: 1

On a design perspective, nothing is original, it's design brilliance however to know when to use already created design elements in contrast to making a new one (MS can you hear me?)

Such as using the already created WHEEL on the already created MOUSE? Or the already created LED with the already created DIGITAL CAMERA with the already created MOUSE?

Microsoft has come up with some cool hardware products.

--
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Re:Nothing really new there... by operagost · 2004-09-21 04:22 · Score: 1

Pong requires two people to play. You must be bored!

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:Nothing really new there... by jdavidb · 2004-09-21 04:25 · Score: 4, Funny

True story

My grandfather worked for the telephone company 45 years. For a long time, his job involved dealing with customers who came in off the street.

In the days of rotary phones, the dialed number was detected by the amount of time it took the dial to return to the resting position. (Number of pulses sent as it made the trip, actually, I believe.)

So one day this woman comes in complaining that every time she dials a number which she knows is the right number, (in her words) "Some hussy comes on there and tells me there's no such number!" This woman was seriously offended by the (recorded, I think, and probably new in those days) suggestion that she was getting the wrong number, when she simply knew it had to be right.

So my grandfather handed her a phone and offered to let her make the call there in the office. The woman snatches the phone and angrily starts dialing her number -- but she's in such a big snit that every time she turns the dial around, she doesn't wait for it to finish; she grabs the dial and forces it back around to the resting position so she can get on with dialing the next number. I'm sure this technique resulted in an enormous time savings to her, probably adding a full five seconds of free time to her life if she did it for every call she made in forty years, but of course it prevented the phone from properly dialing the number since everything was based on the timing for that dial.

My grandfather started to explain this to the woman, but she was enraged and said, "Are you trying to tell me how to dial a phone?" Well, er, yes, ma'am, amazingly phone company employees probably knew a little bit more than you about how to dial a telephone. Not much more, but enough to know that what you were doing would never work. I think the woman finally got fed up and stormed out.

People are amazing.

--
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Re:Nothing really new there... by scherbi · 2004-09-21 04:53 · Score: 1

I have two such phones, both Western Electric, any-color-you-want-so-long-as-it's-black, and nearly indestructible. One desktop, one wall mount. Sound quality of the highest order (for telephony, anyway). No blisters, 'cause I almost never dial with them...
Re:Nothing really new there... by pthisis · 2004-09-21 05:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

In the days of rotary phones, the dialed number was detected by the amount of time it took the dial to return to the resting position. (Number of pulses sent as it made the trip, actually, I believe.)

As someone who still has a rotary phone...

It just hung up the phone briefly, once for 1, twice for 2, ... 10 times for 0.

If you have pulse service in your area still, you can dial the phone by just hitting the hangup button repeatedly--it's not too tough to get the timing down.

--
rage, rage against the dying of the light
Re:Nothing really new there... by ChicagoBiker · 2004-09-21 05:33 · Score: 5, Interesting

Amazingly, because of this system, perceived "higher priority/class" area's were given lower numbered area codes because they were quicker to dial on the rotary phone and would cause the user less aggravation and time (1 taking the shortest amount of time and 0 taking the most).
It's why New York is/was 212 and Chicago 312, etc.
909 would be considered the most unimportant place on the planet for the time.
The really privliaged and status hungry would beg, steal or borrow to attempt to get an old 5 digit number like 1-1111 or 1-1221.
Re:Nothing really new there... by mcoko · 2004-09-21 05:37 · Score: 3, Informative

Actually a rotary phone does not use timing what so ever. The turning of the dial creates a current that is sent up the line. 4 pulses sent for the number 4 and so on. Grabbing the dial and forcing it back to the starting place still sends the correct amount of digits. If you notice when you force a dial on a rotary phone you can only force it so much. The resistance that exist for the whatever mechanics make the current do not allow you to turn it back as fast as you can.

I am sorry but your story is more myth than fact.

Evidence is another reply posted where you can dial a number by clicking the hook over and over again. When you pick up the phone a current is sent up the line to the central office, because you completed a circuit by picking up the phone. The central office provides power down the line as a sort of status check for when you go off hook, hence if you try to lick a phone line you will get a shock. The point being that since you can dial a number by hanging up repeatedly you could not possibly do so in perfect time, therefore timing has nothing to do with it.

The switches that first used pulse dialing were not smart enough the handle timing. Current digital switch that use touch tone don't even use time, they use, that's right, TONES. Two actually per digit.

Imagine the keypad on your phone as a tic tac toe board. Across the top you have three tones (can't remember the freq.) and down the side you have four. The combination of two tones make a digit where they intersect.

Calls used to be switch through the network strictly by the tones. But here comes WOZ (and others) and he figures out how to take advantage of that fact and creates the blue box. Phone companies smartened up and create the SS7 network. Once your tones/digits hit you host office they are removed from the line and you call is setup by a seperate network of routers, switchs, and databased to get you to your destination. If all is clear and your call can complete (lines not busy, trunk facilities available) the switch between caller and callee are nailed up and the call is connected. This is out of band signaling. Cool stuff.

The databases are also what provide 1-800/900 service (dial an 800 number and the DB converts it to an actual POTS number XXX-XXX-XXXX), caller id, local number portability (same as 800 conversion), some verisons of remote call fowarding, and host of other cool things.

Fun with phones. Back to work.

--
www.fotoforay.com
Re:Nothing really new there... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 05:53 · Score: 3, Interesting

So close...

It was actually because it took the mechanical switches the phone company used back then less time to make a circuit connection to route a call to a popular area. Each number dialed made another connection in the final circuit, and they have to complete serially. Back then, there was an appreciable wait as the circuits were connected to get you a channel to your destination.

The phone company could not really care less about the time saved by one person dialing, but the time saved routing millions of calls to New York City every day was significant.
Re:Nothing really new there... by mrseigen · 2004-09-21 06:16 · Score: 1

Call me crazy, but I don't think they invented the first optical mouse. I'm pretty sure I remember someone at PARC developing it alongside one of their Xerox machines, and cancelling it because it wouldn't work quite right.
Re:Nothing really new there... by peawee03 · 2004-09-21 06:23 · Score: 1

same with analogue controls on synthesizers which have recently made a comeback.

More than just analog controls, analog synths themselves are making a comeback.

--
I wish I could write clever and witty sigs.
Re:Nothing really new there... by Ohreally_factor · 2004-09-21 06:31 · Score: 1

Actually a rotary phone does not use timing what so ever.

Surely there is some timing involved somewhere? There must be a way to differentiate between the numbers dialed, otherwise dialing a 4 then a 5 would yield a nine, etc.

You're right about the current, although you don't have to lick the wire to discover this, merely use your teeth to strip the insulation from the wire. And hope the line doesn't ring at just that moment. =) (BTW, for those playing at home, it's a very light tingle, not a big shock.)

That's very interesting info about the two-tone grid. Thanks!

--
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Re:Nothing really new there... by Angostura · 2004-09-21 06:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

Some timing, yes - but the system was remarkably insensitive. I used to force the rotary dial back when impatient, and with no problems. In fact it is very hard to force the dial back too fast.

I too vote myth, for this story.
Re:Nothing really new there... by 87C751 · 2004-09-21 06:40 · Score: 5, Informative

Actually a rotary phone does not use timing what so ever.
Kids, these days...
Standard pulse timing is 10 pps, with a window from about 7.5-12 IIRC. It's been a while since I had to adjust the little mechanical governor that controlled the rotary dial return rate. Duty cycle is 50%. Pulse too slow and it will be mistaken for a hookflash. Too fast and you'll exceed the slew rate of the switch and drop pulses. Mechanical switches are, of course, more succeptible to too-fast pulse rates. Electronic switches can probably accept faster than 12 pps, but 10 is still the standard.
The "turning of the dial" creates no current. It interrupts the circuit. So does the hookswitch, which led to being able to "dial" a phone with the hookswitch. You still had to have good manual dexterity, especially when there were higher numbers in the number you were trying to reach. This was popular in the days when a coin telephone disabled only the dial circuit and not the voice path. Nowadays, of course, you can't do this because the dial tone you hear when you pick up is generated by the phone itself, which accepts your call information and then decides how to route the call.

--
Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
Re:Nothing really new there... by Idarubicin · 2004-09-21 07:10 · Score: 1

Actually a rotary phone does not use timing what so ever. The turning of the dial creates a current that is sent up the line. 4 pulses sent for the number 4 and so on. Grabbing the dial and forcing it back to the starting place still sends the correct amount of digits. If you notice when you force a dial on a rotary phone you can only force it so much. The resistance that exist for the whatever mechanics make the current do not allow you to turn it back as fast as you can.
I am sorry but your story is more myth than fact.
I would actually be inclined to give the grandparent the benefit of the doubt for his story. Sure, 'modern' rotary dial phones are good at mechanically limiting how fast the dial returns to its starting position, but I wouldn't be surprised if there existed older phones that weren't quite as resistant to the described abuses. Even though it would generate the appropriate number of pulses on the line, it's possible that more closely-spaced pulses would come too fast for the telphone company's equipment to handle.
Remember, the switches were electromechanical beasts--Strowger switches--that could only tick through digits so quickly. Some neat pictures here, and an explanatory note here. So slightly erratic spacing of pulses is well-tolerated--the switch still advanced one digit per pulse. Pulses too close together will fail, because the mechanical components of the switch won't keep up.
Modern switches convert the current pulses to digital signals, which obviously can be parsed and routed at effectively unlimited speeds (compared to the rate at which they can be dialled).
I wouldn't be surprised if the person in the story had actually physically damaged the phone components through forcing the dial that way, too.

--
~Idarubicin
Re:Nothing really new there... by mcoko · 2004-09-21 07:58 · Score: 1

My bad on sending a current up the line. The interupt make a hell of a lot more sense. Thanks for the info.

I think you mispoke (since you obviusly no what you are talking about.) The Switch generates the dial tone, ring (sends the ringing voltage i think), busy signal--not the phone, that is unless it is ISDN then the phone generates everything. The switch also recieves the dialed digit tones. Something call....what for it...a tone decoder (tm) decodes the the tones.

--
www.fotoforay.com
Re:Nothing really new there... by Pope · 2004-09-21 08:07 · Score: 1

same with analogue controls on synthesizers which have recently made a comeback.
<P> To be fair, analog stick or wheel controls for pitch bend and modulation never went away, but thank goodness trying to program a synth with only a bunch of buttons is dying! Direct, manual control of a nice bank of dials or knobs is the only way to go! :)

--
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Re:Nothing really new there... by SenorCitizen · 2004-09-21 08:25 · Score: 1

Actually a rotary phone does not use timing what so ever. The turning of the dial creates a current that is sent up the line. 4 pulses sent for the number 4 and so on. Grabbing the dial and forcing it back to the starting place still sends the correct amount of digits. If you notice when you force a dial on a rotary phone you can only force it so much. The resistance that exist for the whatever mechanics make the current do not allow you to turn it back as fast as you can.
I am sorry but your story is more myth than fact.

Actually, I believe the story is correct, and you just misunderstood what the woman supposedly did.
I think what happened was that she dialled a number, then let go of the dial, and quickly - before the dial had had the time to return to the idle position - stuck her finger in again and dialled the next number.
So, it wasn't a case of timing, it was a case of never generating all the necessary pulses.
Re:Nothing really new there... by jgrahn · 2004-09-21 09:00 · Score: 1

Also on HP's logic analyzers, at least before they started coming with Windows95 built in ... the wheel was great; both fast and precise.
Re:Nothing really new there... by schovanec · 2004-09-21 09:04 · Score: 1

I think the grandparent was referring specifically to pay phones when he said that the tone is generated by the phone (probably as a security feature so that the receiver is not direcly connected to the network until the phone decides you are authorized to make a call). With most pay phones I've used in recent years you dial the number and then there is a pause and the phone will display something like "Calling 555-555-1212..." (I'm pretty sure you even hear the tones again at this point, I can't remember). This is usually on a phone that has a card reader for making card calls instead of having to dial 0 or whatever to make a card call.
Re:Nothing really new there... by boa13 · 2004-09-21 09:17 · Score: 1

Absolutely. The story is clear to me, and I believe it is true. We had pulse dial phones when I was a kid, so I know them quite well (I've used them for maybe ten years).

It is quite easy to not wait for the dial to return, especially if you're dialing a 9 or a 0, though of course very stupid to do so. I would not be surprised if you found occurences in the news of people who failed to dial some number because they were under some kind of emergency and the stress made them dial the number incorrectly.
Re:Nothing really new there... by That's+Unpossible! · 2004-09-21 09:29 · Score: 1

I didn't say the invented the first optical mouse. Shit, I used to have an optical mouse for my IBM PCjr. It required a metal mouse pad with a grid of squares. It sucked.

Microsoft took the invention of fast digital camera technology, combined it with the mouse, and came up with something cool... a ball-less mouse that can work on a huge number of surfaces.

The wheel-mouse though was truly genious. I couldn't live without that concept, although I am ready to switch to something without moving parts. Maybe that means going to one of those kensington mice I've seen with the touchpad scroller instead of a wheel.

--
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Re:Nothing really new there... by catwh0re · 2004-09-21 12:11 · Score: 1

Changing the sensor on an already used device isn't some amazing design, that's just progress.
Plus I was actually referring more to the Windows UI than their hardware division.
Inventing a puck-like device you hold in your hand, to control a cursor on the screen, that is the brilliance there.
Work in the field for a little while and you'll quickly pick up what gets applause and what is just meh.
Re:Nothing really new there... by BillX · 2004-09-21 12:29 · Score: 1

Interestingly, Chicago's 312 is right by Chicago's 708 (which used to be part of 312)... (Aha! I *knew* I grew up in a ghetto.)

--
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
Re:Nothing really new there... by Undertakernv · 2004-09-21 14:57 · Score: 1

Ahh yes, the good old Inland Empire and our 909.
Re:Nothing really new there... by citizensunshine · 2004-09-21 17:15 · Score: 1

So which would be more desirable... Chicago's 312 or Los Angeles's 213? Is it a draw?

Also, 202 is Washington DC, the nation's fourth largest metropolis (back in the day, at least). You said that 0 was the worst, though--what gives?

--
I'm going to hell. Who's coming with me?
Re:Nothing really new there... by sensui · 2004-09-21 17:21 · Score: 1

That means '911' takes more time to dial then '112'. My god, and the English picked '999'.

Check them out here.
Re:Nothing really new there... by Moofie · 2004-09-21 18:18 · Score: 1

I've got a shiny nickel that says that split happened after the widespread deployment of tone dialing.

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:Nothing really new there... by willpall · 2004-09-21 18:30 · Score: 2, Informative

Two things..

1. It was based on call volume, not class or priority. The few seconds saved in dialing time to high-volume areas saved a lot of switch wear and tear as the switches were mechanical--moving parts and all. (well, I guess that would be priority).

and 2. I actually live in the 909 you insensitive clod!

--
Libertarian: label used by embarrassed Republicans, longing to be open about their greed, drug use and porn collections.
Re:Nothing really new there... by 87C751 · 2004-09-21 23:10 · Score: 1

Many modern coin phones really do generate the audible dial tone, because they're not just a simple connection device. The curent COCOT (Customer Owned, Coin Operated Telephone) frequently uses alternative long-distance providers and manages its own call routing. If you have a sharp ear, you can often hear the difference in the dialtone from such a phone. (to me, it sounds "flatter" than a real CO-generated dialtone) And on some models, you can hear the flurry of tones that get generated to route your call through the phone's preferred provider (either by prepending a 10-10 PIC code or routing through a WATS gateway).

--
Mail? Put "slashdot" in the subject to pass the spam filters.
Re:Nothing really new there... by SmittyTheBold · 2004-09-22 09:09 · Score: 2, Funny

So, in all reality, it did not change your life, but prevented further change.

--
± 29 dB

Why is this such a big deal? by raider_red · 2004-09-21 02:35 · Score: 5, Insightful

The scroll wheel is just a round touchpad and is based on the same technology Synapsis has patents on. It even feels the same as the touchpad on my PowerBook.

Touchpads are the best thing that ever happened to this company. They're getting licensing fees and royalties on almost every notebook sold, or they make money directly as the component vendor for the touch pads.

--
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.

Re:Why is this such a big deal? by raider_red · 2004-09-21 02:38 · Score: 1

Sorry, it's Synaptics, not Synapsis. I'm going to go wake up now.

--
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
Re:Why is this such a big deal? by TykeClone · 2004-09-21 02:41 · Score: 1, Funny

Sorry, it's Synaptics, not Synapsis. I'm going to go wake up now.
--
Honer's graduate of the George W. Bush school for speling and grammer.
That makes your sig especially funny.

--
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
Re:Why is this such a big deal? by Maestro4k · 2004-09-21 02:43 · Score: 5, Informative
- The scroll wheel is just a round touchpad and is based on the same technology Synapsis has patents on. It even feels the same as the touchpad on my PowerBook.
I have a 4th gen iPod with the click wheel and after I finally figured out you just moved your finger to scroll (it wasn't immediately obvious and I've not had the opportunity to use previous versions) I've found it to be far more responsive than the touchpads I've encountered on notebooks. I have a Sony Vaio at work and I hate the touchpad on it, it's very difficult to control and way too sensitive registering double clicks even when my finger doesn't leave the surface. (Apparently pausing with your finger on the touchpad counts, I can't find a way to adjust the settings to fix it.)
So I'd have to say that with the current generation clickwheels the touchpad on the iPod is far better. It's just sensitive enough without being too sensitive and it requires no adjustment to work that way. That alone is an achievement since there are so many different finger sizes out there and different people are going to push with different pressures.
- Touchpads are the best thing that ever happened to this company. They're getting licensing fees and royalties on almost every notebook sold, or they make money directly as the component vendor for the touch pads.
And deservedly so, they obviously can make some top notch ones (iPod clickwheel) so they're really earned those fees and royalties. At least they're not an IP company making money via lawsuit. :)
Re:Why is this such a big deal? by Savage-Rabbit · 2004-09-21 02:56 · Score: 3, Insightful

Personally I rather dislike touchpads in general, I prefer a mouse or failing that something like the IBM touch point. However the iPod scrollwheel is an exception. There may not be anything new about the touchpad or scrollwheel each on its own but implementing a scrollwheel using a touchpad is a very good idea. Sometimes genius lies in re-implementing an old device using new technology.

--
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Re:Why is this such a big deal? by SilentChris · 2004-09-21 03:48 · Score: 1

There's a lot of stuff that Synaptics can add to the iPod scrollwheel that they have in regular touchpads (maybe Apple doesn't let them)? In particular, they have software that can determine the "weight" of a button press (so the pad can detect varying degrees of pressure). If you have a laptop with a Synaptics pad, there's a "mood" application that demonstrates it using funky colors.

They also have the ill-fated LCD touchpads that were on Toshibas. Why bother having that main screen at all. Put the screen underneath the touchwheel (and if you're wondering what UI would work with that, let Apple's "geniuses" figure it out). That would make a small iPod.
Re:Why is this such a big deal? by boesOne · 2004-09-21 03:55 · Score: 1

Even my el-cheapo nec notebook has driversettings for the synaptics touchpad. In the mouse settings you should find all kinds of settings for the touchpad, even nifty stuff like assigning a corner to the secondairy mouse button.. talking about windows.. no idea how it's done in linux..
Re:Why is this such a big deal? by baeksu · 2004-09-21 04:21 · Score: 1

In linux you actually have to, kinda, set those nifty things, as that's how the synaptics driver works.

Being a bonehead I still haven't gotten my real scrollwheel to work, but I can live without it, cause the touchpad simulates scroll with other methods.

As to the "too sensitive doubleclick"-thingie, it probably has nothing to do with the touchpad in itself, but is happening because the timeout between clicks has been set too low. If you're on a linux, you can set the time yourself with your X config, on windows I really haven't got the faintest idea how to do it.

--
Gnome: A never ending quest to make unix friendly to people who don't want unix and excruciating for those that do.
Re:Why is this such a big deal? by jo42 · 2004-09-21 04:34 · Score: 1

[rant]
Problem is, I totally detest every single laptop with a touchpad on it. The number of times I have had ghost movement of the mouse pointer, or a bogus click that fubared something up, I could have shoved the damn thing up the back side of the engineers that excreted it in the first place a few hundred times by now. Crap design - period. Give me a real mouse and let me turn the damn thing off...
[/rant]
Re:Why is this such a big deal? by twbecker · 2004-09-21 05:12 · Score: 1

Agreed. I despise touchpads on laptops; the eraserhead device is superior in every way IMO. I truly don't understand how touchpads have become the predominant pointing device on laptops. I do however own a 4G iPod, and the scrollwheel is great - very easy to use. I think it has to do with it's circular shape and the fact that you're not likely to have anything other than your thumb resting on it. Half of my problems with touchpads come from either my palm or another finger inadvertantly touching it.

--
"The problem with internet quotations is that many are not genuine" -Abraham Lincoln
Re:Why is this such a big deal? by Joe+Decker · 2004-09-21 05:16 · Score: 1

Touchpads are the best thing that ever happened to this company. They're getting licensing fees and royalties on almost every notebook sold, or they make money directly as the component vendor for the touch pads.
The latter. They have pointing devices in a bit over half of the touchpads sold (some laptops don't have touchpads, some laptops have non-Synaptics touchpads.) I own stock in Synaptics and regularly listen to their financial conference calls.

--
I'm a nature photographer.
Re:Why is this such a big deal? by fraudrogic · 2004-09-21 05:51 · Score: 1

I've found it to be far more responsive than the touchpads I've encountered on notebooks

I bought a sleeve for my 4G iPod that covers the touch wheel. The touch wheel is still extremely responsive even with this thin cover over it. Pretty neat...

--
I only mod up parents of "mod parent up" posts...
Re:Why is this such a big deal? by Single+GNU+Theory · 2004-09-21 07:24 · Score: 1

I truly don't understand how touchpads have become the predominant pointing device on laptops.

Beacause a lot of people, many more than just you, prefer them?

FWIW, I hate trackballs and can't see why anyone would use one instead of a mouse, at least when they're not playing Centipede. But they still sell the useless things, heh.

I had a work laptop where I had to install everything from scratch myself, and I would occasionally get annoyed with the touchpad if I brushed it with my palm while I was typing, or made a selection by inadvertently tapping somewhere on the pad.

I got a new laptop where the Synaptics touchpad driver had already been installed - I'd never put it on my old laptop because it worked without it. The driver, I found out, has a configurable palm-sensing feature and I can turn off the tapping=clicking.

I prefer a real mouse to the touchpad, but those settings made using the touchpad much, much less frustrating.

--
Little Debian: America's #1 Snack Distro!
Re:Why is this such a big deal? by YeeHarr · 2004-09-21 08:57 · Score: 1

so the pad can detect varying degrees of pressure

AFAICT it works not by detecting pressure but by seeing how much of the finger is pressing down on the pad. As you increase pressure - more of your finger is squished into the pad.
Re:Why is this such a big deal? by ACPosterChild · 2004-09-21 10:53 · Score: 1

Apparently pausing with your finger on the touchpad counts, I can't find a way to adjust the settings to fix it.

First, you should be able to turn off the clicking feature. There was a user backlash after the 1st gen of those, and all of them that I know of let you turn off clicking via the touchpad (somewhere under mouse properties).

Second, you probably are double-clicking. Try pressing down with your finger a little more. It's natural to get where you want to go and then lighten the pressure on the touchpad. The thing is, what feels like a feather-light touch to you can really be a finger that is bumping up and down on of the surface of the touchpad. You'd think they'd ignore double-taps that occur faster than 50%-80% of the double-click speeds, but maybe that's hard to do? Or, maybe the ones that get through the filtering happen that slowly? What I know for sure is that if you concentrate on keeping your finger down on the touchpad for awhile, you'll get used to it and not have that problem anymore.
Re:Why is this such a big deal? by Moofie · 2004-09-21 19:01 · Score: 1

Thy wish is granted. At least on my Powerbook.

There's a setting in the control panel to disable the touch pad when there's a mouse attached. w00t.

I don't use it, since I like to use the hot corners of the touchpad for Exposè.

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!

Fingerprint Touchpad by Lord+Grey · 2004-09-21 02:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

--
// Beyond Here Lie Dragons

Re:Fingerprint Touchpad by sharkey · 2004-09-21 03:39 · Score: 1

I've always thought that this kind of device would be great if it was integrated into something I have hold to use,
Make way for the cyborgs! "You must authenticate before masturbation is permitted"

--

--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
Re:Fingerprint Touchpad by klui · 2004-09-21 10:01 · Score: 1

The company that designed the scrollwheel is Apple, not Synaptics. Synaptics built the current solid-state device. But I am sure most of the design came from Apple. Why else wouldn't Synaptics not license it to anyone else?
Re:Fingerprint Touchpad by John+Harrison · 2004-09-22 05:56 · Score: 1

That is an Authentec fingerprint reader, Synaptics is just OEMing it.

--
Lasers Controlled Games!

Up and Down vs Round and Round by wedding · 2004-09-21 02:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

Volume goes up and down, but we're all used to round nobs for that. I can think of very few instances where a up-down lever is used to control a device instead of a circular mechanism.
Car stereos, but that's relatively recent, what else?

Re:Up and Down vs Round and Round by StalinsNotDead · 2004-09-21 02:41 · Score: 1, Insightful

Transporter controls from Start Trek?

--
Thanks to the internet, we can now all die alone together! -SomeWoman
Re:Up and Down vs Round and Round by moonbender · 2004-09-21 03:12 · Score: 4, Interesting
It depends on the situation which controller makes more sense.

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.
Re:Up and Down vs Round and Round by arkhan_jg · 2004-09-21 03:37 · Score: 1

speed controllers on ships (full speed ahead, and damn the torpedos!)

Gear sticks, especially on automatic cars.

Levers to hold open windows are usually graduated on a linear scale.

Linear controls make most sense when you have a limited number of finite positions, especially when they are a linear progression from each other.

--
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
Re:Up and Down vs Round and Round by operagost · 2004-09-21 04:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

Faders on recording consoles.
Joysticks.
Light dimmers.
Gearshifts.

--

Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Re:Up and Down vs Round and Round by moonbender · 2004-09-21 13:45 · Score: 1

Joystick.

Not exactly. A joystick does reset itself to neutral when you let go of it, but whatever parameter the joystick controls typically goes to neutral as well. That said, you could use it in the way I described, but it's not very practical and thus I have not seen it done yet.

--
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
Re:Up and Down vs Round and Round by moonbender · 2004-09-21 13:54 · Score: 1

I think there are lots of controls like that in the program; one is in the parameter window, which you can reach with F3 (only with an open fractal, I assume). The angle control (in the "Area" tab) works the way I described, as do the controls you get when you click on the symbol to the left of the other parameters. Actually, the program then displays three controls, all of them controlling the same parameter but with each working on a different order of magnitude - very odd, but quite efficient. They're not actually scrollbars but rather I think they're called sliders in standard GUI terminology.

--
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
Re:Up and Down vs Round and Round by GlassHeart · 2004-09-21 14:56 · Score: 1

You can make an up-down controller simulate relative behaviour by automatically returning the "knob" to the neutral position after the user is done. [...] It's not the way you'd expect a scroll bar in a computer to work, though
Video editors are familiar with a horizontal widget that looks like a scroll bar, but is normally centered when the mouse button is released. Dragging it to the right causes the tape to fast-forward (with a speed corresponding to how far you drag), and dragging it to the left fast-reverses the tape. A physical rotary input device (some of which snap back to the middle position when released) is also common for this purpose.
Either is more convenient than the usual VCR buttons.

Still, though... by StevenHenderson · 2004-09-21 02:37 · Score: 4, Funny

Regardless of how "cool" or "useful" the scroll wheel is on the Apple iPod, I still think that the one on the HP iPod is FAR better.

[/joke]

Re:Still, though... by karmatic · 2004-09-21 03:07 · Score: 1

Tmda?
Re:Still, though... by DAldredge · 2004-09-21 04:29 · Score: 1

slashdotemail@gmail.com

I would love to have an invite!
Re:Still, though... by StevenHenderson · 2004-09-21 04:52 · Score: 1

Hmmm asking for an invite to a gmail address? Thats a new one! :) Too bad I just ran out!

Yeah... by Blue-Footed+Boobie · 2004-09-21 02:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

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!

Re:Yeah... by GlassUser · 2004-09-21 02:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

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!

Yep, I remember getting a little standalone synaptics touchpad in 1996 as a novelty from a local computer junk store (microcache for anyone in Houston who knows of them - they bought the enron E monument at auction and have it in a small shrine now).

Any way, some people totally loved it (the touchpad) and one guy now has them on all his computers (even desktops) instead of a mouse.

--
funny munging

Synaptics by SpooForBrains · 2004-09-21 02:38 · Score: 1

Yup, Synaptics rock my black-and-beige socks. I love the edge scrolling on my Tosh laptop trackpad - and fully supported under Linux too.

--
"The dew has clearly fallen with a particularly sickening thud this morning"

Re:Like this is news by peawee03 · 2004-09-21 02:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

Why should Apple make their own touchpad? Synaptics has much much more experience in the matter. "Let the pros handle it", so to speak.

--
I wish I could write clever and witty sigs.

Information? by brufleth · 2004-09-21 02:38 · Score: 5, Informative

This "article" just shows some pictures of what I can only assume is the touch sensitive plates under the wheels. It doesn't explain anything about them and how they work, nor does it really talk about the "design process."

Missing details by gkelman · 2004-09-21 02:39 · Score: 5, Informative

but insight as to both how Apple's design process works, and how the scroll wheel itself works.

The article doesn't say how the scroll wheel works. It also doesn't mention anything about Apple's design process...

Re:Missing details by jbrw · 2004-09-21 03:00 · Score: 1

It's something to do with magic and/or capacitance sensors, apparently.
Re:Missing details by SilentChris · 2004-09-21 03:43 · Score: 1

"It also doesn't mention anything about Apple's design process"

Well, actually, it does. It's basically Apple had little part in designing the iPod. The chips and design were outsourced (see that old Wired article). All they did was have Jobs give an ok and stamp an Apple logo on it. Why innovate when you can purchase?
Re:Missing details by Moofie · 2004-09-21 19:04 · Score: 1

If you'd actually read that article, you'd know that Jobs was personally riding herd on that design team.

No, it was not at Apple. Apple's getting rid of not-invented-here-itis is a huge huge huge part of their recent success.

Jobs' design requirements are the huger part.

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!

no duh! by nordicfrost · 2004-09-21 02:39 · Score: 5, Insightful

It is a touchpas, and Synaptics makes practically all the touchpads for Laptops, PDAs and mice. I don't think a lot of people thought that Apple made the touchpad itself. AFAIK, most people know that the Apple genius behind the iPod is quality bought components from companies that make them better than you (Synaptics, PortablePlayer, Sony) combined with Apple design and user friendliness.

Mouse wheel? by millwall · 2004-09-21 02:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

The company made a straightened-out version of it for Creative's Zen Touch

It amazes me why they haven't considered making a mouse with this straightened-out version. Scroll wheels for mice would benefit from some development. Mine keeps getting stuck and makes an annoying sound when scrolling

Re:Mouse wheel? by Sc00ter · 2004-09-21 02:46 · Score: 1

my touchpad on my HP/Compaq nx9010 has a pad, and a touch scroll thing just to the right of the pad, just like that nomad.
Pic of it is here

--
Free Mac Mini
Re:Mouse wheel? by TonyZahn · 2004-09-21 02:48 · Score: 3, Informative

It amazes me why they haven't considered making a mouse with this straightened-out version.

You mean like this perhaps?

--
- sig? who is this sig of which you speak?
Re:Mouse wheel? by LiquidCoooled · 2004-09-21 02:58 · Score: 1

The tilt and scroll mouse wheels M$ are selling right now have a feather light wheel.

Theres almost no "click" when scrolling, and it feels funny to use - almost broken.

I prefer knowing its clicked.

--
liqbase :: faster than paper
Re:Mouse wheel? by moonbender · 2004-09-21 03:14 · Score: 1

Physical wheels offer some tactile feedback, which is worth a lot.

--
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
Re:Mouse wheel? by Have+Blue · 2004-09-21 03:45 · Score: 1

Try to give that thing a test drive before putting down cash- I personally find it very uncomfortable to use and it's probably worse for the carpal tunnel than a scroll wheel already is.
Re:Mouse wheel? by PrintError · 2004-09-22 11:15 · Score: 1

I'm using one right now you insensitive clod. Kensington.com

How about the by 2names · 2004-09-21 02:40 · Score: 1

up and down buttons on your TV for:

Channels
Volume
Menus
etc.

--
"I'm just here to regulate funkiness."

Re:How about the by The+Infamous+Grimace · 2004-09-21 04:33 · Score: 1

Yeah, but these are a relatively new thing. And frankly, I hate 'em. I have a VCR that uses a jog dial for changing the channel; love it, far prefer it. I bought an Alpine car stereo specifically for the volume dial; I hate the delay that buttons tend to exhibit. I want instant response which is also related to the speed of rotation. I have yet to see a button system that responds differently depending on how hard you push, although I imagine that they exist.

(tig)

--
Ignorance and prejudice and fear
Walk hand in hand

Why we all love iPod: by aardwolf204 · 2004-09-21 02:41 · Score: 4, Funny

Scroll Wheel, whatever, everyone knows people get iPods because they help you get mod points on Slashdot. Speaking of which, I got my iPod last month and haven't seen any yet. Maybe it takes a while for the ultra-hip-people-database to update. Anyway, I'm expecting those mod points any day now. Infact now that I've got an iPod, a copy of FireFox, AND a gmail account I'm almost too hip for slashdot. Yeah!

</sarcasm>

--
Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the /.crowd.May ur days b merry & bright & may al

Re:Why we all love iPod: by merdark · 2004-09-21 03:01 · Score: 4, Funny

I don't think the words hip and slashdot belong together.
Re:Why we all love iPod: by Just+Some+Guy · 2004-09-21 04:01 · Score: 1

"Check out the hips on that pale guy in black clothes. He must read Slashdot!"
Yep, that'll work.

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Re:Why we all love iPod: by Thrakkerzog · 2004-09-21 04:20 · Score: 1

Sorry, 630780 is too high. You'll never be hip here.
Re:Why we all love iPod: by aardwolf204 · 2004-09-21 04:47 · Score: 1

In 5 years when newbie #917489267 joins I will be. Anyway, all hail he who possesses the 4 digit UID as thou is l33ter and no ammount of code, chix, or beer will make you l33ter.

--
Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the /.crowd.May ur days b merry & bright & may al
Re:Why we all love iPod: by IvoryRing · 2004-09-21 07:28 · Score: 1

I'm not hip, and you are higher numbered than I. What does that say about you?
Re:Why we all love iPod: by hai.uchida · 2004-09-21 07:41 · Score: 1

...everyone knows people get iPods because they help you get mod points on Slashdot. Speaking of which, I got my iPod last month and haven't seen any yet.

Ah, so the "free iPod!" pyramid scheme worked after all.

--
my password is private, but unchanged.
Re:Why we all love iPod: by Thrakkerzog · 2004-09-21 08:10 · Score: 1

It's all relative.. :-)

You're hip and you don't even know it!
Re:Why we all love iPod: by Moofie · 2004-09-21 19:08 · Score: 1

You need a UID at least an order of magnitude smaller than the one you've got.

Preferably two orders of magnitude.

Thanks for playing, though...

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
Re:Why we all love iPod: by aardwolf204 · 2004-09-21 19:14 · Score: 1

Actually no, I almost got sucked into that thing but it only made me realize how much I really wanted one so I just went ahead and purchased one from compusa.

Funny part about it though, if anyone ever bothers to read this, is that I had signed up for AOL only to cancel it durring my dip into the darkside that is freeipods.com, and when the lady at AOL asked me why I wanted to cancel I told her that I finished the Internet, I went to all the sites and there wasnt a pixel that interested me and that I'll be going back to reading books and making maple syrup in my back yard. 5 minutes later after nicely saying no to her and listening to her stories about how it helps her with her homework and having her try to pry into my no to truthful life I had to get ugly. I didnt want to be she was wasting my daytime cell minutes and those dont grow on trees. summary: freeipods.com cost me, and I'm not even in soviet russia.

told you it wasnt funny

--
Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the /.crowd.May ur days b merry & bright & may al

Next week on Slashdot by azaris · 2004-09-21 02:42 · Score: 2, Funny

The power-switch on the iMac. How great it is and how you can find it.

Re:Next week on Slashdot by Tenebrious1 · 2004-09-21 03:03 · Score: 3, Funny

The power-switch on the iMac. How great it is and how you can find it.

With an indepth article regarding Apple's design process, and the exciting decision whether to make the power switch click or not.

--
-- If god wanted me to have a sig, he'd have given me a sense of humor.
Re:Next week on Slashdot by bracher · 2004-09-21 04:39 · Score: 1, Offtopic

See, you think you're joking. But years ago, supervising computer labs in college, I actually ran into a woman who _insisted_ that it wasn't working, but _she_ hadn't broken it. Turns out she hadn't turned it on...... Commence explanation of how the mac in front of her is a lot like the stereo in her dorm room, it requires electricity to work... :-/
Re:Next week on Slashdot by MasterDater · 2004-09-21 07:17 · Score: 1

No shit, apple could fart and get a story posted on slashdot about it, meanwhile linux security holes get ignored..
Re:Next week on Slashdot by mblase · 2004-09-21 07:30 · Score: 1

I've got a related question, actually: the now-universal symbol for "power", a zero with the top open and a vertical bar (number one) sticking through the opening, was something I first noticed on Mac computers.

Without giving them too much credit for something that's pretty trivial anyway, did Apple really originate this "power icon", or did they borrow it from someone else?
Re:Next week on Slashdot by follower-fillet · 2004-09-21 10:35 · Score: 1

Well, the power-switch on the G4 Cube was actually touch-sensitive...

Nipples - the original scroll wheel by mreed911 · 2004-09-21 02:42 · Score: 4, Funny

Rub them in circles and you'll get louder, softer, or a range somewhere in between...

also works best when you have a good grip and use your thumb!

Re:Like this is news by das_katz_socrates · 2004-09-21 02:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Oh I agree totally, you shouldn't waste time and money trying to reinvent the wheel. I just find it stupid that somebody would consider this news that apple doesn't make part of the ipod.

This just in apple doesn't make hard drives!

--
This sig has no nutritional value...

How does it work? Well it must be... by ttlgDaveh · 2004-09-21 02:43 · Score: 3, Informative

...capacitive. It must be, or something fairly similar.

It explains why the human finger can operate the wheel, but drag a BIC biro round the wheel and nothing happens.

Re:Summary "borrowed" by avalys · 2004-09-21 02:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Synaptics by alatesystems · 2004-09-21 02:43 · Score: 1

I just assumed it was made by Synaptics. All of the cool touchpads that allow scrolling and stuff are made by them. I'm not talking about touchpads that just transfer relative movements, but pads that can actually tell the computer where on the touchpad that it is pressed, like a wacom.

I think that is neat because then you have a grid and it can be used as buttons like it is on the 4g ipods.

Chris

Re:Summary "borrowed" by Short+Circuit · 2004-09-21 02:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

That's frequently the case...I wish more people would at least prepend a "Quoth the article."

--
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)

Re:Mouse wheel touchpad by 5n3ak3rp1mp · 2004-09-21 02:48 · Score: 1

The problem is that in some user-interface scenarios (switching weapons in FPS games?), the "notched-wheel" type tactile feedback becomes an asset. When you're trying to smooth-scroll, however, you run into what you complain about. Of course, in the former case, you could simply make touching the upper area of the strip a "click forward" and touching the lower area a "click backward"... but I suppose it wouldn't feel the same.

I love UI problems... there's never an ideal solution but a good compromise can be very useful/profitable...

Thank you for this story! by teamhasnoi · 2004-09-21 02:49 · Score: 5, Funny

I've been changing songs on my iPod by rotating the entire thing around my stationary finger. I sure was having doubts about Apple until I read this - I mean, that's a ton of work.

Thank you for revealing the secret!

I'm wondering if there isn't a secret behind other things too, like my TV's remote control. It works alright, but it's tough to push the little buttons on the TV with it sometimes.

Huh? by daveschroeder · 2004-09-21 02:50 · Score: 4, Insightful

I read a couple articles elsewhere proclaiming "APPLE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR TOUCHWHEEL!!!@" only to find that Apple is responsible for it.

They conceived it, they narrowly specified its behavior, they brought it to market. Just because a contractor was involved that means Apple's "not responsible" for its creation? Apple's responsible more than ever: the corralled the capabilities and efforts necessary to make it a reality.

Re:Feeling is believing by Maestro4k · 2004-09-21 02:52 · Score: 2, Informative

If you haven't yet tried the clickwheel on an iPod yet, do it. The article is handy if you're curious about implementation, but actually using the device to navigate a huge music library will literally make you grin.

Just a bit of testimony on this, up until last week the only encounters I'd had with iPods were store demo models and I couldn't figure the bloody wheel out. I do have to say it's not immediately intuitive, having the clickable buttons threw me off, I thought you used the back and forward ones to navigate the menu. Last week I got an iPod all of my own, a 4th gen one with the clickwheel. After a bit of frustration trying to figure out how to use the clickwheel I finally noticed it moved up and down as my finger moved along it. Bingo, easy to use after that.

Based on past experiences I'd not been a fan of the design, but after learning HOW it works and using it I have to say it's exceptionally well designed. It's easy to scroll through the lists and volume control is a breeze. I can even reach down and adjust the volume on it while driving and not have to look at it. I even have to look at the radio to make sure I get the right knob so that's saying something! (Note that I do not listen to it with headphones while driving in the car, I know that's dangers and illegal in most states.)

Oh, and speaking of iPods, please click the link in my signature ... :-)

Take him up on it or even use mine. Find a conga line to help you get your referrals. That's where my iPod came from, amazing to get a free nearly $300 device. :)

Re:Like this is news by akgunkel · 2004-09-21 02:55 · Score: 1

Apple has probably gone to Synaptics for every touchpad they've put in their laptops. I'll bet Apple didn't even think twice about going to them for the scrollwheel, it was a natural choice.

Re:evidence? by Bruce+McBruce · 2004-09-21 02:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

The scroll wheel's what's made iPod such a big hit; yeah, it's got the huge hard drive in such small space and is relatively expensive, however it doesn't require all this fiddly crap about pressing a button each time you want to move one space down a menu.

iPod's ridiculously simple and intuitive, and that's what's making it superior to other products such as the iRiver and the Sonys (haha, the Sony issue still makes me laugh).

Eliot Van Buskirk by Elwood+P+Dowd · 2004-09-21 02:58 · Score: 1

Eliot Van Buskirk writes his MP3 Insider column semi-regularly for C|Net. It's pretty decent. He doesn't scoop anyone, but he's smart. I didn't know he used the MP3 Insider name elsewhere.

He also forgot to set up mail forwarding. I just moved into a new apartment, and I keep getting mail for an Eliot Van Buskirk. I wonder if it's the same guy...

--

There are no trails. There are no trees out here.

Re:Eliot Van Buskirk by eliotvb · 2004-09-21 07:19 · Score: 1

Hey, it's Eliot, the guy who writes the MP3 Insider column. I work at MP3.com now, which is a part of CNET, so these days my column appears there, and then on CNET and ZDNET.

Do you live in the Mission District of San Francisco? If so, that's probably my mail, even though I set up the forwarding. Damn postal service...

-evb
Re:Eliot Van Buskirk by Elwood+P+Dowd · 2004-09-21 08:56 · Score: 1

Hehe. Yep. I only got three peices of mail for you, and only in the first few days after I moved. Marked them return to sender. One was from the Department of Parking & Traffic or something. You probably just set up the forwarding a little late.

I'd been reading your column for a few months when I saw the mail. Certainly thought it was the weirdest coincidence.

Wait. That means that orange and lime green cabinets were your idea? I take back that "smart" statement :)

--

There are no trails. There are no trees out here.

Rio wheel by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 02:59 · Score: 5, Interesting

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).

Re:Rio wheel by Quash · 2004-09-21 09:19 · Score: 1

Actually, the clicking thumb wheel works very well for me on both my Nitrus and my Karma. I prefer it to the iPod, imho. It increases with speed the faster you move it, so it can race through big lists. And on the Karma, the alphabet on the left was likely put in place because no matter how refined a wheel is, 5000 songs is a lot. Giving the consumer the choice to scroll the whole list or quickly move to a letter, as a short cut, is useful. That alphabet is a big time saver and works really quite nicely.
Re:Rio wheel by uqbar · 2004-09-21 10:41 · Score: 1

Well call me uncoordinated, but I do better rapidly flicking my index finger over the thumb wheel than trying to rapidly track the circle with with any finger.

You can argue which is inferior all you want - I'll still prefer my stick shift to your automatic tranny. And both kinds of cars will still be sold...
Re:Rio wheel by vakuona · 2004-09-21 12:06 · Score: 1

The ipod also goes faster the longer you scroll. I had not seen or touched an ipod, but without ever looking at the manual, I figured it out in 2 minutes. That interface is truly intuitive. I had been thinking of getting a player than can play ogg files, but I may have to reconsider. The ipod is that good.
Re:Rio wheel by Digital11 · 2004-09-21 13:59 · Score: 1

I own a Neuros and got an iPod through freeipods.com... The clickwheel is neat, but the iPod's menu system/overall interface SUCKS compared to the Neuros.

AND the Neuros plays OGG. :P

--
I am a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.

Re:How does it work? Well it must be... by BasilBrush · 2004-09-21 03:00 · Score: 1

It would explain the wierd (and beautiful) shapes on the pad. The capacitance measured gradually increases on each pad as your finger is above more of the pads surface area. Radial baoundaries between the pads would give pretty sharp cut offs, and constant values whilst within an individual pad. The pointy pattern makes the transition more gradual and smooth.

Anyone Else Hate It? by ras_b · 2004-09-21 03:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.

Re:Anyone Else Hate It? by Dixie_Flatline · 2004-09-21 03:39 · Score: 1

The click wheel works exactly like the scroll wheel. The only thing that it replaces are the 4 buttons just underneath the screen.

I use my iPod in the car all the time (most of my iPod use is in the car). I find that having a playlist of high-rated songs that are randomly selected tends to cut down on the amount of operation that I need to put in. If I don't like the song, I just hit the 'forward' button, and I'm done with it. For in-car use, pre-generated playlists are the way to go. Otherwise, just wait until a light or a traffic jam. :)
Re:Anyone Else Hate It? by rufo · 2004-09-21 03:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

On touchpads, I find the best way to do fine movements is to just pivot your thumb - not exactly moving it, but just roll your finger while maintaing contact with the pad. I've shown this technique to several people and they all agree that it does allow for a finer control - might want to try that. (It works somewhat better on laptop trackpads with the tip of the index finger but it does work with the iPod and your thumb).

--
My English teacher once told me that two positives don't make a negative. Two words for her: Yeah, right.
Re:Anyone Else Hate It? by tbmaddux · 2004-09-21 04:07 · Score: 1

the new click wheel looks a lot nicer and would probably solve that problem, but i have the old one.
It will not solve your scrolling problem. If anything, it will make it worse, because the click wheel is oversensitive to finger motion when you are trying to rate a song on the fly... in particular it seems maddeningly predisposed to vary your rating by +/- 1 star when you lift your finger off the wheel.
What the click wheel does solve compared to the 3G iPods is the poor feedback and usability of the four touch buttons across the top. It's much much harder to accidentally click the click wheel compared to accidentally tapping the touch buttons.

--
Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?
Re:Anyone Else Hate It? by sootman · 2004-09-21 05:12 · Score: 1

I bought my iPod exclusively for car use. I don't run with it or use it at home or work. Short answer: you just get used to it. I do the same thing--glance at the ipod, look at road, scroll the wheel, glance at the ipod. It might take a couple "drives" and many "putts" to get the song I want, but I'm much better at it now than I used to be. Like, after 3 or 4 "spins" it starts to speed up a bunch, so I do three spins and then glance down.

As a test, I just did four spins through 'artists' (starting at the top of the list--'All,' followed by numbers) and when my finger was at the top on each rev I saw A, B, G, and R. So, to get to, say, F, I would either do spin-spin-pause, spin-spin-pause, or just keep spinning slowly but steadily.

Just know that it has rules and try to learn its behavior. Speaking of which, I don't think they've ever changed the bahavior. The click wheel just moves the four buttons to four corners of the wheel. (Yes, wheels have corners. :-) )

--
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Re:Anyone Else Hate It? by razmaspaz · 2004-09-21 05:45 · Score: 1

I think this could be sloved by adding something like a mouse scroll wheel to your steering wheel tha behaved like the iPod and a HUD on your windshield that displayed the information on the iPod...I know its a fairly grand scheme, but I think this is a very cool way to integrate to a car stereo!

--
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
Re:Anyone Else Hate It? by TrancePhreak · 2004-09-21 10:31 · Score: 1

I also hate the touch scroll. I noticed that they die out in the store models too. I tried to use one, but it continuously scrolled downward.

--

-]Phreak Out[-
Re:Anyone Else Hate It? by plastik55 · 2004-09-21 17:45 · Score: 1

That's what they have the clicker for. The new ipods will even play a click through the speakers you connect them to. I agree it could use more tactile feedback, but I tried most of the mp3 players on the market and concluded that the ipod is the least terrible.

I recommend adapting your listening to driving. For example, I set my ipod into Album Shuffle mode, choose "Shuffle Songs" and hit play. If I don't like the album it picks I press menu and select again in it picks a new album. Repeat as necessary without taking eyes off the road.

--
I have a positive modifier on Troll. When I mod someone Troll their karma should go UP!
Re:Anyone Else Hate It? by Moofie · 2004-09-21 19:13 · Score: 1

I love my clickwheel, but I don't think it would be any less susceptible to your problem.

I really would like to see a hack/control panel to tune the response of the scroll wheel. That'd be nice, particularly for the rating screen (which is the only place I really have a problem with precision).

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!

Wrong Picture for First Gen iPod by jhsewell · 2004-09-21 03:01 · Score: 1

The circular pictured to the right of the first-gen iPod is incorrect. That is clearly a picture of a touch-sensitive device, which the first-gen iPod doesn't have.

The first gen iPod uses an optical encoder to track the movement of the scroll-wheel in much the same way a mouse works (non-optical mouse).

Re:older computer systems by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 03:01 · Score: 1, Informative

http://www.old-computers.com/museum/computer.asp?s t=1&c=971

Re:evidence? by mccalli · 2004-09-21 03:01 · Score: 3, Interesting

I'd like to see some independent evidence that the iPod scroll wheel is actually superior...The main attraction to designers of touch sensitive devices like Synaptics produces seems to be that they are comparatively cheap, fairly intuitive to novice users, take up little space, and don't gum up.

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

Proportional motion ain't so unique by quelrat · 2004-09-21 03:02 · Score: 1

The article implies that proportional motion--you move your finger more quickly, the pointer or scrollpoint moves further--is somehow unique to Synaptics, or is a product of their "knack for navigation."

Uh, yeah, and there's no acceleration setting in X Windows?

Re:Proportional motion ain't so unique by shotfeel · 2004-09-21 04:28 · Score: 1

You're right, the concept is very old. Apple was touting this ability with the mouse bundled with the first Macs over 20 years ago :-)

The Secret by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 03:03 · Score: 1, Funny

The scrollwheel is made out of PEOPLE! PEEEOPPPLEEEEEE!!!

Re:evidence? by BasilBrush · 2004-09-21 03:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

Tear yourself away from the computer screen, walk out of the house/office/dorm/classroom, and go to an electronics store and try them out. It's not some subtle difference that needs independant adjudication against a set of metrics. Using an iPod scroll wheel for the first time will make you grin from ear to ear.

SlashBoing by belgar · 2004-09-21 03:06 · Score: 1, Interesting

Mayhaps you could do everyone a favor, Taco, and just redirect the slashdot domains to BoingBoing, and save us having to check two different feeds every hour. :P

Three of the top eight stories are from BoingBoing this AM. Geep. I'm all for wider dissemination of information, but come on...

--
What does it mean to wake out of a dream
and be wearing someone else's shorts?
BNL, Born on a Pirate Ship (1998)

look for it to show up elsewhere by Chuck+Bucket · 2004-09-21 03:07 · Score: 2, Interesting

It's such a step forward in UI I expect to see it other places soon. the move to put the play/fwd/etc buttons on the wheel just adds to the functionality. I think it would work very well on cellphones, or pdas. it's a brilliant design.

CP#$B

--
free ipod and free gmail!

Re:Summary "borrowed" by nordicfrost · 2004-09-21 03:07 · Score: 1, Informative

I suppose it technically is plagiarism,

Technically it's not plagiarism, but quoting. And that is legal, if you keep it to a short blurlb and not the whole text. What would be nice is a short notice like "From the article:" or something.

Next up... by ZipR · 2004-09-21 03:07 · Score: 2, Funny

The true story behind the the Ipod's headphone jack.

Re:Next up... by aligas · 2004-09-21 07:40 · Score: 1

Actually, now that you mention it...

Did you know that the ipod is louder then most other mp3 players because Steve Jobs is partly deaf?

Link to source

Ain't as easy as it looks, apparently by ianscot · 2004-09-21 03:11 · Score: 1

Just this morning I had a heck of a time with my kids' alarm clock. The way the buttons are located on that thing is just... unbelievable. The way the snooze feature works manages to be unfriendly to the point of the clock almost seeming possessed, I swear. They like how it looks at night, but it's a nightmare design for something so seemingly simple.

Little things mean a lot sometimes. Try using a Sony vertical-design mini-DV camcorder sometime, and see how you like the rocker-switch zoom.

--
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.

Re:excellent new UI feature by Echemus · 2004-09-21 03:21 · Score: 2, Interesting

I've often wondered why cell-phones don't have some type of similar device

So did someone else it would seem...

First gen iPod has two types of scrollwheel by Etrigan · 2004-09-21 03:22 · Score: 2, Informative

I'm pretty sure that what people class as "1st Generation iPod" actually covers two differently-designed scrollwheels, assuming by 1st Gen iPod we're referring here to the ones with the buttons placed round the scrollwheel.

It may well be that the very first 1st Gen iPods used an optical encoder. However, my late-1st Gen iPod (first of the 20Mb models) definitely has some form of touchpad, as the touch ring does not move.

Re:First gen iPod has two types of scrollwheel by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 03:53 · Score: 1, Informative

Then you have a 2nd generation. That was the difference.
Re:First gen iPod has two types of scrollwheel by fyonn · 2004-09-21 04:00 · Score: 1

then it would be a second generation ipod.

1st gen was mechanical wheel, buttons round the outside (5G)
2nd gen was touch wheel,buttons round the outside (10, 15, 20G)
3rd gen was scroll wheel, buttons on the top (15, 30, 40G)
4th gen is click wheel, buttons under scroll wheel (20, 40G)

I'm guessing a bit at capacities but I think I'm about right.

dave

Scroll skips over the first item by MagPulse · 2004-09-21 03:23 · Score: 1, Offtopic

When scrolling with my third-generation iPod, it won't move for a good distance, and then suddenly it scrolls by two, and then normally to the third and fourth items. Anyone else have this problem?

Apple Newton by nurb432 · 2004-09-21 03:25 · Score: 1

They had a touch sensitive face, and predate the Ipod a bit..

Not quite the same thing, but similar capacitive detection technology.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----

Re:evidence? by jeif1k · 2004-09-21 03:28 · Score: 1

try them out

Sorry, but usability and efficiency is not something that can be judged merely by trying something out; it requires measurement.

Using an iPod scroll wheel for the first time will make you grin from ear to ear.

Apple clearly made the right choice from a marketing point of view: lots of people like the interface. But that's not the same as saying that it's a good or an efficient interface.

Re:Offended by depasseg · 2004-09-21 03:30 · Score: 1

Why? Are you the grandmother? Maybe the writers grandmother is less technologically inclined than your fine-/.-reading self.

Re:Offended by strictfoo · 2004-09-21 03:30 · Score: 1

Oh... I tried, but I just couldn't stop myself. You had to mention that you're a feminist (for whatever reason as it had absolutely no bearing on anything whatsoever, as if being a feminist was a prerequisite to being offended by the statement you listed), so I had to mention this:

Feminism: The Radical Idea that Feminists are Women

--
I've just signed legislation that'll outlaw Russia forever. We'll begin bombing in five minutes.

A closer look at iPod design by line-bundle · 2004-09-21 03:31 · Score: 4, Informative

This links give a better idea of apple's ipod design.

Electronics Design Chain

Of course, now that you've R'd TFA... by BadMrMojo · 2004-09-21 03:35 · Score: 1

... Apple will have to send its elite lawyer hit squad to break your kneecaps. That's a patented clickwheel, you know.

Scroll wheel, oh please.. clit it is! by joib · 2004-09-21 03:35 · Score: 1

Lets all just do the enormously satisfying deed of pissing off the politically correct crowd, and call it clitoris, as it was meant to be called.

And before you ask "WTF", let me explain.

Over here, the word for "mouse" is also a slang word for pussy. So what do you call the slightly protruding feature that you twiddle with you finger? ;-)

Re:Scroll wheel, oh please.. clit it is! by Andy+Dodd · 2004-09-21 04:28 · Score: 1

Except that the scroll wheel is a variant of the touchpad, not the clit-stick as some of my friends call the little eraser-like pointer in the middle of the keyboard. :)

--
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?

Apple is like James Watt by Trurl's+Machine · 2004-09-21 03:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

They think Apple invented the GUI, 64 bit computing, Unix and portable digital music.

While I understand your need to troll, sir - I'd like to point you to two famous inventors: Thomas Newcomen and James Watt. The latter is much more famous, as he is often identified (incorrectly) as the inventor of steam engine. In fact, the first practical steam engine was built by Newcomen, but it was Watt who has improved it to the point of triggering industrial revolution. I think Apple is a bit like James Watt in history of personal computing. They didn't invent GUI, but they improved it to the point of triggering revolution in UI concepts. They didn't invent UNIX, but they improved it to the point that even Joe Sixpack can use. They didn't invent portable digital music, but they improved it to trigger a revolution in how we purchase and listen to our music.

Re:Apple is like James Watt by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 04:12 · Score: 1, Insightful

Everyone who whines "Apple didn't invent the GUI" should go and try to use a Xerox Star in a computer museum (if any still exist and run, 1980s vintage Lisa's and Macs still do) and then come back and tell us how little they think Apple contributed to the 'invention' of the GUI. (the point being that there is a huge amount of invention required to turn a poorly executed idea into an actual useful product that stands the test of time).
Re:Apple is like James Watt by Trurl's+Machine · 2004-09-21 05:25 · Score: 4, Interesting

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?
Re:Apple is like James Watt by Anonymous Coward · 2004-09-21 07:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

Some more, some GUI, some not:

1. Icons which stand for objects rather than actions.
2. Partial window updates.
3. Desktop switching (how people forget).
4. Peer-to-peer networking for personal computers.
5. Integration of screen WYSIWYG with laser printers (yes, Apple beat Xerox to integration with PostScript).
6. 3.5" floppies.
7. Soft eject.
8. SCSI (Mac Plus was the first).
9. Built-in synthesizer.
10. Speech synthesis in software with no added hardware. ... etc...

And let us not forget all the NeXTSTEP innovations, as Apple is largely run by NeXT nowadays:

0. 3D "chiseled" UI. WAY before anyone else.
1. Read/write CDs
2. The first usably fast, all-OO development environment (c'mon, Smalltalk on the Alto was s l o w). And still one of the very best! Amazing.
3. Display PostScript (NeXT largely coded it; Adobe went along for the ride).
4. Multi-media mail (pictures, fonts, embedded file icons).
5. Multi-media news reading (Newsgrazer drove the USENET nuts for a while).
6. VLSI used in a PC or workstation.
7. Real-time scrolling and window dragging.
8. DSP used in a PC or workstation, plus extensive, sophisticated synthesizer and sound processing internally (I'm looking at you, Amiga wannabees).
9. SCSI2
10. Real-time 3D graphics.
11. Ooh, ooh, The World Wide Web... ...man this list is gonna go on for quite a while...

Re:How does it work? Well it must be... by martensitic · 2004-09-21 03:42 · Score: 1

Actually, it is now trivial to unlock an iPod by dragging a BIC around the touch wheel... you just have to jiggle it in the right way for a while, and pop, it comes unlocked.

--
Ut Tensio, Sic Vis

Re:"Free iPod" == automatic -1 by YetAnotherName · 2004-09-21 03:45 · Score: 1

I'd have to meta-moderate that as unfair. Moderate the topic, not the signature, please. (Or help me get a free iPod and I'll change my signature!)

Although made by the same company that makes laptop computer touchpads, and although the technology is quite similar, the feel is quite different, almost as if a thin layer of a slippery substance, like teflon, were on the user surface.

Long lists by slim · 2004-09-21 03:49 · Score: 5, Insightful

The scroll wheel is a clever big of engineering alright, and it's a good way to quickly navigate medium sized lists -- maybe three or four screenfuls of choices.

However, the iPod UI designers seemed to take this as an excuse to present you with enormous lists to scroll through with the wheel. My MP3 collection is modest by the standards of most iPod owners (I've not filled 20GB yet) -- but "browse by artist" gives me a list of 209. Scrolling to somewhere near the beginning is OK. Scrolling to somewhere near the end is OK (because you can scroll right to the end, then back). Scrolling to somewhere around the middle of the alphabet is a real pain.

All they needed to do was make it heirarchical --

"Artists -> (easy scroll) -> S -> (easy scroll) -> Smiths" ... would be quicker and easier than ...

"Artists -> (difficult scroll) -> Smiths

Re:Long lists by The+Unabageler · 2004-09-21 05:00 · Score: 1

I'd rather scroll to an exact position once, than have to scroll to an exact position, click, scroll to an exact position, click, etc.

Less clicking === more listening

btw I read your website. You sure are cranky.

--
perl -e '$_="\007/4`\cp%2,".chr(127);s/./"\"\\c$&\""/gees; print'
Re:Long lists by bmfs · 2004-09-21 06:35 · Score: 2, Insightful

No!!!!!!!

Then you can't simply browse the list of artists thinking "hmmm, who am i in the mood for...?". Unlike the soundblaster wireless music remote - come on guys!!!

But perhaps they could make it an optional feature for the ipod?
Re:Long lists by slim · 2004-09-21 07:00 · Score: 1

I'd rather scroll to an exact position once, than have to scroll to an exact position, click, scroll to an exact position, click, etc.

Less clicking === more listening

I disagree. Clicking's more or less instantaneous. Scrolling is more time consuming the longer the list.

Let's say Cornelius is the 50th artist in my list (approximately right). He is 20th beginning with "C".

Time/effort croll to element x of a list = s(x)
Time/effort Click = c

Finding Cornelius my suggested way:
s(3) + c + s(20) + c

Finding Cornelius the way iPod does today:
s(50) + c

For the apple way to be faster/easier
c > s(50) - (s(3) + s(20)) ... there's no way a click is that time consuming. And that's for a letter early on in the alphabet!

Incidentally, I just had a play with my iPod to confirm something. One way the wheel might work well is if you learned how many rotations got you to an approximate position in your collections. e.g. "Three turns gets me to the Ds". It turns out the touch wheel doesn't work like that. If I brush my fingers round three times quickly, I end up at "Leonard Cohen" (alphebetised under "L"). If I go round three times slowly I end up at "The Cult" (in the "C"s.)

btw I read your website. You sure are cranky.

Is that "grumpy" cranky or "eccentric" cranky?
Re:Long lists by The+Unabageler · 2004-09-21 07:12 · Score: 1

you must have a very small list of music. I have my 40GB ipod filled to the brim. It is much faster for me to scroll and click just once than to have to scroll thru a multitude of lists. Another benefit is that I have only one list where I need to remember relative positions, which I do have a pretty good idea of, and of how fast I need to move my thumb to get there. All that video game playing paid off well in my case, not so much for you it seems.

in summary: scrolling a single long list is only longer if you are a very slow and imprecise scroller.

and I meant grumpy cranky.

--
perl -e '$_="\007/4`\cp%2,".chr(127);s/./"\"\\c$&\""/gees; print'

Re:evidence? by ttyRazor · 2004-09-21 03:56 · Score: 1

the only evidence you're going to get is if you actually pick it up and use it for yourself. everyone who has will tell you it works like that and it works well. the trick is to scale the acceleration just right so it doesn't move too fast or too slow relative to your movements, and the ipod gets this just right. touchpads on laptops can't always do this right due to differing resolutions and adjustable sensetivity. plus the ipod is only moving in one direction, and not by individual pixels.

as for a switch you hold down, at least in my experience it's harder to slow down and release when getting close to what you want than it is to stop turning the scrollwheel. it also helps that you usually don't turn at a constant rate, allowing you the chance to slow down and tell where you are.

Not the mechanical one, though by hacksoncode · 2004-09-21 03:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

There's one factual error in the article. Synaptics didn't design or manufacture the mechanical scroll wheel on the gen1 iPods.

You Know It's Funny... by geordie_loz · 2004-09-21 04:06 · Score: 1

A company that has a wheel for navagating quickly through data which takes up more than a screen on the iPod should really get their heads around mice with scrollwheels..

I can't stand browsing the net without a wheel mouse.. I know macs can use other mice, but apple not grasping this seems a bit silly..

Re:You Know It's Funny... by hunterx11 · 2004-09-21 07:06 · Score: 4, Interesting

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.
Re:You Know It's Funny... by capmilk · 2004-09-22 01:40 · Score: 1

Personally, I use four mouse buttons: the usual three plus a fourth one to activate Exposé. That is so handy, I really don't understand why Apple still sell one button mice.

Nit Picking by ickoonite · 2004-09-21 04:06 · Score: 1

I wonder if I am the only one who, holding his 2G iPod in one and and browsing Slashdot and actually RTFA, tut-tutted and felt the need to post a correction to the glaring error in this article. Clearly our correspondent is not as au fait with the iPod as he might appear to be...

Quoth the article:

"As you can see in the image to the right, the scrollwheels from the second- and third-generation iPods keep that radical-looking design, and you can see where the four touch-sensitive buttons line the area between the scrollwheel and the screen."

This in itself is not incriminating, but does betray a certain fault in the author's knowledge - it implies that the second generation iPod has touch-sensitive buttons. Further down the article...

"To me, this was a huge design improvement, because the 2G/3G iPods' touch-sensitive playback controls didn't offer any feedback to the finger."

...and we have the crux of the issue. As those few (or not so few) early adopters will tell you, proud as they are with their 10 and 20Gb bricks, the 2G iPod has proper buttons with finger feedback, because the only difference between the 1G and 2G iPods is that whilst the former's wheel moved, the latter's was touch sensitive. The buttons stayed the same. It was not until the 3G iPod that the touch-sensitive buttons were introduced, erroneously in my opinion (for the same reason cited in the article - that they give no tactile feedback).

Anyway, just thought that that little nugget ought to be noted for the record.

iqu =)

Re:Nit Picking by lidocaineus · 2004-09-21 06:25 · Score: 1

MOD UP!! I completely agree. The 2g had those nicely rounded side/top buttons, which were very intuitive (right up there with the current 4g). The 3g was a step backwards to me!

The Wheel by simpl3x · 2004-09-21 04:08 · Score: 3, Informative

Bang and Olufsen used the exact same wheel on one of their telephones several years before Apple. While Synaptics might make the technology, and would have had to re-engineer aspects to suit Apple, the design itself is pre-Apple in almost every way. This would be like saying that Apple invented the mouse--they just poularized it.

Re:Nothing really new there... B&O by XavierItzmann · 2004-09-21 04:09 · Score: 1

A wheel and central click button implementation that is _exactly_ like the 1st gen iPod appeared in 1998 on the Beocom 6000 Bang and Olufsen system.
http://www.danchan.com/feature/2001/02/25/beocom/b eocom.htm

The user interface is the same: scroll through options or through the system's phone directory by rotating the wheel. Enter your choices by clicking the center button.

All four volume settings are also controlled via the wheel: ringer volume, phone speaker volume, stereo volume, and tv volume.

--
The next pasture is always greener

Uhh... Re:Huh? by hacksoncode · 2004-09-21 04:11 · Score: 1

Well, actually, Synaptics pitched the idea to Apple first. It took Apple a year or so to come back and "narrowly specify" the design they ended up with.

Re:How does it work? Well it must be... by BandwidthHog · 2004-09-21 04:11 · Score: 3, Funny

I'm still acutely without iPod, but a friend let me take hers to the gym recently. I now consider the coolest feature being able to use the scroll wheel through fabric. I'm sure it wouldn't work with denim, but through typical cotton gym shorts, I could just reach down and draw circles on my thigh. Totally surreal. Between that and some fleshtone headphones, I could further reduce unnecessary interaction with humanity by a factor of 10!

--

Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?

Re:Summary "borrowed" by That's+Unpossible! · 2004-09-21 04:14 · Score: 2

Technically it's not plagiarism, but quoting.

No, technically it's quoting without the quotation marks or attribution. Really, that's plagiarism.

The problem is on slashdot's summaries you can't tell when they are quoting the person that submitted the article, and when that person is quoting the article directly. This is ambiguous:

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.

Is Grump saying what is in the quotes, or is the article "saying" what is in the quotes? Either way, the author was not attributed.

--
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.

Wildly misleading by burgburgburg · 2004-09-21 04:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

Just because Apple didn't make the parts doesn't mean they just "purchased" the iPod.

Their design team came up with a great concept, found people who could put it together relatively inexpensively (and in an extraordinarily quick amount of time). They have managed this project superbly. Everybody else (both in the MP3 player market and in computer field in general) had access to all of the elements that Apple did. None of them came close to putting together anyting remotely as functional, stylish, easy (and they still haven't)

iPod Mini has poor non-music UI by solprovider · 2004-09-21 04:37 · Score: 1

I recently played with an iPod Mini. It was new, so it had little music in it. I did not even plug in the headphones.

The UI for music is incredible. It is easy to build lists of favorites and such. Then I tried the games. That UI needs work. You play several of the games by moving the paddle side-to-side. It took some time to learn how to be accurate with a paddle that increased speed the longer it was moving. But the worst is the game exits the moment your finger leaves and returns to the pad. It is difficult to keep your finger connected to the circular control for tens of minutes without slipping off or relaxing the pressure. The moment you slip, game over, not because you lost but because the UI commands were designed poorly.

I realize that the games are just there because every small electonic device must have games. No one says "I've got to get an iPod Mini for the cool games." But if you are going to have a function, have someone test it. Making the "quit game" UI a double-click would have made it so much more usable. (Or does MS own the patent on double-clicks now?)

--
I spend my life entertaining my brain.

Re:evidence? by BasilBrush · 2004-09-21 04:44 · Score: 1

Since you care so much, get some different players together and do the tests.

BTW, Do you currently own a player of any description? If so which one? And have you tried the iPod?

Well your way beats mine by SuperKendall · 2004-09-21 04:49 · Score: 1

I'm wondering if there isn't a secret behind other things too, like my TV's remote control. It works alright, but it's tough to push the little buttons on the TV with it sometimes.

That's a pretty good idea, it's a lot easier than my technique of trying to throw the thing with enough accuracy to hit the TV buttons from the couch.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Scroll wheel by xmutex · 2004-09-21 05:10 · Score: 1

I own an iPod, and enjoy it muchly, but sometimes the scroll wheel actually annoys me. It makes it much more difficult to go one item down in the menu. Sometimes I wish there was up/down buttons in addition, but then Apple tells me I shouldn't think this way, so I don't.

--

jack's bicycle is music to my ears

Re:Like this is news by peawee03 · 2004-09-21 05:23 · Score: 1

Point taken. However, I think the article is an interesting look at the evolution of the industrial design, and the actual internals of the iPod, much like an article describing the hard drive evolution in Apple desktops might be interesting.

--
I wish I could write clever and witty sigs.

Re:Offended by dcstimm · 2004-09-21 05:40 · Score: 1

you have a grandmother too you know.. its so easy even she could use it!

--
keanmarine.com

The interesting question is who invented it first? by Agram · 2004-09-21 05:44 · Score: 1

The reason why I say this is not because I want to troll but because I recently found out that all Synaptics notebook touchpads have ability to make their scrolling option to work in a circular fashion. Linux version (X server's) of the touchpad driver allows for this functionality via GUI configurator. It behaves almost identically as the iPod's circular scroll wheel and in that way makes me wonder who really made the first circular scroll wheel and furthermore is it Synaptics or Apple that is unlawfully using other company's patent, or even more interestingly that the Apple's patent does not restrict other companies from using it in the context of a touchpad?

we have evidence by jeif1k · 2004-09-21 06:08 · Score: 1

I guess the fact that a simple question about whether the iPod scroll wheel actually works more efficiently than other controllers got moderated down shows us once again: Apple's user base just isn't interested in facts, they just like to believe that Apple does everything better. Great going, guys.

Long, Long Ago by Emperor+Tiberius · 2004-09-21 06:08 · Score: 1

Anyone remember when they called scroll wheels and clicks wheels, "jog" wheels :-)?

Re:evidence? by jeif1k · 2004-09-21 06:12 · Score: 1

I wasn't asking whether it was a superior product, I was asking whether there is any evidence that the scroll wheel on the iPod is an efficient user interface element. The article claimed so. I am just asking whether there is some evidence for that claim. Apparently not.

Re:evidence? by jeif1k · 2004-09-21 06:16 · Score: 1

Since you care so much, get some different players together and do the tests.

I didn't claim that the scroll wheel was a superior interface; the article did.

BTW, Do you currently own a player of any description?

Yes, several.

If so which one?

A couple of Archos players, a Creative Zen, and a bunch of flash players.

And have you tried the iPod?

Both the big one and the mini. And, no, I didn't buy either.

But whether I like it or not has little to do with my question. I was just asking whether there is any actual evidence that the wheel is a good UI element.

Re:Offended by AlfieJ · 2004-09-21 06:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

The quote specifically says my grandmother. The guy knows his grandmother, you don't, and for all you know she's technologically inept.

Relax.

it's not plagiarism by vena · 2004-09-21 06:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

the source is cited.

jeez.

Re:I'd like an i-pod but ... by miller701 · 2004-09-21 06:32 · Score: 1

2) Is downloading by firewire as quick as taking a CD out of my CD walkman and putting another one in? Thought not.

One CD, maybe not. 100+ CDs, definately!

Re:evidence? by utexaspunk · 2004-09-21 06:56 · Score: 1

you're right, however i do think that the switch to the touchpad scroll wheels was done for space, cost, and possibly battery life reasons (not sure exactly how the mechanical one operates).

from a UI standpoint, though, the mechanical/optical wheel is far superior. my issue with the touchpad version is that it doesn't provide any feedback. without even looking at it, you can feel a "click" of the mechanical wheel for every menu item you move through, and it is certainly easier for scrolling through a single item. the touch wheel gives you no feedback at all, and that sucks.

Re:I'd like an i-pod but ... by SC_shooter · 2004-09-21 07:12 · Score: 1

It's even faster than changing 1 cd.

In my world by PDubNYC · 2004-09-21 07:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

Jog dials are the ones on VCR's and the like that only turn up to a 1/4 turn in either direction to control the fast forward and rewind and then snap back into place.

Perhaps I am wrong, but in my world i never think of a jog wheel spinning all the way around, just back and forth. So I would have to say, "No, I do not remember when they called scroll wheels, jog wheels."

Re:In my world by cr0sh · 2004-09-21 08:44 · Score: 1

You are thinking consumer level equipment, I think. Real jog wheels on pro-level (studio) equipment were real "wheels", set to allow everything from frame-by-frame advance (or is it field-by-field?), up to any multiple thereof. In other words, the jog wheel (or dial, if you want) allowed you to easily fast-forward and reverse the tape, while allowing ultra-fine control for exact positioning and queuing...

--
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Re:In my world by klui · 2004-09-21 10:52 · Score: 1

That would be a Jog/Shuttle to be more accurate. I don't know what's what, but if current consumer decks have a Jog wheel, then the wheel that spins round and round would be a shuttle.

Bonus trick! by webslacker · 2004-09-21 07:19 · Score: 1

Try operating a laptop touchpad or an iPod with wet fingers!

an old apple parody comes home to roost by aminorex · 2004-09-21 07:22 · Score: 1

The scroll wheel is strongly reminiscent of the
Spinning Alphabet Wheel, say what?

--
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-

iPod Clickwheel is a little too sensitive actually by celerityfm · 2004-09-21 07:24 · Score: 1

I find the 4G's clickwheel too sensitive for rating songs. Unless I'm rating songs at 5 stars or no stars, its really tedious to try to get it "just so" on 1, 2, 3 or 4 stars. I've read this complaint on a number of forums as well, so I know its not just my iPod.

I got an iSkin EVO2 and I've found it is easier to rate songs while resting part of my finger on the iSkin. Even still, its not perfect. So I think Apple should take this suggestion on how to rate songs and roll it out in the next software update:

1 rotation on the wheel per star. 1 rotation clockwise=add 1 star, 1 rotation counterclickwise=remove 1 star. Simple, precise and can be as fast or slow as the user wants it to be. Everything else seems to be perfect sensitivty for the clickwheel though!

What do y'all think? Is this superior to the current method?

--
...unfortunately no one can be told what The Mat^H^H^HGoatse is...they must experience it for themselves...

Re:Summary "borrowed" by michael+path · 2004-09-21 07:27 · Score: 1

From the Slashdot FAQ at http://slashdot.org/faq/com-mod.shtml:

What about comments copy-and-pasted from other sources?
If someone copies text from elsewhere and doesn't mention that it's copied or name the source, it's plagiarism. Moderate it Redundant, or feel free to alert moderators by posting a link (perhaps anonymously).

Answered by: Jamie
Last Modified: 1/17/03

---

The reference needs to be in plain view for it to count. Is it a huge deal? No. It suggests that the poster (not submitter) doesn't read the story to make sure it's something even worth posting, and that the submitter has no issue attaching his name to the content.

The quality of the summary is irrelevant. That's like saying that Puff Daddy/P. Diddy in his infinite lameness is allowed to sample because his songs suck.

If you read the article you referenced... by burgburgburg · 2004-09-21 07:35 · Score: 1

you'd see that PortalPlayer's prototypes were kludgy, ugly starting points. They had parts of the hardware down, but it only would have sold to geeks. Apple brought in their reference design, redesigned the interface. Apple made the whole package work and work so damn well.

Re:If you read the article you referenced... by SilentChris · 2004-09-21 14:25 · Score: 1

From the article:

Big Blue planned a small, black MP3 player, based on the company's own mini hard drives, which featured a unique circular screen and wireless Bluetooth headphones. "The design for IBM was a lot sexier," Knauss said.

That doesn't sound "kludgy" or "ugly" to me. By the way, there's no way to "rah rah" root for iPod. It has its flaws just like any other product.
Re:If you read the article you referenced... by Drakonian · 2004-09-21 17:45 · Score: 1

There is a huge difference between planned and implemented. It's nice to know that the famous Knauss, the God of All That is Sexy has determined the IBM design to be superior. This Ad Wizard also knew that the iPod was doomed to failure:
Knauss stayed on until near the end of the iPod's development, but quit shortly before it was released because he had no confidence it would be a success.

--
Random is the New Order.
Re:If you read the article you referenced... by Moofie · 2004-09-21 19:11 · Score: 1

Flaws? Really? I suppose, but I shopped these things pretty hard, and the iPod is far superior to the competition for my purposes.

I wouldn't mind more battery life, but everything else about it is pretty well perfect IMO.

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!

The Karma does that by don.g · 2004-09-21 08:08 · Score: 1

The Rio Karma organises its lists of all the artists, albums and tracks on the device in just the way you describe. Better, because while selecting an initial letter you can see the first six or so artists/etc starting with that letter.

--
Pretend that something especially witty is here. Thanks.

Re:The interesting question is who invented it fir by pdbogen · 2004-09-21 08:54 · Score: 1

RTFA. Synaptics made the touch wheel on the iPod.

so... by Kurayamino-X · 2004-09-21 09:08 · Score: 1

what's the difference between the ipod scroll wheel and the clickable one on my mouse? or the clickable one on my ancient diamond Rio500?

just using newer more expensive technology where existing technology would to the exact same job?

--
...I got nothing.

Re:Summary "borrowed" by PriceIke · 2004-09-21 09:29 · Score: 1

Another lock-step RIAA idiodrone.

"Theft" means exactly that: you taking something from someone without permission. Sharing music is duplicating software (basically, it's a digital document useless without hardware to access it) with permission of the sharer. The sharer still has his music; nothing has been stolen. A duplicate has been created. "Theft" don't enter into it, unless you're the RIAA and are trying to make people hate file sharing.

--
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.

The Lament of "Touch Technology Inc." by IBitOBear · 2004-09-21 09:37 · Score: 1

In 1982 I worked for a company called "Touch Technology" in Annapolis MD. Our main stock in trade was keosk touch screen devices. The owner, one E. Garry Barrett, had figured out that the current state of the art technology in capacitive touch screens could be rendered static-shock proof by simply routing a big (8 gage?) copper wire to the gap between the monitor and the touch-screen over-glass.

If you used the Nemian Marcus(sp?) bridal registry keosks in the eighties you used our product.

But his true passion was his invention of "the Touch Mouse". He had the idea, and was using the above keosk business to fund research, for a bus-mouse device that was a tiny touch screen with buttons and several modes of opration.

We had a prototype (the 8051 tended to hang after about 2 minutes so, according to a lawyer, we didn't have enough to get a patent) and manufacturing dies and such.

But then one day Gary decided we needed more funding. We did, in fact, need that funding. The Vulture Capitalists gave us that funding, and then within six months raided the company and disolved it.

If he is still alive, I am sure that E. Gary Barrett cannot walk into any store selling laptops without wanting to cut his own throat. Those touch-pads, in the absence of some foolishly short-sighted Vulture Capitalists, would each be paying him hommage in green folding applause.

The lessons:

1) Most technology exists long before you see it.

2) Never trust venture capal.

--
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press

Get the facts straight! by sl0wp0is0n · 2004-09-21 09:38 · Score: 2, Informative

The optical sensor that Microsoft's (and others') optical mice use, is made by Agilent. Gary Gordon, who works at Agilent, invented the optical mouse. Microsoft just happens to license the technology.

--
My other dog is a Wienerschnitzel.

Re:Get the facts straight! by That's+Unpossible! · 2004-09-21 10:02 · Score: 1

I stand corrected, thank you for the info. Did someone else invent the wheel mouse, or was that Microsoft's?

--
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.

How about you read my question smartass? by Agram · 2004-09-21 10:36 · Score: 1

The point is that Apple got a patent on this, yet Synaptics ships its touchpads with this functionality. This either implies that Synaptics has reserved the right to continue to make its own versions of the circular scroll wheel despite the Apple's patent, or that they are doing so unlawfully. Otherwise, we should see a mp3 player soon with a Synaptics touchpad which behaves in exactly the same fashion as iPod without breaking Apple's patent...

Am I the only one who hates it? by brunes69 · 2004-09-21 10:47 · Score: 1

I mean, I specifically stayed away form the iPod because I can't stand the damn thing. I test drove one for a few hours, and it certianly did *not* grow on me. It took forever and a day to scroll from the top to the bottom of a large list, during which I had to keep rotataing my thumb, over and over and over.... I can see myself getting RSI in mere days from this monstrosity.

Meanwhile, in my MP3 player with a nice side-mounted jog-wheel, I ccan simply *hold* the button down and boom, it scrolls away.

Really, I think the iPod wheel could have been better designed. It would make much more sense if you could drag your thumb around half way, and *hold* it there, to continue the scrolling. To stop scrolling you could simply move your thumb back to the 0 degree point, or around thereof.

Re:Am I the only one who hates it? by Bruce+McBruce · 2004-09-21 11:03 · Score: 1

It took forever and a day to scroll from the top to the bottom of a large list, during which I had to keep rotataing my thumb, over and over and over....
If you move your finger faster it tends to get down the list faster.. Funny how that works.

Re:Like this is news by peawee03 · 2004-09-21 10:56 · Score: 1

Ah well. I don't own, nor ever have touched an iPod, so I didn't even know about the scrollwheel. And live life on the edge! Get modded off topic!

--
I wish I could write clever and witty sigs.

Re:evidence? by Bruce+McBruce · 2004-09-21 11:28 · Score: 1

I wasn't asking whether it was a superior product, I was asking whether there is any evidence that the scroll wheel on the iPod is an efficient user interface element. The article claimed so. I am just asking whether there is some evidence for that claim. Apparently not.

The only evidence I'd recommend you look for would be its sheer popularity: something hard to use (thus making it somewhat inefficient, or at least the people in using it) would probably lead to fewer 'cooler' people using it, as they wouldn't figure out how (no disrespect you you smart cool people out there) On that level, I'd say it's a very efficient user interface element.

Completely wrong for me! by Zurd3 · 2004-09-21 13:31 · Score: 1

I have the 4th Gen iPod and *no* I don't like my wheelmouse-click, that is the most annoying thing in my iPod, it broke after 3 days with just a few drop of water on it and I'm struggling to get it repair from Apple right now, no refund, Final sales, if I call back for tech support Apple will charge me money and Apple doesn't ship me the return box (their India's tech support didn't know where Montreal was and I bet they didn't understood properly my address). Worst tech experience ever :(

I owned the 1th Gen iPod with just a regular wheelmouse-no-click and it was much more responsive (and no I don't have fat fingers lol) and lasted 21 months even if I drop water on it. I really like that one.

I don't mean to flamebait Apple, but, please, small buttons has been used for years and has been working just fine even with water!

Re:Offended by Aiofe · 2004-09-21 17:33 · Score: 1

So, you wouldn't have been offended if the article said "Even my grandfather could use it."?

Personally, my opinon of the iPod - even the rest of my technologically illerate family could use it, so long as it came with a manual.

--
"TV is a crutch for those who lack imagination."

Re:evidence? by jeif1k · 2004-09-21 18:06 · Score: 1

The only evidence I'd recommend you look for would be its sheer popularity:

Well, I guess that settles it: by your reasoning, Windows must be much more efficient and must have a much better UI than Macintosh because it is 20x more efficient.

On that level, I'd say it's a very efficient user interface element.

I was explicitly not asking about "that level". I'm asking about the standard usability and efficiency metrics, the kind of stuff Apple and the article claimed this thing had, the kind Apple engineers like to keep talking about they use to design their products, but that we don't get any evidence for.

Re:iPod Clickwheel is a little too sensitive actua by Moofie · 2004-09-21 18:57 · Score: 1

You have put your finger right on (huh huh) my only issue with my 4G iPod.

I'd say 1/4 rotation per star, but regardless: It's FAR too sensitive right now. Scrolling through text lists is a breeze, but the stars are hypersensitive.

--
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!

Especially if the dial is locked .... by Gopal.V · 2004-09-21 19:34 · Score: 1

Some people lock their rotary diallers , so that the phone function only for incoming (some lock their phones when they leave office)...

The clicker is a nice way to deal with this .. but it takes a bit of practice and works only for the Strowger (IIRC) pulse exchanges.

We had an analog exchange till '99 , but it used to drop my dialup every 3 minutes ... (and we liked it !).

--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur

Yeah... by brunes69 · 2004-09-21 23:23 · Score: 1

And when you are doing a browse by artist with any modest sized collection (300+ artists), even if you move your finger around the dial so fast your thumb burns it still takes 5+ seconds to go from top to bottom.

Their list-based interface is simply unacceptable for large amounts of data. I mean, even if there was a way to hold something down so you could scroll by *page* instead of item by item, that would probably make it work.

Reason by Pan+T.+Hose · 2004-09-23 21:02 · Score: 1

That means '911' takes more time to dial then '112'. My god, and the English picked '999'.

There is a reason for that. A broken phone/socket/cable can easily dial 112 with two single circuit interrupts (there can be many seconds between them) followed by another two interrupts close to each other (closer than 0.2s). This is uncommon but not impossible. Also, that is the reason why the number is not 111 in the first place (which would be easier to remember and faster to dial) becuase any three single interrupts of the loop would dial it. From the switch point of view dialing 111 is indistinguishable from a socket losing contact because none of the iterrupts have to be close to each other which is not the case with any other number. On the other hand, numbers like 999, 997 or 961 are almost impossible to result from random interrupts.

--
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."

Slashdot Mirror

The Secret Behind the iPod Scroll Wheel

243 of 350 comments (clear)