Slashdot Mirror
The Age of Touch Computing
DigitalDame2 writes "In 2009, touch computing will go mainstream. More and more devices will be legitimately touch-enabled with gesture controls for browsing through photos, tossing objects around the screen, flicking to turn the page of a book, and even playing video games and watching movies. In fact, Gartner analyst Steve Prentice told the BBC recently that the mouse will be dead in three to five years. PCMag has a full look at touch computing — the past, the present, and the future — including an interview with Sabrina Boler, touch UI designer."
IIRC, people have been claiming the mouse will be dead in X amount of years for quite a few years now. And keyboards, too. And non-automatically-driven cars. And I think we're supposed to be living on the moon by now or something...
Predictions and speculation are cool, but humans do not appear to be very good at fulfilling them in general. Talk to an economist about that.
It's hard to picture touch computing replacing the mouse graphic design. I prefer to work without fingerprints all over my screen. Playing a FPS shooter would ... interesting ... as well.
All you have to do is install Ninnle Linux on the desktop, and you have all the benefits of this with existing hardware. It's that simple!
"Touch computing-which started with the iPhone"..... At this point I stopped reading...
Reach and tap - mouse and click. How are these in any functional way different?
And of course, the requisite confusion between content and presentation. Maybe I am missing something, but pointing and clicking to the content would have worked just as well. God I hate slow news days.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Hey, touchscreens are great and all, especially on small devices like smartphones or PMPs, but for the 24"+ monsters they're calling monitors these days, I'll stick with a halfway decent mouse...
In fact, Gartner analyst Steve Prentice told the BBC recently that the mouse will be dead in three to five years.
I know Steve has 33 years of IT experience, but such claim is anything but probable. The only true mouse replacement would be a thought-based medium and I doubt that any commercialization of such technology is here within 5 years. For web surfing, touch and movement works just fine, but when you go for precision like gaming, Photoshop and programming.
A movement tracker for laptops would be a great touchpad replacement, however.
Full Tilt
"Windows 7, now with more ways to invoke BSOD on demand!" Someone else please bring in the Hammer time jokes.
only if the monitor is relatively flat against the desktop, at a reasonable height to prevent wrist strain, and easy to access...
I don't want to reach past my keyboard all the time to touch the screen. and I certainly don't want to lose the haptic response and general precision of a keyboard.
If a touchcreen can handle 50 words per minute typing, and is as comfortable as a keyboard..... maybe.
Maybe for tasks that don't require any precision. There are quite a few of those -- but that's not all of them.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
Touch computing may be mainstream for handheld devices, but it will be a long time before the mouse is replaced on a desktop PC. What these prognosticators always seem to forget about PC displays is the display is vertical and in front of you. It gets tiring if you have to hold your arm up to touch stuff on the screen all day. Your arm does at least get to rest on the table if you're using a mouse or trackpad.
For a PC, the prognosticators also seem to forget that the mouse is good enough, and it's tremendously difficult to replace "good enough" in three years. Touch interfaces on a desktop system don't offer any benefits over a mouse (unlike on handheld devices, where a touch interface is obviously very very much better than any other kind of pointing device). For laptops, again, the vertical screen problem and arm-tiredness/screen smudging issues persist, and people find trackpads good enough with a touch screen not really offering any worthwhile benefit on a full size laptop.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Ridiculous prediction. Can someone explain how it would be "progress" or an "improvement" if, instead of my hand comfortably resting on my desk manipulating the mouse, I would have to repeatedly lift my arm and poke at my screen? Especially since in my case, poor circulation and some arthritis make repeated lifting or movement of my arm rather painful over time. (Not to mention that a self-cleaning screen would be a necessity -- my screen gets dirty enough on its own without my fat fingers smearing it up on a regular basis.)
Touchscreen technology has its place, but this is a perfect example of how a technology some people think is "cool" or "advanced" leads them to feel that it should be universally adopted.
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
With all of the new fads, some computer users may not be aware of the danger of touch screens with multiple partners. Diseases like Onchomyosis can be spread from one finger to another by touching a screen that has multiple partners. Be frank and honest with your screen. Purchase finger cotts, always have one on hand before you consider touching, and use them consciontiously!
Bruce Perens.
I call BS. Using a mouse, most of my arm weight is supported by the desk, requiring only sight movements. Can you imagine working at a computer all day and having to hold your arms up to the screen? Not to mention my hand and arm obscures everything below it, unlike a mouse pointer. Also, a mouse pointer is capable of single-pixel selection. Try that with those sausages you call fingers. (That last point was mentioned in the interview)
Touch works great for kiosks and things like ATMs. Not so much for all-day activities.
ON DELETE CASCADE
touch computing requires more movement than a traditional mouse. not to mention how annoying using a touch screen all day on a huge monitor would be. from personal expirience, I went from using an all touch screen device (instinct) to the g1 and use the trackball almost exclusivly now. the interview isn't biased ofcourse, its only a touch ui designer giving the answers...
Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
Why the fuck would I want to be waving my arms around poking away at my screen? Can you imagine how quickly your arms would ache if you had to do that? With my mouse I can rest my entire arm on the desk. It works perfectly well. There's nothing wrong with touch technology as an addition to other stuff, but its certainly not a replacement. What a load of bollocks.
Reach and tap - mouse and click. How are these in any functional way different?
With a mouse, the pointer is a small 16x16px or so bitmap. With a touch screen, the pointer is your hand, and that's probably ten times as wide and 20 times as tall. Even a stylus obscures more of the screen than a mouse pointer.
With a mouse, you can activate something one of four ways: hover, left-click, wheel-click, or right-click. In Firefox, these are bound to open linked page, open linked page in new window, and show link's context menu, respectively. Hover isn't bound to anything, but CSS or JavaScript on a page often binds hover to show a menu. With a touch screen, there's only one click unless you make your system non-free and license the patents covering basic multitouch gestures from Apple.
Gartner anal-yst Steve Prentice has no clue. he must be one of those armchair philosophers. I'd much rather use my mouse than reach for a stupid screen.
Gorilla Arm
What's old is soon to be new again.
How do they intend to nacho-cheese-flavor proof my interface?
it must be true!!!
I bet the same guy either has never played an FPS game before, or thinks console controllers are the pinnacle of FPS control schemes. Cause frankly I have no clue how aiming a sniper rifle will work when you have to sight past your fingers. Half my headshots in the original UT were against targets less than a quarter inch high in my screen.
Touch screens have two major flaws, it's not possible to move the pointer and click at the same time, and there's only one button.
Touch screens like imac mice, fine for idiots who get confused by anything more complicated than a hockey puck you mash down on, but slow and annoying for people who can comprehend the existence of more than one option.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it!
Try poking your computer screen for more than a few seconds. People's arms get tired FAST.
Now lay your flat screen monitor flat on your desk, where your keyboard is, and try again. It won't be as tiring. There's a reason the Nintendo DS puts the touch screen on the bottom.
Honestly, I think touch interfaces are neat. But I'd really like interface design to go quite a bit farther. Maybe I'm just being imaginative. Consider my this:
I think the main benefit to a touch interface is the sense that you can manipulate objects on the screen directly. I'd like to see the first screen on a touch device a totally blank screen. There are no controls on the screen until you put them there. Touch once on a the screen and you create a rounded-corner square. At first it is selected. After two seconds it changes color signifying that it is no longer selected. If you continue to tap it while it is selected it changes modes to serve other functions. This way you can cycle through all of it's modes. When it isn't selected, you can drag to different parts of the screen.
You need to combine this with gestures. While a button is selected, strike your finger straight to the right and then slightly down, and it will bring up a menu for that button. Using that menu you can freeze that button so it can't be changed and it is simply a part of the interface. This way you can basically create your own use interface from scratch.
Need to input a number? Put those virtual keyboards away. Click on the control and drag your finger up. The numbers will increment exponentially. Raise your finger and then drag up or down again to increment exponentially from where you first raised your finger. You should be able to reach virtually any number in the real number system in a couple of drags.
I could go on and on. I think what we have now is just the tip of the iceberg, it's still based on the mouse/keyboard paradigms that we've been working with for the past 30 years. I think the main thing is that the virtual keyboards need to become something you basically don't need to use any more. Touch computing should become synonymous with semantic computing, since the system needs to understand the context of what you're trying to do. Even writing text doesn't necessarily need a virtual text, the system should know, grammatically, what sort of words and phrases you can choose from. Use a thesaraus to choose a word with a certain kind of meaning, and then keep tapping that word to cycle through other words that are nearly synonymous. You should be able to add templates for the various sorts of sentences that you tend to use.
Anyway, I know Slashdotters are going to hate this but, hey, at least I'm thinking :)
The age of no thought computing is here. Where people think that all they have to do is touch something and it magically works. They don't have to think or type or know anything to get whatever it is they want. But for those of us who live in the real world and actually have to create the content these no brainers will be using we will still be using keyboards and pointing devices. I for one don't want to spend 8-10 hours a day flapping my arms around writting an application nor do I want to spend all day arguing with my computer to get it to understand the context of the words I'm saying. Whenever these geniuses come out with some new keyboard that isn't standard that adds 52 extra keys to control every multimedia device on the planet it psses me off. How am I supposed to type on this? Where's the damn delete key? How am I supposed to do real work here? I don't need a pointing device that knows how I feel or what my favorite color is. I just need one that works.
Just two words: gorilla arm.
Touch-screens will work on mobile and hand-held devices. They're fine for anything where you don't need to use the UI for very long. But if you're going to be moving the cursor and selecting things for 8 hours a day (as is normal for business computer use), you run up against basic anatomy and physiology: it hurts to hold your arm out in front of you (where your computer screen is) for long periods. No amount of UI design will change that. And I just don't see tablet computers replacing standard monitor-and-keyboard setups for work that involves a lot of typing (as most business use does). The only way you can resolve the issue is to move the pointing device from out in front of the user to down beside the keyboard so they don't have to hold their arm up in front of them anymore. But you need to keep the display out in front, because that's where the user's head naturally looks. Hmm, that's looking at lot more like a standard screen plus mouse/trackball/touchpad than a touchscreen, isn't it?
NB: a relative of gorilla-arm is why a lot of people prefer trackballs to mice and touchpads. Less arm movement, less muscle strain.
I drove an '89 Honda Civic into the ground this month and replaced it with a Prius.
I'm not happy with the touch screen controls at all. For example, turning on the heat. I live in SoCal, one rarely needs to do this.
1. press climate hardware button along the side of the touch screen.
On the touch screen:
2. press recirculate
3. press the appropriate fan speed.
4. press defrost front
5. press defrost rear
Turn the car off and run errand. Repeat steps 1-5 after errand because it doesn't save those settings.
In the Civic, this was all done by feeling for the buttons on the dash and sliding the vent controls. I could do all of that and still keep two eyes on the road. I have to check the touchscreen on the Prius which I don't care for at all.
Given the way desktop computer UI's have only become more complicated, I'm positive the car's touchscreen UI will only get more complicated. That's a bad thing.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
Yeah. I'm using a MacBook. It has a track pad. Apple really needs to keep the new cool glass track pad (the one in the brick, without a separate button but with the tactile feedback of pressing down on the entire pad) and in addition to it, they need to implement iPhone-like touchscreen functionality on the displays of the laptops. Secondly, they really must come up with an ingenious way to get rid of mechanical buttons on the keyboard, turning that into a screen as well so that when you switch languages, you'll see the right keys in the right places, but WITH tactile feedback of some type.
Anyone who thinks touchscreen computing will dominate soon better come up with a smudge-free coating.
I wonder how effective touchscreen computing would be for me with super-greasy hands after eating a pound of bacon. Yum!
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
As if greasy mice and keyboards aren't bad enough. Imagine the screen being covered in it. Even simple things like sweat would degrade the surface over time. Seems like it'll be a pain to keep things clean. Also, my finger is much bigger than a cursor, so a stylus or mouse as a secondary device becomes necessary. This would solve the problem with the greasy screen as well, but sort of takes away some of the point when you're essentially adding a peripheral back into the equation.
There was a good product placement shot of Microsoft Surface in the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still. Obivously microsoft is wanting to sell a few of these things, and they may be popular in bars and other places where there would be social interaction of some sort. But try selecting a block of text or dragging on a vertical surface like a monitor while you are tying to do your everyday work. It just doesnt seem as precise as a mouse.
The big problem with touch screen GUIs is what's called Gorilla Arm: your arms can't sustain being stretched out and making small precise movements. This isn't a problem if the screen is horizontal, but then you get neck strain from looking down all day. So while touchscreen interfaces may look cool and work well for small devices, their ergonomics are fundamentally broken for any real work.
Touch screen computing has become too fashionable for any manufacturer to ignore. This is a bad thing because they're all going to pursue it because they feel that they have to, and never mind how useful or not people are going to find it, or if they are even going to want it in the first place.
Touch computing is never going to really takeoff, let alone supplant the mouse and keyboard. Touch works "good enough" in limited and specific applications, but it will never be a major player in general purpose computing. We all know this. Bookmark this story and come back in a year (hell, make it 5 years); the situation will be the same then as it is today.
As an aside, I don't really even see the distinction between touch and mouse. Touch is essentially duplicating the functionality of the mouse, only instead of moving a mouse across a desk you are moving a stylus across a screen; that is not a big difference in my opinion. For touch to truly be distinct from the mouse, I think it would have to go 3-dimensional. The problem with this is that currently the majority of computer applications work in a 2-dimensional space; obviously the exception to this is things like CAD. This kind of seems like a chicken and egg problem to me. Touch is not going to take off until 3-dimensional computing takes off, but 3-dimensional computing is not going to take off until touch takes off. My guess (and I am probably wrong) is that eventually somebody might design a 3-dimensional computing experience whose main input device is also 3-dimensional, perhaps something like the Nintendo Power Glove. However, the problem with this (and 3-dimensional input in general) is that you have to keep your hands/arms elevated for extended periods of time; this makes operating a computer exhaustive. For this reason alone, I think touch will never be anything more than it is now: basically a slightly different implementation of the mouse.
They can pry my mouse from my cold dead hands.
1) If I had to constantly reach up and touch my screen I'm fairly certain my shoulder and/or neck would be killing me within an hour if not less.
2) It'll be the final nail in the coffin of PC gaming, because let's face it - quite a few genres pretty much rely on the mouse (RTS and FPS spring to mind). Yeah, I know there are RTS are FPS games on consoles. It just isn't the same experience.
3) I don't trust touchscreens in general. I've used WAY too many ATMs, on a weekly basis, where I am practically punching the screen to get any sort of response. I won't have a phone with a touchscreen - if the ATM touchscreen won't work after a while, I can't imagine my phone continuing to function while kicking around in my pocket for months on end. No iphone or G1 for me. I'll stick with my (fully buttoned) Nokia E61i.
Now GTFO my lawn, kthxbye.
Touch-a touch-a touch-a touch me, I wanna be dirty.
How naive of them. Several models of iPod had "touch sensitive" buttons before the iPhone even came out!
It seems like most commenters have it right. Why replace a low effort, efficient device like a mouse with flailing arms and constant effort?
My touch device will be the one that incorporate a touchpad, the size of a mousepad, but more responsive than anything built into a laptop. With minimal conditioning, we should be able to correlate touching a spot on our pad to clicking a spot on the screen, and the effort required is no more than pointing and clicking a mouse.
But does it run... Oh, wait.
Either they predict some trend so obvious, everyone already knew it. Else they are mostly wrong. Looks these "December" prediction columns from 10 years ago and you'll see what I mean.
I think the touchscreen paradigm will take off when someone actually figures out to use it with porn.
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
Only trackpads. The mouse is dead to me already.
Notice that it's only pundits and "analysts" that make stupid and outrageous claims like these. If you actually pay attention to computing history (instead of pretending to write about its future), you'll see that it takes closer to eight years for any technology to completely replace the one before it from introduction to almost complete market saturation.
The primary domain of the mouse is the desktop computer, but the mouse isn't going anywhere because there's nothing to replace it. A touchscreen certainly won't because nobody wants to keep their arm hanging in mid-air for hours on end. The closest thing would be Microsoft's paper-thin multi-touch trackpad but so far as I've been able to tell, nobody is planning to manufacture such a device. I'd love to have a giant touchpad in lieu of a mouse, but apparently I'm alone in that wish since nobody makes or is even planning to make one.
Currently working on a project that Point of Sale related and uses touchscreens. It makes sense for that application and a lot of POS systems are designed for touch screens. The trick is getting the buttons big enough and then everything works smoothly.
Well, one afternoon I got a little board and installed the latest BSG Fleet Commander (Homeworld 2) mod and tried playing it using the touch screen. It worked quite well for management of the production & launch screens, but pretty much everything else still had to be done by mouse. Not to say with gestures and a game designed for touchscreens couldn't be cool, but after about the initial 15 minutes of "Oh this is cool" I went back to using a mouse and then got back to real work.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Is there even any evidence to suggest that touch is superior to standard input methods like the mouse? Would it raise productivity? I doubt it. In fact, I'd say it would do the opposite. Just because a solution is flashy and hi-tech, that doesn't make it superior. I'll stick with my keyboard and mouse.
I know this is all about the PC and we all know that as long as people have PCs somewhere there will always be mice and keyboards of some kind.
But look around. How many people have iPhones/iPods/knockoffs? How 'bout the new touch screen blackberries? Been to Redbox? Worked at a McDonald's? Its all touch screen. Computers in the wild (not home or work) are more likely to have a touch interface than not and hand-held computers (sorry 'phones') are all going that way.
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
Apple used multi-touch because it solved a problem. Mobile devices need the screen as large as possible; however, making the screen too large would make the device not as portable. Competing with the screen for space is the keyboard. So Apple eliminated the keyboard. There are some drawbacks to this and Apple's implementation with multi-touch tries to address this. Anybody who has used a Blackberry (except for the Storm) will tell you that typing on that is much better to input than on an iPhone, but the iPhone works well enough for what it does.
Adding touch to a UI without solving a problem seems superflous. For kiosks and maybe tablets, it's a great solution. For a desktop, I don't see a lot of benefits. I'm not saying that UI cannot be improved but touch doesn't seem to be it.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
It's the Age of Buzzwords! I must remember to make my cloud of software as a service LAMP green servers offer RSS compatible with streaming social touch computing new media podcast paradigm on our Web 2.0 AJAX on Ruby on Rails on Toast dynamic peer-to-peer application.
of touch-screen interfaces. Touch may work for smaller devices like mobile phones and hand-held media players, but the fact of the matter is that touch will always be inefficient for any sustained interaction with large-scale monitors.
The reason the mouse works so well for such interfaces is because it amplifies small movements of the hand to be large movements on large screens. While the difference on small-screen devices is negligible between touch and mouse, the efficiency of the mouse completely dominates most (if not all) touch input methods for large screens.
Now some serious voice recognition and a suitable AI to handle it, that might kill the mouse. But for now, efficiency trumps all.
They can pry my mouse and keyboard from my cold, dead fingers.
Logitech manufactures their one billionth mouse this month!
- Dan
I've had a PDA for a few years and could never use effectively the stylus because of that. There's no way to right-click and open an options sub-menu.
And there's more: with a mouse there's a difference between pointing and clicking. When I'm showing something to someone, or just trying to concentrate in a particular aspect, I move the cursor around the area I'm trying to emphasize without clicking. Sometimes I point at the screen with my finger. With a touchscreen, even by waving your hand at the screen you run the risk of accidentally touching it and starting something.
Could we stop this 2009 year of the ... please?
So far if you guys are to be trusted 2009 will be the year of the "net non-neutral Linux SSD enabled touch optimized wireless HD streaming gesture camera netbook"
Have you tried a pen on a suitable touch-enabled surface? Touch-enabled displays need not be limited to blunt fingers.
In the linked project, researchers demonstrated that interaction with pen & hand beat interaction with two pens or two hands on a single large touch-enabled display. Are you sure that CAD/CAM would be harder with this setup than on your own?
http://mi-lab.org/projects/bimanual-pen-touch/
There's a nice video scrolling down the page.
Today, there's a paradigm shift: You touch the screen instead. The computing world hasn't caught up to the banking, grocery, and casino markets quite yet, but that's about to change.
When the touch pads at the bank, grocery store and casino have the equivalent of a shift, ctrl and alt keys give me a ring. This isn't new tech, just rearrangements of old tech since it is now cheaper and easier to deal with due to expired patents, cheaper manufacturing and public acceptance.
Telling PC users that they are behind the times with touchscreens is like chiding aircraft manufacturers for not building wings out of teak wood and canvas.
A few more touchscreen problems: (1) My monitor is about 36 inches from me, raised to eye height. I can't comfortably reach it.
(2) I can move the cursor from one side of the screen to the other with a mouse by rotating my wrist. The same act with a touchscreen would require 20 inches of horizontal movement, plus the time to extend my hand from the keyboard to the screen.
(3) A touchpanel adds another optically imperfect layer in front of the screen. I simply want the clearest image possible, sans additional electroconductive layers, protective coatings and finger slime
Touchscreens make sense for a very limited range of applications - airport kiosks, bank machines, and personal music players. There's a reason that the iPod Touch/iPhone are extremely small. They hit the sweet spot for touch interfaces - the devices are too small to incorporate a decent keyboard and small enough that one can quickly touch any point on the screen with small (and therefore quick) movements. Scale that up past about 7" diagonal and things disintegrate quickly from an ergonomic perspective.
Then interactive? Porn will be so different. I can't wait!
The same way a blowup doll is better than having a girl to fuck.
You could also install big displays at every window in your home, and have cameras running to show what's happening outside. It could even be done in 3D someday.
I suggest you read Slashdot
My cell phone screen gets scratched from carrying it in my pocket. Working in construction, my fingers get too gritty to touch a computer screen without scratching it. The screen would become unreadable in a very short time.
Good luck playing shooters, arcade games, strategy games, etc. effectively with your hands. Then again, there is a strange satisfaction from "fingering" your opponents to death.
Probably already posted somewhere here, but I can see this for small touchpads and mobile devices. I love my touchpad on my Macbook Pro. Way easier on the hands and arms than any mouse or even trackballs. Same goes for things like the iPhone's touch screen. Small(ish) sizes held or put at comfortable places to use.
But for full fledged screens? Nah, way too much movement of the entire arm, not to mention holding the arm in the air for periods of time. Anyone see CSI:NY or CSI-Miami with those huge glass panels that are supposedly touch sensitive? Can you imagine waving your arms around those things for 8 hours a day? Through in some 2 pound weights and there is your exercise for the week.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
My mouse will not be dead anytime soon. Its a Logitech Marble Mouse, and even if it dies, I have a spare.
Yes, typing on a touchscreen is hard. Especially touch-typing. Fortunately, you can still use a keyboard, and there is no reason to stop using a mouse if you feel comfortable with it.
On the other hand, imagine a large enough screen; say, 5k pixels wide. Positioning a mouse pointer accurately in such a large area requires progressively more time, and it is hard to locate the cursor if you forget where you left it last time. Touching at a coordinate and knowing that it is fully equivalent to a mouse-click sounds like a nice proposition. Being able to trigger actions at distant parts of the screen without long "travel times" also sounds fine. You have probably have two hands with lots of fingers on each - it would be easy to use one to select a tool from a toolbox and another one to use the tool in a distant area of the desktop. Yes, keyboard shortcuts are faster - but you have to learn them first.
Of course, if you do have such a large touchscreen, you will probably want to mount it more like a drawing table than like a traditional upright screen, easing strain on your arms if you have to reach for things... but there is still no reason to stop using keyboards or alternative pointing devices. The worst-case scenario is that you will have to move windows around a bit to avoid occluding the active window with the keyboard or mouse.
People will still not realize that their predictions are useless.
I remember using the HP 150 touch screen monitor in the 1980's. It seemed kind of cool at the time, but since it could be used in that mode only with DOS programs specifically written for it, it remained a non-solution for a non-problem. Also, Zarkonnen's comment about "gorilla arm" is absolutely correct; I found myself using my left hand to hold up my right arm while poking at the stupid screen. It seemed cool for a little while, but it got harder rather than easier to use over time. Even the Word Perfect shortcut keys didn't have that disadvantage.
The only user input device worse than that is that little blue clit between the letters G, H, and B on my laptop. I have, of course, disabled the touchpad that used to send the cursor skittering in every direction.
For the record, I hate touch screens. That being said...
A lot of the comments here seem to have to do with the ergonomics of touchscreens; either you are holding your arms up in the air while working with them, or you're staring down at your desk and cramping up your neck.
But this whole problem could be avoided by placing a reflective surface above your desk and inverting the image on the screen. Screen flat on your desk, image reflects off the mirror. You look straight at it, and see the screen. For those people who can't type by touch and use the 'hunt and peck' method, this has the added advantage of being able to see whats on the screen and the keyboard he or she is typing on simultaneously.
Of course, this does nothing for the whole greasy fingerprints on the screen issue, which is the dealbreaker for me, but it at least cuts back on the ergonomic issues.
Actually, clicking with two fingers is equal to a right-click.
I've got an Android G1 phone, which has both a touch screen and a track ball... guess which is easier to navigate with? An any situation where the field you are trying to select is smaller than the fingertip you are trying to select it with, touch navigation sucks. Parallax and uncalibrated touch sensors don't help either. Now, larger touch screens or touch screen activated with a stylus (e.g. Nintendo DS) may work much better. But touch screens like they are putting in all the 3G phones these days really aren't the be-all and end-all of user interfaces. What we really need is a system that communicates in conversational spoken language.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I just can't escape the feeling there are some astroturfers posting in this story. Touch computing is a bubble.
And I predict touch computing will kill the mouse just like computers killed paper documents: barely.
Touchscreens make sense on small/portable devices like a PalmPilot, an iPhone, a Nintendo DS. But they replace the mouse interface where a mouse is not practical, kinda like the Nintendo Wiimote.
Didn't someone say that the mouse was supposed to kill the keyboard, anyway?
Simply add touch-screens to your list of input devices, the other ones aren't going away.
I predict that in 20 years, our practical fusion powered flying cars will run on Linux using touch screens, on our way to the space elevator for our vacation on the moon.
Yeah, I'm holding my breath.
I would like eye computing. You just target something with your eyes and bam. It's selected. If you don't press any key, it is selection. Key A grabs, Key B clicks. Keys goes into a small wireless control that has some buttons and maybe secondary small joystick for more complex moves that requires more than two degrees of freedom.
-- dnl
This is modded funny but it's true. The mouse requires a lot less effort than touching your screen. In that sense touch screen is almost a step backwards. The benefits of touch screen are very situational, but it seems like novelty and looks are whats drawing attention to it. I think that the touch screen is often beneficial in situations similar to tablet pc: when you are standing up, and can't easily use a mouse and keyboard.
Right now touch is often being marketed as one size fits all. The success of the iPhone has helped support that(not trying to diss Apple so please don't hurt me). The use of touch screen on phones is somewhat different though. Touch screen works better for phones when you are stationary. When you are on the go and want to type without looking at your screen the whole time, touch screen is not the best method for input.
In vehicles there are other issues. Touch screen has the benefit of saving space by combining the screen and the input devices. The problem is that it requires more attention that may be better focused on driving. With conventional controls you don't necessarily need to look away from the road for a split second.
I think the problem is that instead of finding the best use for things, people tend to follow all or nothing trends. Every new trend is supposed to completely replace the old one. At least that's how the media often presents things. Saying the mouse is going to die pretty much means they want to get credit for predicting the latest fad. Touch screen will excel in certain areas and the mouse in others. In a desktop setting, the mouse is generally going to be there fore a very long time.
Normally, when someone mentions a touch interface for computers, most people instantly think of an incredibly clunky kiosk setup... a system with a normal display and touch sensors added only as an after-thought.
The problem, however, is that this type of interface doesn't lend itself well for lengthy interaction. Sure, there is a brief cool factor to devices like this, but that wears off quickly if the user is forced to deal with it for very long. Too much physical movement combined with awkward positioning puts a lot of strain on the body. Most users simply aren't going to put up with that, especially for hours on end.
What's needed here, is major form factor change, where a user's primary computer display is designed to be as portable and lightweight as a folder, and handled in the same manner as a book. This means a return to concepts like hand-writing recognition directly on the display, combined with new concepts like multi-touch set up in a way that allow immediate interaction with any onscreen object.
For example, items like the "desktop" presented to the user should vary in size automatically as per the user's needs, to prevent overlap onscreen, while at the same time, offering instance access to any content current available to the user without any interference what-so-ever, simply by touching it.
Next, everything onscreen should move as easily as sliding a piece of paper off to the side at any time... meaning at no point, should the interface presented to the user ever become "modal" in nature.
Finally, the most important factor is to make the user experience as physically comfortable as possible. This means we need to let go of our ties to the aging mouse/keyboard concept, as though the user will literally reach "into" the computer screen and begin physically handling all onscreen data. The user should have the impression that are in absolute and total control of everything they see, rather than being secondary to the application over what happens next.
Anything less will only be an exercise in futility and frustration.
8==8 Bones 8==8
No doubt touch is fun -- I manufacture kiosks, touch is great for public interface. But touch is by no means a replacement for a mouse. It's a great technology, or set of technologies, and it certainly has its places, but it can't replace a mouse or other "precision" pointing device.
Sure, scrolling through photographs doesn't require a mouse. But you aren't going to use your finger for any button smaller than 1/4 inch. Your finger is simply too big. And you aren't going to hold your hands up for five hours of organizational work. Even professional boxers don't have the shoulders for that. Oh, and when it comes to perusing photographs that matter, you aren't going to put your oily fingerprints all over your expensive professional, high-quality, colour-calibrated monitor.
You are going to use touch interfaces for brief interactions, requiring little or no precision, in places without physical or practical space for other devices.
It's really simple. You don't use a mouse to type. And you won't use a touch to point.
And this Christmas card from a supplier got me all full of glitter this morning. It's everywhere and on everything, and I can't get it off!
Can I touch Sabrina?
... will be more than happy to come to each company that buys into this harebrained prediction and clean the monitors each of the PCs that are all obscured by smeared fingerprints.
Wasn't Gartner (or another bunch like them) predicting universal PC voice interfaces a while back? How's that adoption going?
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
For some strange reason people are always talking about replacing a technology instead of augmenting it.
I can see some people not want to touch their screen. Personally for some tasks I'd like to be able just to press this big button on the screen. After using my Palm, some of the tasks are just easier, or more fun to just tap on the screen.
That being said, I wouldn't want to get rid of my mouse and keyboard. I don't think touch screen would work to well playing FPS games. I want my experience improved, not replaced.
Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.
Good points in your post. I have one comment on...
"People keep lauding the Minority Report UI like it's a good idea. Do you really want to have to hold your arms up like that and move them around all day? "
As a guy that has steadily gained weight over the last decade from sitting in front of a machine 8-12 hours/day every day, I wouldn't mind rethinking the whole less-movement-is-better premise. Humans weren't made to do this, and if we could get back to our days of heightened physical activity, we'd be a lot better off. Our bodies evolved to work well in an active lifestyle.
There's a gal in my cube row that has her monitor and keyboard raised up so she can stand while she works. Hmmmmm. I might just do the same thing.
You miss the point so absurdly. The problem isn't a screen you LOOK at; the problem is that your screen, sitting on it's stand, makes for an uncomfortable keyboard. (Hint: You have to keep your arms raised.)
It also makes an uncomfortable mouse. It can be bad enough having to move your fingers off the keyboard to reach for the mouse - imaging having to reach up to a screen to touch something?
The mouse and keyboard are pretty damned near perfect human interface devices and it's going to take a major overhaul of the workspace, UI design, and software in general to eliminate them. To make it feasible for the workplace, you're also going to need some sort of voice recognition that is smart and can determine if you're talking to the computer or the person sitting next to you.
Touch computing is fantastic for things like kiosks, small devices, and one-off systems such as the Microsoft "table" computer thing. But not for general purpose computing. Not for a long time, if ever - who knows, by then something better might come along.
- It's not the Macs I hate. It's Digg users. -
Touch screen computing will be a boon to the geek culture. Combine touch computing with porn, and you got a clear winner!
Touching at a coordinate and knowing that it is fully equivalent to a mouse-click sounds like a nice proposition.
Unfortunately, there is no touchscreen equivalent to just moving the mouse pointer without clicking.
Does he want to come do my Photoshop and InDesign work for me on a touch screen? I don't think so. I can hardly handle using my Laptop's trackpad to do this work when I forget my trackball, let alone having to use a touch my screen to do it. Why would I want my display covered with finger grease while trying to select individual pixels with my finger? Gah, sounds awful.
The mouse/trackball(my preference) and keyboard are a GREAT set if input devices for the computer. I don't understand the desire to hoist a worse solution upon people just because it's available. It's like these people are trying to justify their jobs by shoe-horning technology where it doesn't belong.
The only place where I could see touch input being useful in the home/office would maybe be something like Microsoft's "touch" tabletop, or some sort of large wall-mounted display board that would replace the traditional whiteboard/dry erase marker combo. That would seem more natural, and would be an easy way to share and examine images, documents, etc.
Of course mouse will be extinguished pretty soon, because trackballs will dominate the Earth. I really cannot comprehend why people keep using mice when there are trackballs that do the job much better while helping you avoid wrist injuries, taking less space, and allowing finer control. And in case you are wondering, I have used touch interfaces and I hate them more than I hate mice. I certainly would not buy a touch interface device if it could not be used with a trackball and keyboard.
What a concept!
Touch controls for gaming would suck. Touch is not precise, pressing keys and clicking mouse buttons is. And in a gaming environment, you would not even want sensitive touch controls. You know, not every time I twitch my finger means I am issuing a command. I could be itching, cramped, whatever - the mouse provides a very much needed buffer in that you only let commands that you want to be performed.
So the predictor in this case suffers from a typical lack of cirumspection. Just because he doesn't play games, he didn't think about games, and ended up wrong.
Honestly, I can't envision using a touch interface with my computer. 8-12 hours of work a day would become HELL. Smudged screen (try working with graphics THAT way), 'grilla arms', bad precision and other related problems limit the usefulness of touch devices to single-purpose applications like simple terminals, devices similar to MS Surface (it's a table, so it works) and tech demos.
Wake me up when there's a reliable BRAIN interface.
I still don't see touch screen GUIs as making my life easier. I just switched from an iPhone to a Blackberry 9000 precisely because of how awkward it was to type using a virtual keyboard.
There is no doubt that this is the way of the future, but right now old school keyboards and mice are the way to go.
So in 3 to 5 years no one will be playing first person shooters on the PC? Touchscreen would never work cause you wouldn't be able to see anything with your hand in the way and no one wants to use a touchpad.
The mouse will almost certainly evolve, but I have a difficult time imagining that it will die. I certainly won't be shelling out big bucks for a touch-screen, nor are inexpensive homemade ones really much to brag about. I know I won't be holding my hand up to press tiny buttons for the rest of my life.
Never used a Wacom tablet, obviously. Hovering the pen moves the pointer without it clicking. You make actual contact and that's mouse-click-and-hold, let up and it's release.
Unfortunately, there is no touchscreen equivalent to just moving the mouse pointer without clicking.
Depends on technology. In many cases you can, indeed, spot fingers a short distance away from the display. On the other hand, if you have multi-touch, you can define an alternate gesture to indicate the same type of interaction. You don't need to actually hover your finger to mean "do as if hovering a mouse pointer".
Hovering is vital for traditional mouse-based interfaces, since you can't know where the pointer is unless you see it on screen. Its use is less clear if you are pointing directly at the point you want to interact with. It sure can't help you to fine-tune the exact point you are selecting, since touch-based displays suffer from occlusion -- although several methods have been proposed to deal with this problem.
I don't like leaving fingerprints on my screen so why would I want to have a system where you have to touch the screen all the time?
Wake me when they have vision-based systems, not touch-based ones...
I've been an iPhone owner for about 6 months (please don't hit me) and there are ways in which it works exceedingly well and other ways in which it does not.
Pros:
-Acute positional control. I can align my web site or image in exactly the way I want to. This is something that I've found to be difficult with a scroll wheel or ball on other devices.
-Mutable UI. Since there aren't static buttons or controls, the UI can be designed specifically for the application which allows for less clutter and more efficiency. (this is also a con, see below)
-Typing. This really only applies to the mobile arena and I know there's great disagreements about this, but given the small size of the keyboard, it actually works quite well as long as it's combined with the predictive text algorithm. I had a Samsung Blackjack prior and I ended up typing faster on the iPhone after only about a week simply because of the time saved from actually having to exert force on the keys.
Cons:
-Obstruction of the screen. While some of the core typing features sort of circumvent this by popping up what's under your fingers, there are many 3rd party applications where field obstruction quickly becomes annoying. In particular, there are puzzle games that require rotating pieces with two fingers while one finger is entirely covering the piece so that you're unable to easily tell how far you've rotated it.
-Mutable UI. As a Mac fanboy, I've grown to love the idea of a UI that's consistent across applications. As the UI of touch interfaces is generally specific to the application, many of the ideas have to be relearned for every application you use. This isn't just control placement, but also gestures, which I've found different developers like to use quite differently.
-Lack of real buttons/tactile feedback. I'll go back to the example of games again because it seems most relevant. Games like Tetris or Pac-man were designed to use a game pad or joystick. As a result, the developers of these types of games like to simply overlay bitmapped representations of these controls on to the screen. The problem is that while you're watching the game, your finger tends to wander off of the overlaid control and you end up missing a button or pushing the wrong one and screwing yourself. I wish there were some real buttons on the iPhone to serve this purpose because there is no better type of input for these types of apps.
-Popular operating environments aren't designed for this. The iPhone works well because it was designed from the ground up to work exclusively with touch input. Windows, OS X, popular desktop Linux distros, etc. were not. I played around with the HP TouchSmart for awhile, and it's basically a Vista PC with touch shoehorned into it. The handful of apps that come with its little touch "suite" work well enough, but once you wander back to the real desktop, it becomes essentially pointless. Try clicking a dropdown menu or close a window with the corner X and you'll quickly remember why you bought a mouse. I hear the same sort of things about the BlackBerry storm. It's the vanilla BB OS with only a couple apps designed for touch input.
If we ever expect touch to go mainstream, we're going to need to see what a full desktop environment designed for touch input will look like. It does not exist as of yet. They will continue to not exist until there is a need for it. Ask yourself, do you need a desktop or laptop with a touch interface? I don't feel that I do, although I think it would be "neat". The possibility for productivity gains from this type of input is relatively meager, while the cost and time required to develop a suitable touch-driven replacement for the desktop environment is significant.
This works with all pen-based interfaces, because the pen is part of the touch system. All the tablet PCs I have seen are the same way.
You just can't do this with a touch screen.
Despite the other reply, you can't "hover" close to a screen with any real accuracy without having the system cost far more than normal users will be willing to pay.
Every 15 years, there's another touch fad. It's probably because touch devices are often intuitive and easy to use. However, they just don't work all that well for general purpose computing. Mice are by far the best pointing device available.
I think it's more likely that within a couple of years, you're going to see an iPhone with a keyboard (with some face-saving mumbo jumbo, like Apple did with their not-so-one-button mouse).
I try to avoid touchscreens, and here's why. I once arrived at my local ATM (in an affluent suburb of NYC) just as a chatty ATM serviceman was finishing up with it. He went on about how some people get angry when they can't get any money out so they'll urinate on them and stuff. I haven't taken to keeping wipes in the car, but I do try wash my hands soon after. This is just the sort of thing that more people should be aware of, and what better place to share than Slashdot?
the mouse will never die as long as i breath! i am a gamer, and no freak n mind controlled, muscle controlled, or touch based methods will work for me. the mouse is much needed as well as the keyboard...
Juan
In order to use a touch screen, you have to bring the screen closer than what is currently recommended; this will hurt people's eyesight. And then you will have to chose between an screen that lies flat down, which will avoid the gorilla arm syndrome, but will make your neck hurt, or a more vertical screen position, which will spare your neck, but gives you gorilla arm. I can't really see this being a winner, except on small, portable devices, where it would be difficult to handle a keyboard and mouse.
I mean seriously. As long as keyboard is the fastest method of entering text, the mouse will survive just fine.
I know, you're about to say something about voice recognition right? Just imagine how well that will work out with the ever increasing trend of open floor plan offices (the worst cost saving measure ever invented, you need more employees to accomplish the same task because of increases distractions).
Yes let the age of dirty finger printy screens begin and remember you can't use windex it damages the touch screen. So remember when your screen is marred with scratches and covered with grease stains think back to this article. These are hurdles that touch screen technology can never fix. Smudge free coating? Impossible
I, for one, welcome our new finger smudged screen overlords...
More Windows 7 useless features bullshit... not too dissimilar from saying, "Windows 7 already runs faster than Vista and XP".
Not to be the fly in the ointment, but WTF is wrong with a mouse? I have been using them for years and if anything would like the option to use a mouse in more circumstances (console games, small devices, etc..)
I hate touch computing, my moniter is on a shelf on my desk right above my keyboard and mouse so it would be hard to not have a mouse. And should it be a full arm motion to scroll on a page? I have a touch screen on my laptop and it's great if it's right on my lap but anywhere else its just annoying.
Oh, and as for the DS, we're talking about something that is not used for content creation
Only because of the lockout chip. If it weren't an issue, we'd have more things like Colors!.
http://www.neowin.net/news/main/08/11/21/blackberrys-innovative-touchscreen-2
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
About 5 years ago I bought a Logitech Cordless Mouse. It is the mechanical rolling ball with optical sensor wheels. It has a firm click feel on the middle button and wheel rolling action. It only just barely has ergonomic sides. The size is minimal rather than those really tall ergonomic mice.
So last Christmas somebody gave me a gift certificate from Walmart. Welp. I'm pretty sure you all know that they have a tiny selection of computer accessories. Knowing I didnt want probably anything from there but had to spend it on something I ended up with this Logitech laser mouse. Its tall, has extra buttons, no ball. Here's the problem. For twice the price it gives me a lot of hand pain. The extra buttons are cool but awkward. The laser skips a lot. The wheel has virtually no tactility. The main buttons are soft as well. After 6 months of figuring it'd get better, I gave up on it.
I'm a 3dsmax user. I really spend a lot of time clicking. Eventually using max was so tiring I didnt enjoy it any more. Going back to the old mouse took away my hand pain and I regained my speed. Not long ago the plastic on the left button became dented enough to cause failure. I went with a piece of cardboard under the plastic. That works fine for now. Still have to clean it now and then but it works better than any mouse I've ever had. Too bad for AAA batteries though. The new mouse has AAs which sadly don't seem to last any longer!
Remembering the old IBM keyboards of yore, I am fast coming to the same point with mice. Now most mice sold are laser mice and have some funky shapes. Engineers seem to be regressing. Why is it technology goes up while product quality continues to go down? Thank you market.
I don't even want to get into this touch screen argument because its just simply inane. I have 4 monitors wide on an elevated shelf (2 on main computer, the side monitors are driven by 2 other machines). BTW Synergy for the win! The view doesn't get much better than that, so why would I want to hold my arms up? The one keyboard and mouse work across all 3 machines, 4 monitors. Very little mouse movement from screen to screen. I hate to say it but for this desktop, that touch thing is not going to work. Sorry touch screen advocates.
A device that costs $180 subsidized with a 2-year contract and has only a 3.25" screen would translate to "cost far more than normal users will be willing to pay" on a 17", non-subsidized monitor.
Touchscreen computing COULD be viable but not with the present day methodologies. One of the problems with the traditional desktop PC motif is it only has one (sometimes two, maybe three) DISPLAY screens. I emphasize the word "Display" because that's what they do and are designed to do-- display stuff. That seems obvious to be sure, but my point is that it is NOT designed for TOUCHING. Even if a "touch screen" is bolted onto the front of the thing, it is still not DESIGNED for touching in the same way the display is designed for DISPLAYING. Rather it is a display with a touchable surface that can be used as an auxillary input. Sometimes the required application is such that a touchscreen is sufficient, but most times it is not. What is needed is a touchable surface that is designed for TOUCHING. So this sounds like a lot of back and forth, what would constitute a suitable "touchable" motif? How about a computer system that has both displays for DISPLAYING _and_ surfaces for TOUCHING? While the primary displays COULD also be touchable, and thus used as _auxillary_ input, a better method would be (IMO) to have one or more purpose-driven touchable surfaces (touchscreens) just for touching. Display buttons or whatever on the thing and ONLY use it for touching. The principle display(s) continue to be used as displays. This is a similar idea as that nifty russian keyboard where each key can be individually controlled to display an image. That keyboard, in a way, is closer to being a "touch-able" computer (IMO) than the typical "touch-screen" computer of today is. Peripherals are developed all the time. Most of them fall away as cumbersome, not really all that usable, clunky, poorly-designed, costly, etc. Only the ones that manage to provide some unique functionality, are well-designed (both functionally and user-interface-wise), and are able to be cheaply manufactured are the ones that tend to stick around. Sure there are specialty devices for certain vertical applications, but for the mainstream, the mouse and keyboard have evolved to be the thing for the most part. Surely there's room for additional devices, but they have to offer a clear advantage to everyday people in everyday situations before they are likely to be adopted and spread widely. I don't think "touch-screen" computing, in its presently designed/defined form is quite it. Even if monitors are redesigned to include the "touchscreen" interface and included gratis in every implementation, I don't think that would quite do it-- although I'm sure it would raise the awareness for the device and increase the number of applications that are "touch-ready". But (IMO), the true touchscreen breakthrough will occur when the monitor (which may ALSO have a touchable display surface) gets _additional_ touch surfaces that are dedicated to "touching" (touch-pads).
Isn't it also possible to buy the iPhone for $199 with a 2-year contract?
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.