Slashdot Mirror
'Gorilla Arm' Will Keep Touch Screens From Taking Over
Hugh Pickens writes "With Windows 8, Microsoft has made a billion-dollar gamble that personal computing is taking a new direction and that new direction is touch, says David Pogue. It's efficient on a touchscreen tablet. But Microsoft expects us to run Windows 8 on our tens of millions of everyday PCs. Although touch has been incredibly successful on our phones, tablets, airport kiosks and cash machines, Pogue says touch will never take over on PCs. The reason? Gorilla Arms. There are three big differences between tablet screens and a PC's screen: angle, distance and time interval. The problem is 'the tingling ache that [comes] from extending my right arm to manipulate that screen for hours, an affliction that has earned the nickname of gorilla arm.' Some experts say gorilla arm is what killed touch computing during its first wave in the early 1980s but Microsoft is betting that Windows 8 will be so attractive that we won't mind touching our PC screens, at least until the PC concept fades away entirely. 'My belief is that touch screens make sense on mobile computers but not on stationary ones,' concludes Pogue. 'Microsoft is making a gigantic bet that I'm wrong.'"
It doesn't need assistance from physiology. ;-)
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
It hurts like hell to use a touch screen for hours.
touché
A simple, to the point analysis, naming the problems with their name.
I admit looking at the interface evolution with a lot of interest eg what are my kids going to prefer.
My six year old doesn't seem to mind the keyboard though.
So what large vertical desktop displays even have touch screens? Sounds like they are talking about hardware that shows absolutely no sign of happening.
Since you're on Slashdot, like me, you have no life and you probably eat lunch sitting at your desk with crap on your hands. I have no need to smear all that over my monitor. With tablets and phones, it's ok because you can grab a corner of your shirt and clean it off. I'm not going to flash my monitor to wipe off my burger grease.
There may be no "I" in team, but there's also no "F" in way.
I use my iPad regularly for work, for extended periods of time sometimes. As an extremely portable platform, it isn't all that bad for typing larger amounts of text, though it is not ideal. I've tried using it as a mini laptop by standing it upright and using a Bluetooth keyboard. That's the setup that Microsoft envision, apparently. And you know what? Turns out the thing that I've been missing most on my iPad when using it standalone for typing/drawing isn't a keyboard. It's a mouse, or at least a trackpad. A mouse offers precision and speed; no click and hold necessary since a mouse has buttons. A touchscreen is more useful on other cases perhaps, but or a lot of common tasks it can't beat a mouse.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
of touch screens is that the long-honored convention of not touching a desktop monitor screen seems to be flying out the window. Seems like three times a week I have to resist the urge to break an arm as one of my co-workers puts their greasy finger prints on my screen.
Just like the mouse didn't replace the keyboard, touch input isn't going to replace the mouse, but rather augment it. There are things that a mouse is much better suited for, and therefore it won't go away. But in a couple years, all new computers will have touch capability. Smart people will use touch when it makes sense. Some people will forgo the mouse completely. Some people won't use the touch at all. But it will be there.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I already get irate if someone feels the need to molest my screen with his greasy, grubby paws. Now these imbeciles should have an excuse for it? No way.
Seriously, that's more a reason to avoid touch screens at all cost more than gorilla arm syndrome could.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Is it like the sweaty Ballmer's Arms? Or would that be Monkey-Arm?
Why would Ballmer be taking such a big risk to destroy Windows completely? Is he insane, or just way too much over-confident that whatever shit he imposes on his billion-strong user base, they will just lap it up for ever? Why not make 'touch' an option for those who like it, and continue with the Classic keyboard-mouse interface for the rest of the sane computing world?
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
I've used touch screens on stationary devices for ages. Think things like information kiosks, "whiteboard" like situations and similar. Oh wait, you mean personal stationary devices?
OK, I'm sure that there are many applications for stationary touch screens on 'personal computers'.
Example: Two designers manipulating something on the screen. There's only one mouse, and sometimes it's easier to just turn things around using a finger or stylus rather than pass the mouse across.
Example: Sometimes I'm reading something, and it's just easier (or perceived to be quicker) to point the stylus at the screen rather than manipulate the mouse.
Example: An older person with not so fine-motor control. Rather than move the darn mouse, just click with your finger!
I'm sure you can come up with other examples.
The point is, the touchscreen does not replace the mouse, just like the mouse did not replace the keyboard. And just like voice hasn't and won't replace the keyboard. The various input methods compliment each other.
HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
Windows 8 is also failing because there are not very many touch screens out there. Who wants to upgrade their hardware just to put a new OS on it? Even the hardware that is ONLY AVAILABLE with Windows 8 thanks to Microsoft's illegal and anti-competitive practices often enough does not come with a touch screen.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
The biggest problem I have with my Galaxy Tab is sites that rely on mouse over messages and mouse over drop down menus. Since there is no mouse cursor, I can't activate the message or drop down. nfl.com is a good example of this. You can navigate to "scores" easily but getting to "standings" is problematic. All of the sites that rely on a mouse cursor or Flash can be rebuilt to support tablets but I'm not sure this is an improvement.
The lack of mouse over messages is a problem with icons as well. If I don't know what an ambiguous icon does, the only way to find out is to poke the icon or wade through documentation.
Do the decision makers at Microsoft not have any rotator cuffs? Because just the thought of reaching out to touch a desktop monitor all day makes mine start to ache.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
I've been using a touchscreen with my laptop for 8 years. I use a combination of mouse, trackpad and screen touch.
I also find myself tapping my desktop monitor frequently, expecting it to work... So yeah, I'd love a touchscreen to augment my access.
It's very convenient that way.
GrpA
Enjoy science fiction? "Turing Evolved" - AI, Mecha, Androids and rail-gun battles. What more could you want?
Is all ok, unless you design your user interface based on having just one of those input devices disregarding the others. I.e. Windows 8 gestures are ok in a touchscreen or with a mouse, but with a touchpad moving the pointer could be taken as a gesture and do something not intended.
Touch screens and light pens suck on a vertical surface. Mount the display on about a 30 degree slope, like a sheet of paper on a drafting table, and the gorilla arm problem goes away.
I like my iPad, and the iPad mini has its place, but I really want to see iOS devices that are far larger, like standard B, C, and D sheets.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I'm fairly certain touch will become a stock feature on any display once the cost of adding it has become marginal. That does not mean it will be the only input source, or even the main input source. It does not need to be as long as it does not cost (much) more to have a touch-enabled screen - which it won't once the feature is embedded in the actual display panel/controller combination.
--frank[at]unternet.org
Stop propagating the myth Steve Jobs started that few people bother to test first hand.
Here's some articles from people who actually USED Windows 8:
Surprisingly, touchscreen laptops don't suck
Touchscreens and the Myth of Windows 8 ‘Gorilla Arm’
Microsoft could probably care less if touch doesn't take off. It's Kinect that they want to flourish. Why smear across the screen when you can switch between apps with the wave of an arm
ouch screens are meant to complement keyboards and mice, not replace them.
But you wouldn't know that from using the Win8 GUI- it feels like it's trying to force me into only using the touchscreen.
One can make the case of them being extremely practical in day-to-day work activities without interfering at all with how things are already done.
But that case has not yet been made. And this article points out one very obvious way in which it DOES interfere with how things are done.
I remember when 3-D graphics were first getting big. Everybody was talking about how soon the GUI would be a full-blown 3D environment, instead of the basically 2D one we still use. It didn't catch on because there wasn't any real advantage to using it for your basic OS functions. Yes, it's very nice to have a 3D API available at the OS level for applications to use, and it would be very nice to have the same thing with a touchscreen interface. But that doesn't mean you have to make the OS itself use that type of interface.
what killed touch computing during its first wave in the early 1980s
The PC era stuff they're talking about is At Least the third wave.
The first wave was in the 60s/70s very fuzzy was not there to see it.
The second wave was around 1980 in the pre-PC era. Basically, light pens. The end user need not be informed nor know the difference nor need the UI be modified to "touch" vs light pen.
Having lived thru it, there were three classes of light pens around 1980. One was exotic mhz class light sensors that "watched" the phosphor and the video waveforms, and correlated them together to give a simple X Y coordinate. I have no experience with them. I believe Apple had hardware for this?
The next class is "digital" with weird interfaces. My father had a light pen for a TRS80 model3 which used the cassette port and I believe it operated like a modem, where a 0 on the cassette port was 1100 hz and a 1 was 2200 hz or whatever, so a simple light controlled oscillator fed into the cassette input was fast, simple, and worked pretty well. It was not my hardware so I may be off in some details, although I am 100% certain it interfaced via the cassette interface. UI was much cruder than the hardware system above, and amounted to illumate/flash a square on the screen, do you see light? If so the pen is touching, if not, try flashing the next square. Worked pretty well, and fast, for 1 of n selections where n is less than 5 or so, not so good for full screen.
The next class, which I actually built and used for my radio shack color computer, was a simple light detector feeding into an analog input. Probably a joystick axis. This amounts to a CdS cell and a resistor in a model rocket cardboard adapter tube and some cabling. Identical software to above. Back in the olden days, home computer analog inputs were very crude and slow, so this was quite a bit slower than the cassette input 1100 hz or whatever device above. But it did work.
There were other gadgets mostly I/O prohibitive that amounted to a frame around a screen and flashing IR LEDs and looking at phototransistor outputs. Serious reflection problems, resolution problems, uses tons of I/O. Pretty fast, if done right, however. I suppose in the modern era, its too expensive to make a "touch" screen material when you could use two webcams and what amounts to something like a crude version of kinect software.
The main problem with touch-ish interfaces in 1980, oddly enough, was the same gorilla arm problem so recently discovered in 2013. Who ever would have guessed human anatomy would evolve so little in a mere two generations. As the endless wheel of IT revolves, as this technology is "reinvented" every decade or so, we'll make the same discovery that it sucks in 2020, 2030, 2040, 2050, repeat into infinity. Also the "human-computer" bandwidth of the UI was ridiculously slow, you could do more with a keyboard in 10 seconds than a touch/light screen in a minute, and back then people believed learning should provide rewards, rather than the modern "all are and will forever be noobs" and "trophies for all, equally" and all that garbage.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
The fact that Microsoft missed something this *basic* doesn't exactly bode well for the future of the company. HUMANS matter. Machines don't.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Vertical desktop touch screens have been with us since at least 1972. The University of Illinois' PLATO project didn't just deploy them on a significant scale, it exposed impressionable students to them.
Since then, many perfectly good touchscreen technologies have been available, commercially, and have been widely deployed e.g. in kiosks. And GUI software support behind them, e.g. Windows for Pen Computing, GO, etc. has been around for two decades.
Meanwhile, successful deployments of touchscreen technology have been widespread since, let's say, 1997 and the Palm Pilot--but always on small, handheld, horizontal-screen devices.
If large vertical touchscreens are really usable for sustained periods of time, and if they really add something of substantial value to mouse point-and-click GUI's, I find it very, very hard to believe they wouldn't have already gained traction.
I'd add that if multitouch gestures are really a significant improvement, I think it's at least as likely that they will take the form of detached, horizontal trackpads like the Apple Magic Trackpad. Horizontal surface, small-muscle coordination.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
It's called using a 'mouse' and 'keyboard'. I touch both of them and the way I touch and move them controls what is on the screen. I need to use the screen on my tablet and phone because I'm not at my desk. What works well on the desktop doesn't work on the phone, it needed different input techniques. That doesn't mean those techniques work well on the desktop.
.. would I like a touch screen on my desktop? A little, most mouse-type devices are limited in movement to do things like rotate, although with the appropriate software it's possible, just not as intuitive. Most of screen manipulation is simply clicking, double/long clicking, or moving and mice cal already do that. They can also be used to zoom and swipe with the appropriate software. You can't right click a touch screen, although long clicking kinda sorta is the same thing I guess. Definitely can't middle click. It would be handy for media manipulation at times. But how is that going to work on my 72" HDTV??? I need the capability for both to use when I need to.
Now
And explain to me why you decided that bigger icons on my desktop were a good idea, especially since most of the time I have these things you call 'windows' up and can't really see any of them when they are active so what's the purpose?? I have dual monitors, and most of the time I have windows open on both and most of my desktop is hidden. I'm doing this thing called 'work'. The little pop-up notifications that pop-up then fade away work just fine and are much more useful.
Windows 8 is not on my list of upgrades. If you want me to upgrade, give me something that is a reason to upgrade, like runs faster. I don't care about boot or standby times, my PC is on 24x7 and I rarely reboot. In fact, the only time I reboot is when you need to install updates because you haven't figured out how to do that without rebooting, like UNIX has done for decades you idiots.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
Add complement/compliment to brakes/breaks, lose/loose, rein/reign, toe/tow and all the other illiteracies spelling checkers have foisted on us.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Actually, I used a light pen on a PDP-1 and my problem was that I got a sort spot on the pad of my index finger. Normally, there was a shutter closed over the sensor, and you had a slide a little spring-loaded slide to uncap it. The spring was probably stronger than it should have been, and the slide had little ridges on it to give a better grip.
My finger didn't actually get blistered, but close. It got sore and painful enough to make me realize I needed to avoid using it for a day.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Anyone who spends that much time with their tablet probably already has a 'Gorilla Arm'. At least one.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Mount the screen at an angle. Recess it. Problem solved. Dell S2340T 23" Multi-Touch Monitor
While I'm not entirely certain gorilla arm is a big an issue as it's made to be (if extending your arm repeatedly was really that painful we wouldn't be using white boards would we?) I don't see my self using a vertical touch screen, putting touch that far away seems odd.
However a PC set out like a Nintendo DS (for lack of a better analogous device) would be awesome. Keyboard when you need it, drawing board when you need it, move things up to the top screen to view, type on and read then down to the bottom for in depth manipulation. Probably still with a mouse just to soften the change.
Fatigue: it costs more energy to move your whole arm and body to touch a screen than it takes to move a mouse pointer. That's what the article covers.
Obfuscation: Where the mouse pointer does cover 'some' pixels on the screen, a finger, and its attached hand and arm will obfuscate a much larger part of the view, which requires the user to remember what was under his finger before touching it. If this happens too often or a UI changes rapidly (eg a web site), this could lead to frustrations. Especially with subjects like the elderly.
Precision: You lose precision, even with a perfectly healthy human being, a fingerprint has a bigger surface than a pixel-perfect pointer, therefor your UI needs to be a lot more spacious to allow for users to "aim" correctly and allow for some correctional margin. If the UI design did not take this into account, this too can lead to frustration (mis-touching).
Windows 8 is a half-assed execution of some good ideas, the signature Microsoft symptom since Ballmer took over.
So far (in the time after year 2000), touch screens were usually on smartphones, tablets and lately some laptops. No need for horizontally extended arms there.
With the combination of desktop and 24" screen, the distance is larger and the problem will reappear. I also don't see ditching myself the desktop anytime soon.
C - the footgun of programming languages
Are you tapping on the screen because you keep losing the curser? If you shake the monitor the curser will center itself at 0,0. Try it -- shake it, but don't stir it :)
It's odd that everyone seems to be hung up on the aspect of pain related to actually holding your arm up in front of you and physically touching a touchscreen, and have seem to have completely forgotten that Microsoft also owns the Kinect technology. Touchscreen doesn't necessarily mean it needs to be physical (or at least I would hope not). Future designs in computing will likely take advantage of 3D space around a user.
Hell, given the fact that lawsuits will run rampant for RSI-related issues, ergonomics will become a priority for none other than liability. If I can rely on anything in our litigious society, it's certainly that.
Fun for 7 minutes then back to the controller.
IMO it's also in the usage scenarios, mobile usage is usually bursty as in short period, heavy touch usage and then a long period of nothing which allows for recuperation of energy and which lets the muscles rest.
Office work is usually stretched over multiple hours with a little less usage in average but rarely no usage at all, the absence of pure rest for your muscles for longer periods of times might influence an office worker in very negative ways. Once you get any sort of pain or inflammation, you'll be incapacitated in doing your job. By becoming tired, other factors get influenced as well, you become less cogent, which means that you might not always remember what was under your finger when touching something as you cannot see what your finger covers. Or when your muscles start tiring, your precision could suffer as you try certain arm positions that do not use a certain painful muscle. And this would incapacitate an office worker even further.
Microsoft's problem is that it just doesn't know how to do more than one thing. They want everything to look the same everywhere. Metro might be okay for phones and hand-held tablets. It's not okay for desktops. In fact, neither is Gnome Shell or whatever that monstrosity from Ubuntu is called... unity or something?
There is nothing WRONG with icons and windows and like that. Maybe there could be a better way to do it, but I don't think anyone has come up with one yet.
I remember the earlier Windows mobile attempts. Start button and all were there. PalmOS was king at the time and they couldn't wrap their heads around why. Using the technology of the day it was quite perfect. They were light, slim and effective. Microsoft comes along and starts pushing these dense, heavy bricks with ridiculously low battery life. Why?! Why does it have to look like desktop windows? Why does it have to be so heavy? It's like they only know how to do it one way and can't imagine a new one.
Even now, Microsoft struggles like hell to make something small and light. Why?!
Let's be generous saying that Win32, released in the early 90's (1993 right?) started about what? 20 years ago now? It's not the same as it was then... it's completely different... and yet somehow rather compatible with really old software. It has grown huge and slow. It has depended upon the steady growth of processor and memory speed and capacity over the years. It was not a very forward-thinking idea to follow that trend in hind-sight was it? People are still getting about the same amount of work or play done but needing a LOT more power to make it happen and it just can't scale down.
Meanwhile, Linux was also stated in the early 90's and has grown steadily as well. But it doesn't depend on any particular hardware or any particular configuraiton at all. It's a kernel and things are built around that kernel. Okay, Linux doesn't fit on a floppy any longer, but it's still light enough to run on some very modest hardware and it's proven time and time again. But not only does it scale down, it scales up as well! It's huge and it's tiny. Why is this "hobbyist" kernel from which whole OS distros are built able to do things Microsoft simply cannot?!
I'm not convinced that Microsoft can't do this. So I ask, why they are unwilling to. They have a LOT of frikken money. A LOT. Is it arrogance that they think they don't need to reboot themselves? Is it something they are lacking? Fear of change? Fear of trying something new -- the same reason there are so many movies which are just sequels and remakes of old successes? What is it?!
Windows RT shows some promise but by all things I have seen they are still thinking WinTel when they should be thinking of all new things and ideas. And like DEC Alpha, MIPS and PowerPC, support for not Wintel processors just won't live long because they want everything to "be the same." Well guess what? Users are okay with their phones and tablets not looking like their desktops. What "problem" is Microsoft looking to solve?
the oily film that develops could be harvested for use in gorilla arm ointments.
While not exactly a touchscreen, I spent many hours/days/weeks/months programming and using an HP 9845C back in the 1980s. It had a series of 8 soft-keys built into the lower edge of the display that could be controlled via software to display menu options and generate interrupts when pressed. Users of our software (and that of many others) used these soft-keys extensively to navigate information. Users also switched regularly back to the keyboard to enter queries, etc.
While I do remember some arm tiredness, the rapid dance of fingers across the soft-keys was so efficient for navigation that everyone loved the system. It might be worth reflecting on the details of this design. For example, the user could rest the hand on the display frame or the body of the computer without straying too far from the soft-keys; all of the "touchscreen" actions were at the lower edge of the display. Both of these features decreased arm strain.
FWIW, some applications on this machine used light-pens, which also required a touchscreen-like mechanic It might be worth exploring what use cases found these awkward devices to be wins. I notice that the Wikipedia article on light-pens claims Gorilla-arm led to the demise of light-pens, but without citation.
It seems to me, and many others, that Microsoft has an internal policy of deliberately making bad versions of Windows to increase sales. Look at the background of bad versions: Windows ME, Windows Vista, Windows 8.
A company that has a virtual monopoly can make money by deliberately abusing its customers. That's especially true when a product is complicated and customers don't have the time to become technically knowledgeable.
Many people who buy a Windows computer now will want to buy Windows 9 when it is released because Windows 8 is so weird. That tends to double sales, because customers don't pay an upgrade price, Microsoft requires them to pay for an entirely new operating system, even though there have been few changes between versions. Also, Microsoft has established multiple prices. Customers who bought Windows 7 because they didn't like Windows Vista paid far more per copy than computer manufacturers.
It seems that abuse is deliberate Microsoft company policy. Yes, Microsoft management is incompetent, but also knowingly destructive. For example, a court case established that a Microsoft manager had said before Windows Vista was released that it was not ready to be released. Knowing that, Vista was released anyway.
Microsoft has been alternating bad and good versions of operating systems since the days of DOS. For example, DOS version 3.0 had serious bugs. DOS version 3.1 fixed the bugs. Customers who owned DOS 3 were required to pay the full retail price for DOS 3.1, even though there were few changes.
At times like these, I feel so happy that I don't have any Microsoft Stock options. Seriously, as someone who is forced to use computers all day, the thought of having to stick my arm out and touch my monitors (with my sometimes grubby and greasy fingers) for hours and hours.... it's just so awful! Who are these "geniuses" at MS?! How can a company with so much resources be so inept in decision making?
When you have an iPad (especially a black one) and a macbook (especially the pro that has an edge like an ipad) you end up doing this after using the ipad for an extended period of time. Never happens on my macbook air (silver metallic edge and my white iPad) though :)
My son (almost 4) tends to come at my macbook trying to tap on things. He is used to my old, black iPad and expects the screen to be touch :)
My guess is that this decision was made by somebody that a) does not listen to experts b) shoots-the-messenger and c) did not test any touch-interface for any reasonable length of time and d) is unable or unwilling to research things for 5 minutes. The normal desktop PC interface is unergonomic enough, adding a vertical touchscreen turns it into a torture-device.
My diagnosis is terminal Dunning-Kruger effect in the MS executive level. They just do not think the real world applies to them as well. Time for them to die and their anti-competitive, anti-innovation monopoly with them.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Just like MS makes tons of money by selling MS branded mice and keyboards I have a feeling that MS branded "elbow support cushions" are the next big thing for them.
Sanity is the trademark of a weak mind. -- Mark Harrold
...aren't we running out of helium? Will we even still be able to *build* touchscreens in the future?
Well - kids are the main drawback to touchscreen for me - my iPad is sticky... I would sincerely hate to invest $$$s in a decent screen that needs a decent clean every time I need to use it.
If you can't control a mouse sitting on a surface that you can rest your hand on, why would you be able to control a finger held out at arm's length?
That's leaving aside the fact that you can change the gain for a mouse, pad or trackball. For a touchscreen you're stuck at 1:1.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
It's not that Microsoft doesn't know what customers want. It's that they are so arrogant they think they know what is better for the customer. Think, the US government...
Don't be too sure that touch screens won't appear on PCs. At one time, PCs had only one monitor (can you believe it?) What's wrong with having a touch screen instead of a keyboard and multiple monitors?
Don't stop where the ink does.
The idea that people don't want to stretch their arms out for hours on end seems sort of obvious. At the end of the day, touchscreens are ill suited for real data entry.
I feel like people are jumping the gun though. I love MS bashing as much as anyone, but remember Windows 7 is still around. The longevity of XP proved that MS can procrastinate and fuck around and release a garbage OS like Vista without losing desktop market share. People just stick with the old one.
If 8 fails, which seems likely, MS won't lose that much sleep. Hell, judging by XP they could spin out 7 for another decade to get the next one right.
Touch screens on laptops, and even more so on desktops, can useful as accessories for occasional light use. UI features that allow for direct manipulation could be a nice touch. (haha.) But a UI that is strongly touch-centric is just a stupid idea, classic "me too" from incompetent marketeers who have no clue why or how things actually work for customers.
They aren't popular, but they do exist. Dell makes one, the ST2220T. We have one at work. It is a 22" monitor (IPS) with an optical touch screen interface that can do 2 point multi-touch. It works ok. Windows 7 works natively with it and goes in to touch mode when you plug it in.
However the fact that it has existed for quite some time, and that you've never heard of it, tells you how popular it has been.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Obviously W8 is a complete disaster but having a touch screen on a laptop can be nice when implemented correctly. Ergonomically, it makes a lot of sense actually. I compared the strain on my arm when swiping my fingers across the screen of my laptop and when using the mouse. When I rest my elbow in front of the laptop, the strain on my arm is even less then when using a mouse, because when using a mouse I have to retract my arm and can only support the weight of my arm with my hand. When touching my screen, I barely have to move my arm. I move my hand slightly forward and I am able to touch my screen anywhere. Another big bonus is the directness. Using a mouse goes like: looking-for-mouse; move-hand-to-mouse; moving-mouse-pointer-to-correct-screen-location, clicking-mouse-button. With a touch screen I can simply: move arm 10 centimeters forward; press whatever I want on the screen with my finger. It's just more convenient and faster.
But it would be a mistake to use the same UI which was designed for use by a mouse as a touch-screen UI. If a user interacts with the UI using the touch screen, UI elements like menus should be larger and behave differently than when they are accessed with a mouse. For example, scrolling a page could be a swipe on the screen, but using a mouse a swipe would be awkward. Specifically, the mouse paradigm where you move a little pointer on the screen and press a button must not be copied to the touch-screen paradigm, such that pressing a finger on the screen is equivalent for the OS a mouse-button press. Such an implementation would be disastrous. Instead, the UI should adapt to larger fingers, be less picky on where someone lands his fingers, and use larger, dynamically appearing GUI elements so users can see what they are doing, as their hand and fingers are now in front of the screen. And use swipe gestures. Lots.
I think laptops with touch screens are the future, but I suppose it will take some iterations before Microsoft and Apple understand the differences and optimize their GUIs for use by touch screen as input device. In the mean time, creating a single UI for both mouse and touch-screen input is plain dumb and a waste of effort.
My karma ran over your dogma
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Many people spend entire workdays at drafting desks. In principle, that's a perfectly fine way of working; of course, hardware manufacturers need to catch up.
Windows 8's problem isn't its support for touch, it's its poor UI and bad integration of the legacy cruft with the new UI. Shame, too, because Microsoft had a real opportunity to change things for the better.
We have the monitor sitting where it does because it is easy and non-stressful to look at. You keep your neck in a neutral position and can see what you are doing. Your mouse and keyboard are then on the desk for the same reason with regards to your hands. If I move the monitor down to the desk, I'll suffer from neck and back pain in a hurry, because I'll be working hunched over.
Also, if you make your input and output device the same device, then you have the problem that your hands are blocking a large part of your output device. My keyboard is pretty large and my hands block off most of it from view when I type. Why would I want to do that with a display?
You could have two displays, but then the question is again why. Keyboards are mice offer excellent tactile feedback because they are physical devices. I can touch type at 80wpm+ on a physical keyboard, literally with my eyes closed. I can't come anywhere near that on a touchscreen.
Touchscreens are useful only in some situations, mainly where you have a limited amount of space and as such your display and input devices need to be the same. There is just no reason to want them on the desktop. They are more expensive, and less usable, than what we already have.
I think people forget that touchscreens are NOT new. They've been around for a long time, yet there's been no interest in bringing them to desktop computing on a large scale. There are plenty of reasons for it, ergonomics top among them.
"Why is mouselessness seemingly so important to people who are sworn off Windows anyway?"
Because the Linux distros are moving in that direction as well. Two new desktop environments have been created for Linux, to revolt against the touch GUI's. I'm currently in Mate right now. Cinnamon doesn't really appeal to me. Enlightenment is the other option, but it's still not ready for prime time. I've abandoned Gnome3 and I had already left KDE when version 4 came out.
The two desktops that I am most familiar, most comfortable with, are Gnome2 and Windows Classic. The distro that gives me what I'm comfortable with will gain my allegiance. Right now, that means Linux Mint Debian.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Comment removed based on user account deletion
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bw7LQposDT4DM2ZpbXMtX1BSWk9HWkNtMGFlUW0zdw/edit?pli=1 if anyone is interested.
This is the effects of RTC fatigue and acute onset is evident for users where any form of continuous movement is required but can be minimized by allowing the elbow to bear the strain rather than the shoulder. Rather simple ergonomic principles really...
1) Why would you be poking at the screen if you're using a desktop computer in traditional desktop computer ways? Stupid is as stupid does. Don't be stupid
2) If you're using a laptop, the touch screen in a few inches away, and is actually less work to reach than a mouse.
3) If you're using a large form-factor screen for a touch-like activity, odds are (like any designer using pen input screens, as they have for two decades) the screen is either flat to the work surface, or close to it.
So the article is basically saying that its uncomfortable to do something you'd be a moron to do in the first place? Got it.
This is WHY doing an "iron-cross" on the rings is SO hard (I used to be able to do one in highschool/college) - for the EXACT reasons you noted no less!
* Anyone here, don't even HOLD anything, & try this (only takes a minute or so)...
HOLD YOUR ARMS STRAIGHT OUT TO YOUR SIDES (not in front of you), & 'whirl' them @ your hands in small circles - slow, fast, won't matter (not after too long, lol)...
You tell us - what "gave out" on you first, due to lactic acid buildup (mostly, the rest is "poor construction" in this area of our bodies, as Runaway1956 posted)...
For me? It's deltoids (shoulder muscle). THIS? This is just like doing "skiers exercise" (another 'killer') around your knees... no matter HOW MUCH you train? We're just NOT BUILT RIGHT to do this kind of stuff @ the joints!
APK
P.S.=> On the "iron cross" - you could 'cheat' (in a way) by bending your arms @ the elbow, but it's obvious to judges you're not tough enough to do so WITHOUT doing that (I never met anyone that hand the shoulder & lats to hold it perfect either - not once)...
... apk
I remember blackboards. Teacher would stand in front of the blackboard, spend maybe thirty seconds scribbling something, wipe her hands, then wander around the room for two or three minutes, while blathering away on the importance of what she just wrote. Then, she would return to the blackboard, blather for another minute and a half, turn around, and write something new up there.
That corresponds to how people use touchscreen gestures on a desktop/laptop. You don't touch the screen all the time, just reach every now and then.
My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
It's under preferences, universal access, keyboard shortcuts. Assign the keystroke of your choice. Enjoy.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
... but why don't they replace the keyboard+mouse with a touch-enabled device? It's like they never considered that possibility. You get to keep the entire screen estate but you add complex input to it.
uhm...
Vm will need full PCI / PCI-E / usb / firewire / ect IO pass though and away to get full use of video cards.
will need sideloading and lose to no sand boxing.
Lot's of pro apps like adobe CS / autocad / video and sound apps / ECT will not work well in a sandbox. Also over laping windows is nice even more so on a big screen.
windows explorer has no metro app from MS so you need desktop mode to do build in stuff also need desktop mode for calculator.
Metro is just stapled on top of the old desktop poorly.
Yeah. If they're expecting that, they're fucking nuts.
No. Plain-Jane PC sales don't have the room for explosive growth that tablets and phones do.
The problem is, the devices they're betting on are media "consumption" devices.
That's fine and all.
But there's still a HUGE installed base of PCs whose sole purpose is "productivity".
These machines see almost no benefit from tacking a touchscreen on. And they do things that are either impractical for touch interfaces or just flat out unfeasible.
The rasputinian PC has been "dying" for over 30 years now. As a form factor/concept, it isn't going away. Period.
Anyone who tells you different is an intellectual cripple or lying and probably trying to sell you something unsavory.
Give it the same credence deserved of the 2012 Apocalypse. (None.)
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
Have gnu, will travel.
So I've been using a Microsoft Surface as my primary machine (everything except software development) for almost two months now and I'm not having any problem with "gorilla arm". And I don't think most people will. The reason being that the only time that I need to touch the screen a lot is when I'm consuming content (reading blogs, watching videos, etc.) For that I ditch the keyboard and hold it like a tablet. When I'm creating things, i.e., e-mail, writing proposals and documentation, my hands don't really leave the keyboard very much. I'm typing this on my Surface and I'm not having any problems because there's no need to touch the screen when creating content.
Why doesn't Slashdot ever get slashdotted?
Metro is problematic from the start. Microosoft's stated reason for Metro is that they believe that touch computing is the future and that enterprise will demand it. The other reason for Metro is that they want a consistent interface across all windows platforms. The problem is that there is not many touch laptops out there and they cost much more. The updating tiles make sense, but you cannot filter information that is being displayed. The big issue is no start menu. Sure you can type in the name of the app, but what if you cannot remember all the programs you have. You can install Smart Menu, but why should we have to ....? Why are the Metro apps all full screen only. Multitasking just became a big headache...! Business and especially mid to large business are going to be very reluctant to implement win8 and be forced to spend lots of money to retrain their users on a unintuitive GUI. Most businesses are sticking with Win7 or are probably using the Win7 downgrade for new machines. Does touch make sense, possibly. Perhaps some users will use the touch only sometimes. In the end I think we are going to see either a Win8 SP2 reloaded or they will rush out a version of Win9.
We have one and we don't use the touch features for exactly that reason. They are a great idea until you are sitting in front of one with no mouse.
Weird, a pun that actually is appropriate?
What the parent is partially suggesting is that Microsoft intentionally sabotages their own product to boost future profit which seems to me a bit like "Broken Window Fallacy" in economics. If you are in the business of building and installing windows, wouldn't be a good idea to sneak around and break people's windows? It turns out that this is a bad idea because people end up spending their budgets more on Windows and less on other items. With that in mind, suggesting Microsoft purposely released a borked Windows 8 to improve sales for Windows 9 is crazy due to the amount of money they would have to knowingly flush. And just like the window company, there is a big risk where if they are caught they are DOOMED because customers will flee to competitors and alternatives.
Sales where big on Win95, XP and Win7. Was that because of the stuff between? Partially but for a reason not mentioned: time. If people hear how clunky and broken Windows ME was they sit on their Win95 machine until XP came out. By the time that happened hardware had nearly turned over to completely different class so buying an entirely new machine made a lot of sense. Sure WinME sucked but it was more the case that many had to buy new hardware by the time XP released. Do we have a window when Win9 will come? If the pace of hardware dev from AMD and Intel keeps moving on track then people will feel they need to buy a new machine regardless of how much they love or hate Win8 or how much they love or hate Win9.
Then you lay the device flat and use it like the orignal Surface 3d devices. :)
How is JavaScript not type-checked? You can't do object operations with an integer or vice versa or call a method that an object doesn't implement; trying to do so will throw a runtime exception. Or do you mean that you can't statically check that all assignments to a particular variable will be references to objects with a particular prototype?
I've seen people typing papers on an iPad with a little bluetooth keyboard when they've got a full-size laptop sitting right next to them.
Might it be because they started to type the paper on the iPad and haven't yet had a chance to copy it to the cloud and then copy it back to the full-size laptop to work on it there? Or because they know they'll have to leave the full-size laptop at home or wherever before they finish the paper?
Whoever thought that it would be a good idea to have multiple files with identical names but different cases should be shot.
When you establish user-friendly equivalence classes between sets of code points, you have to be careful. Even if the mapping from lowercase to uppercase is one-to-one and onto in ASCII, it's not the case in general in Unicode. For example, should the German letter "ß" be counted as equivalent to the letters "SS" or "SZ"? Should the Latin letter A and the similarly shaped Greek and Cyrillic letters be counted as equivalent?
My datapoint contradicts that claim a bit:
I've had a laptop with a touch screen (hp pavillon dv3) for two years and a bit, and I use touchpad AND keyboard AND touch screen to interact. When I want to select a big button or activate a window I find it far more convenient to touch the screen (with the back of my finger so it doesn't leave greasy prints), than wiggling the mouse around so I can see where the pointer is, moving it to the right place and clicking. (I sometimes even first touch approximately the point I want to hit and then move the mouse for fine tuning).
I'd even add that I miss that at work and when I use another (touchless) laptop. All the time I just want to bring that window to front or move a window away (I'm on linux so when the alt key is pressed (with my left hand) I can move a window around with my right hand as easily and naturally as moving a piece of paper around on my desk.
I get pain in my wrists and fingers due to mouse and keyboard usage, not the occasional touch.
I'd HATE having to do everything by touch however. I want my mouse AND my touch screen.
I don't really get articles like this. Just because win8 CAN be used on on touchscreen doesn't mean that will be the only way to interact with that device. Everyone loves to bash MS for their lack of foresight, how they are going to alienate all their customers, etc., etc. But they created an OS that was flexible enough to run on mobile devices in just that start menu mode (metro) or upgrade win7 for use in workstations or desktop pcs. Kinda cool I think. Have the bashers USED win8? Maybe, maybe not. I use it all day, every day. It appears to me to be a nice desktop upgrade to windows 7, nothing more. Why? Because I use it as a DESKTOP not a touch device. I never see the start screen unless I want to see it. This is the same start screen that guys like David Pogue claim will take over your computer. Gorilla Arm? Give me a break. Who uses touchscreens to develop code, write word documents or get business work done? Touchscreens are not desktop pc replacements. They are great for certain things, but they do NOT replace the workstation.
I touchpad like Apple's Magic Trackpad would be beneficial for Windows 8 uptake. There are a couple on the market but I don't know how well they work. They might need support from Microsoft to be truly as good as Apple's is on the Mac.
Next, make a mid-size keyboard. That is, a keyboard with the standard inverted T arrow arrangement with the page, delete, end, etc buttons above it, but without the numeric keypad. A keyboard between the compact ones and the full-size ones. Why? So you can place the trackpad next to the keyboard and still have room for a mouse.
I use my Magic Trackpad almost exclusively on the Mac, but there are a couple things for which a mouse is better. A more compact but still full-featured keyboard would make it easier to have both available.
Brilliant deduction that touch took off on pads and phones. On the other hand, how the hell do you use them without touch? It "might" work on a laptop but on a desktop? Gimme a break. Lean back in a chair and put your KB on your lap. Go ahead. Then use touch. I suppose it's a good way to get some exercise.
Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
Oops, wasn't logged in.
Did you actually augment your PC experience with a touch screen and use it for 8 hours a day, or are you simply regurgitating what others have said for more clicks on your blog?
What bollocks. I'm at work right now. My muscles get a good rest while I casually scroll through slashdot. I use a scroll wheel on the left side of the keyboard to give my mouse hand a rest.
We have the monitor sitting where it does because it is easy and non-stressful to look at. You keep your neck in a neutral position and can see what you are doing.
I don't get why people are wound up in false dichotomies when thinking about Windows 8 UI (which they clearly haven't tried with a touchscreen).
I don't think anybody seriously wants to use touch on large vertical monitors. You can still use the mouse or, arguably faster, keyboard shortcuts. On laptops and the Surface, however, the screen is positioned close to the keyboard. And then there is this ridiculous mental picture of people staring at the screen while continuously holding their hands in front of it. You really can't see how this works, have never used a tablet?
My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
and neither is it for any other normal desktop user who sits in a comfy chair.
Because making something small and light means MS's profit will be small and light. So they go towards cramming everything under the hood in the hopes that people will continue to feel like they are getting their money's worth. Apple gets away with their profit margins because they pay attention to detail (forgetting Apple maps for now) and people actually will pay for software married well with hardware. Linux and MS have taught people that software has no value, hence Linux has been tough to monetize and MS has their current problems.
Touch input does not need to be done from the screen. Both Microsoft and Logitech have mice that recognize touch gestures across their surface.
Logitech also makes a touch pad that supports multi-touch gestures.
These device should alleviate the problem of "gorilla arm", but in the case of touch sensitive mice, I'm not sure they're a good idea. I tried using the Microsoft Touch Mouse for a few weeks and found it very annoying. Perhaps it's just me, but I found it would frequently respond to some "gesture" I hadn't intended. Usually this resulted in a window being minimized accidentally, but I once lost a considerable amount of typing when the mouse though I made a "back" gesture while posting online. I've stopped using the touch mouse and have ordered the touch pad instead.
Same here. I'm in terrible shape, haven't been to the gym in over a year. Picked up a broom just now and held it at arms length with one hand out to the side for 5 minutes, which seems long enough to prove the point.
As a teenager I heard a similar challenge involving holding the empty hand horizontally at arms length for five minutes. After 25 minutes without the slightest tiredness I got bored and quit. I figured I was just too skinny or something -- twiggy nerd arms must be easier to hold up than big muscly jock arms.
I'm pretty sure this "can't hold arm straight out for n minutes" is pure myth. Strange that so few people actually bother to try it.
On a US keyboard. Maybe.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
That makes sense to me. That seems the way the original design was done.
However, the issue is whether Microsoft tests their new operating systems before they ship them. Windows XP had serious bugs until Service Pack 2.
I don't know about others, but my reflex, still from the olden CRT days, when lusers start pointing at my screen is to yell out "get your fingers off my screen". If they actually touch my screen, they lose a finger. With touchscreen phones I have the inane habit to keep cleaning the screen because of all the fingerprints that get left on it.
Ok, I know, there is no coating that you can ruin with your greasy prints, but old reflexes die hard.
To make a really off the wall analogy, I saw some interesting analsys of Al Queda, looking it as, essentially, a PR firm doing off the wall stunts. 9/11 was the end for them, they can't top it, and it set the bar for them so high that, they only have down to go from there.
Likewise, Microsoft has done it. My wife was just ranting about this when her new laptop came with windows 8.... Windows 7 was it. They finally did it. Windows works, and works pretty well. It has worked well for a few versions now. Remember when your windows install would accumulate so much crud that if you didn't reinstall it every 6 months it just got worst and worst? I dual boot for games mostly and, I can't even think of anything to complain about other than having to mess with non-obvious settings to get it working with samba.
What is there to do after it works? Look at Linus and the kernel. He was a much bigger rock star when the Kernel didn't fully work, and was rough around the edges. As time goes on, who pays much attention to the kernel anymore? The project is still there and worked on.... but the kenel is boring now, because its working, its done. Its just peripheral stuff where its interesting. Linus is still a rock star, everyone still knows who he is, but now he only makes the front page when there is some drama.
That fine for a project like the kenrel though. The kernel makes no money and has no employees. Many devs may be paid for their work, but, its not like its anybodies product.
Microsoft however, does have products, a whole ecosystem of them.... but alternatives exist. They built a platform and exploited it to make huge market share. They got their first, and profited from it. Now, there really is just nowhere to go, and everybody else is steadily making progress, eventually they catch up. They may have nowhere to go but down
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
That is all.
I recall Microsoft being called an "800lb Gorilla" back in the day. Calling arm strain caused by Windows 8 touch screens on a desktop "Gorilla Arm" made me chuckle a bit. :)
What is wrong isn't putting touch on a desktop, it's putting touch on a desktop and then configuring it as if it were meant to be controlled by keyboard and mouse. If you want a touch PC, you need to put the screen flat on the desk, tilted up towards you. THAT is the future of touch computing. Making you gigantic monitor touch enabled is technology for technology sake, without enough thought put into how it should be used.
Future touch computers should look like a block of cheese on its side.
or else!
Gorilla arm smearing banana residue all over touchscreen...
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
I don't find it that bad. In fact, one you switch to desktop mode it is basically like any other windows version. And I actually like the new "start menu".
And one of the think I really like is that they push something that actually new to the public and not a ripoff of Apple's stuff. And I sincerely think that they are holding something good here.
Like everything new, it is perfectible. And I think that Microsoft (and their competitors too) will closely monitor how users will react once they get familiar with the UI so that can move in the right direction.
As for the "gorilla arm" syndrome I think it is obivous for everyone at Microsoft that people wont spend 8 hours a day tapping their laptop screen without interruption. The touchscreen is just another input device, like the keyboard and the mouse. Users and UI designers will learn about whatever device is the best for a given task. Afterall people have no problem using both keyboard and mouse.
And in case you ask : No, I am no Microsoft shill, I mostly use linux, windows 7 and android. I just decided to try windows 8 a bit and it didn't turn as bad as people make it.
MS is betting big on NUI input - not just touch. There's a HUGE difference. The Kinect can easily be used for NUI input. As can many other technologies that don't require actually touching anything - hence gorilla arms are just a small piece of the interaction picture. Eye-tracking interfaces can even provide NUI output that could operate W8 without changing anything on the Windows side.
I don't know how many years on this Earth I got left. I'm going to get real weird with it. - Frank Reynolds
The article is right on, but Microsoft didn't do anything wrong here. They didn't make touching the screen a necessary or preferred way of dealing with the operating system, they didn't make it necessary for programs. They just upgraded OS support for touch. And what's wrong with that? Sure for most applications it's not necessary, but maybe 1% of programs can use it and for these programs it's a good thing, too. It also lets PCs run tablet apps if they want to, without clunky finger - mouse converters.
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
Without the Chair throwing enabled, touch screens such as Win 8 are an Epic Fail.
If you can't shout at someone and throw your Win 8 tablet at the wall, you quickly run out of chairs.
Right, Monkey Boy Ballmer?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The problem is 'the tingling ache that [comes] from extending my right arm to manipulate that screen for hours, an affliction that has earned the nickname of gorilla arm.
Disclosure: I don't use W8 or any other touch interface on either laptop or desktop, only on my smartphone and tablet. I saw this technology being sold on either QVC or HSN; I don't remember which, but you can likely see it this week at CES in Las Vegas.
Gorilla arms need not be the problem. All we need is hardware with a 3" to 5" multi-touch touchpad and agreement on what to use on screen to represent finger position. It won't be easy at first to know where to touch the pad to match the screen, but it won't be long before our brains figure this out and then we'll be productive again.
Remember the first time you used a mouse? It's not much different, and we learned the mouse.