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.
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...
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.
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.
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’
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.
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.
all you need to know is that large touch overlays can easily be more expensive than the display itself, at least as an add-on product. even if they have substantial utility, people won't buy it if it costs too much. Indeed, they do have substantial utility, but the cost benefit ratio is shit compared to a three dollar mouse.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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
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.
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.
The "Broken Window Fallacy" is about the overall economy, having windows to repair is good for the window repairer.