I'm not talking about their marketing, I'm talking about typing without having an armrest. Typing with a stretched out arm is no fun when doing that for an extensive period of time. Period.
Oh, okay. I thought we were past flogging that particular dead horse, but I guess not.
I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would try typing on the touch screen when there's a keyboard right in front of them. Nor do I understand why it needs to be said (much less re-said over and over again). You don't hear people saying a mouse is a bad idea because it doesn't accept verbal instructions. Anyone with a better-than-two-digit IQ can determine that a screwdriver makes a lousy hammer.
So now honestly, Phil, what was your point? You obviously don't REALLY believe that "it's hard to type on a vertical surface" is a valid argument against touch screens on computers with keyboards, so what the hell ARE you talking about?
You obviously don't REALLY believe that "it's hard to type on a vertical surface" is a valid argument against touch screens on computers with keyboards, so what the hell ARE you talking about?
Computers without keyboards. How on Earth is this confusing for you? The idea behind a touchscreen is to remove the need for a physical keyboard and a mouse.
The inability of mouse and keyboard to address more than one "point" at a time.
That's a good general point about when touch screen might be preferable to a mouse too. I love seeing industrial strength professional computing setups, always impresses me. Thanks for posting.
I'm not talking about their marketing, I'm talking about typing without having an armrest. Typing with a stretched out arm is no fun when doing that for an extensive period of time. Period.
Oh, okay. I thought we were past flogging that particular dead horse, but I guess not<span style="line-height:1.4em;">.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would try typing on the touch screen when there's a keyboard right in front of them. Nor do I understand why it needs to be said (much less re-said over and over again). You don't hear people saying a mouse is a bad idea because it doesn't accept verbal instructions. Anyone with a better-than-two-digit IQ can determine that a screwdriver makes a lousy hammer.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">So now honestly, Phil, what was your point? You obviously don't REALLY believe that "it's hard to type on a vertical surface" is a valid argument against touch screens on computers with keyboards, so what the hell ARE you talking about?</span>
You obviously don't REALLY believe that "it's hard to type on a vertical surface" is a valid argument against touch screens on computers with keyboards, so what the hell ARE you talking about?
Computers without keyboards. How on Earth is this confusing for you? The idea behind a touchscreen is to remove the need for a physical keyboard and a mouse.
If THAT'S what people are talking about when they say the idea is ludicrous, then I concur. That's sure as hell not what *I* mean when I say I want touch screen capability on my computer. I mean take the existing form factor and add touch capability to the screen. What you're describing sounds like an iPad. If I wanted THAT I could buy one NOW.
That's tangental to the discussion in THIS particular case though, as I made it VERY clear that I meant existing form factor with touch added, NOT a touch-ONLY computer, explicitly stating my support for using the keyboard for typing. I don't know how some people keep overlooking that.
The inability of mouse and keyboard to address more than one "point" at a time. With a touch screen (and presumably a touch pad) it should be possible to grab two points at once and manipulate them simultaneously. Like pinch/pull, or this fader goes up while that one goes down.
Also quicker selection of elements. On a screen with many items displayed, it's faster and more intuitive to "touch" the one your eyes have selected than it is to click on it with a mouse. I probably wouldn't buy a touch screen just for that alone, but I can tell you that it made the difference between "impractical" and "works great" for a playback system in our control room. (You'll see, below.)
Yes, I can see the point of having touch screen functionality; I have a Surface, and I find that I use the keyboard for typing and I use the touch screen for most other kinds of interaction (occasionally needing a mouse for precision work).
As I've repeatedly said, I am not debating the value of touch; there's enormous value to be had. The point I'm making is that it is poor design to simply take an existing iMac and slap a touch screen on it. Again, what problem are you solving?
In this context you already have a touch pad and keyboard.
To make this proposition truly valuable, I think you'd need to do two things:
1) Enable the user to angle the screen appropriately and;
2) Have an OS and applications that are designed for touch interfaces. If you just take what's there and slap touch on it, then you are not only solving very little, but you're just adding another layer of superfluous interaction (for example, your icon sizes haven't changed, your menu structures are the same - you aren't maximising for touch).
Apple are, I think, unlikely to do this because it doesn't make good design sense. If they go down the route of a touch screen on a desktop or laptop device, I think they will complement that with some genuinely useful touch-enabled changes. And that is the key.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lorin Schultz
I guess I don't understand what you perceive as the limitations inherent in present systems. Obviously software has to be able to accommodate touch gestures, but even if a particular app added no NEW capability at all and simply provided the means to control it as-is via the screen, it would be an improvement. Obviously it would be BETTER if a title is customized to take full advantage of touch, but it's not NECESSARY.
You've said you don't think current hardware is good enough, but you haven't said why. I gave you a bunch of real-world examples of how and why there simply isn't a problem even with existing form-factors. If you can explain what stands between a user and effective use of a touch screen using existing hardware I'm prepared to be persuaded, but considering that I'm already doing just that at work all day, every day, your arguments will have to be pretty convincing.
Your first paragraph is where we differ, I think. A current application that just "adds touch" to its existing structure doesn't necessarily mean that there's an automatic improvement. In many cases, the opposite may be true (I've seen so many cases where "traditional" apps have been moved to a touch screen and the interface becomes cumbersome - it was designed for a mouse, not a finger tip). This is the part that Apple fortunately understands really well.
You have to take full advantage of touch if you're going to make touch a central component - if you're going to make it truly a value-add for most people, most of the time.
The examples you've given me aren't great because they are very specific to your role. Now, in your role, that's great - have at it. I can see the usefulness there, absolutely.
But that bears no relationship whatsoever with the use cases in the broader world - what you have to do, really, is make the argument that applying a touch screen to existing form factors and software is going to be workable in the mainstream market, because that's what's relevant in this discussion.
I'll just round this off by pointing out again that I'm a fan of touch, and I can definitely see the use of it (as I said, I have a Surface that I use regularly). I can see the productivity benefits there, and the comfort and ease-of-use benefits.
But, again, if Apple were to go this way, they would really have to design a product that takes full advantage of touch control. Apple are all about restraint; they won't add something unless it really makes sense. Think about your iPhone and the way it controls and animates. Think about its design standards, inherent in iOS. And then compare that to OS X. The two serve different purposes and work with different interface mechanisms.
This is not to say that OS X can't be made "touch friendly" (it already has some iOS aspects to it that start moving it down this path), but it's not quite there yet.
If THAT'S what people are talking about when they say the idea is ludicrous, then I concur. That's sure as hell not what *I* mean when I say I want touch screen capability on my computer. I mean take the existing form factor and add touch capability to the screen.
Well I certainly missed it. But sure, a touch screen for occasional tapping could be useful, though I wouldn't know who on earth Apple is going to make OSX scale up icons and such for a touch friendly experience. Dedicated apps, that's something else.
I've been thinking carefully about how best to respond to that. See, I was VERY clear about what *I* was talking about, and yet people responded to me by referring to something other than what I wrote. The people to whom I responded made no mention of form factor whatsoever, so I'm left wondering where the reading comprehension problem actually lies?
That's in addition to your typical rude, condescending, "I'm-better-than-you" tone and language. You're certainly entitled to your preferences and wants, but you are NOT entitled to insult anyone whose views differ from your own.
Finally, you dismiss what I'm describing to your own detriment. My limited experience with simply adding touch to a desktop UI is very positive. It's not the full realization of the potential touch could bring, but it works fine. What's YOUR experience with it, Mr. Expert?
Until you get your hands on a touch screen machine and use it in real life, please just shut up. You have no idea what you're talking about.
The image you included here looks pretty awkward. Notice the way the arm is so elevated and stretched out? This would become very uncomfortable over a sustained period of time.
Having said that, I think the form factor where this stuff is really tricky is the desktop, rather than the laptop. I think Steve Jobs discussed this at one stage as well. The idea is that for touch interfaces to work really well and to feel really natural, you need to have a certain screen angle and position, as well as a certain distance from your face. Desktops as they are generally don't cater well for that, especially because they anticipate that your arm will be elevated in front of you, which isn't an ergonomic solution.
Aside from this - and as I mentioned earlier - simply putting a touch screen on a MacBook (as in your image) would be a pretty terrible idea. It wouldn't be fit for purpose. Doing touch well involves a specific fusion of hardware and software. At the very least, you'd need a touch-friendly OS (and OS X itself is not designed this way).
So as I said earlier, I have no objection to Apple creating touch-based iMacs and MacBooks, but only if they do it right - that is, not just for the sake of it, but because there's a real problem to solve with a real solution. :-)
Well I personally like touch screens but the more I think about it, I probably wouldn't buy an iMac if it had one as I've never been a big fan of the all in ones. Though I guess technically the Lenovo ThinkVision 4K monitor I ordered can be called one as well as it has an integrated Nvidia K1 chip but it will be used as monitor, the other part is just a bonus. The Apple machine that I would love to see a touchscreen on is the MacBook Air, then make it so it can rotate 180 degrees like the Lenovo Yoga, that would be just ultimate for me. A lot of you might not have the need for this tech but it makes me happier then a mosquito locked in a cabin for the night at a fat camp. Though again it's not such a big deal if Apple does it or not, I have a Surface Pro 3 and a new humongous 20" 4K tablet from Panasonic waiting for me when I get home, hopefully by then the new monitor will also be their, giving me 3 touch screen input devices for me to create a complete virtual mixing table.
Something like this, I can't wait, Mac Pro, Lenovo 4K 28" bendable monitor using good software, oh man, drrrroooollll.
Hey Lorin, before I choose the software do you have any opinions, what would you use?
I've been thinking carefully about how best to respond to that.
If you’d just read in the first place, you wouldn’t have needed to.
It’s blindingly obvious that people do not believe that a fully multitouch UX for the desktop is ludicrous. You’re one of the few who would say so, and your only alternative is a cobbled together implementation that has performed extremely poorly in every consumer and professional use to date. If you had read the posts, you would have seen that the ‘ludicrous’ thing would be to continue to suggest such a UI, not the other way around.
Finally, you dismiss what I'm describing to your own detriment.
A future in which vertical touchscreen laptops and desktops don’t exist is not my detriment.
"Kiss my ass, shithead."
All that can be said is, again, “Learn to read.”
Until you get your hands on a touch screen machine and use it in real life, please just shut the fûck up. You have no idea what you're talking about.
And this would have been applicable would it were many, many years ago. As it stands, this has already happened, which is why I’m commenting on it at all. What do you take me for, an idiot? Why would I say something is garbage if I haven’t used it? The only conclusion to be made here is that you jump to them. Without reading–or thinking.
I’ve used vertical touchscreen desktops since 1994. Not a single one of them has been good in any respect. I know exactly what I want from a desktop touchscreen: no keyboard, no mouse, not vertical.
The closest thing I’ve found to a good UX/UI combination is, shockingly, Windows 8. I’m serious. At least the Metro parts of it. The fact that they shoved a touchscreen UI on to a mouse+keyboard UX makes the software horrible. And the fact that 90% of the UI is still built for mouse+keyboard means you can’t really use a touchscreen UX with it. That’s where they went wrong; Microsoft can’t commit because they don’t have a single original bone in their body. And they’re so terrified of the future and actually making any change of their own to the code stolen from Apple that Windows 10 isn’t a rewrite of their OS. They skipped a version number because it would conflict with references within the OS from TWENTY YEARS AGO. Windows 8 failed because they have no innovators. Windows 10 has already failed, even without being released, because they have no innovators.
Apple will get desktop multitouch right. They’ll get desktop touchscreen computers right. They’ve already done it with pocket and portables. OS X is slowly guiding its userbase toward multitouch on the desktop. I’ve said this since 2007. When the first post-Macintosh is revealed, not only will everyone be relieved that it’s finally here and they can use their software “as it was meant to be used”, the design Apple picks will be all but obvious to the use thereof.
And unless Apple decides to get into the business of designing new chairs and desks to make a vertical touchscreen so much as usable at all, it’s not going to be a vertical touchscreen computer. It’s a completely separate argument, but people really need to shut up and allow chairs to get the true ergonomic once-over they need.
The point I'm making is that it is poor design to simply take an existing iMac and slap a touch screen on it.
And I disagree. There's no liability whatsoever to adding an additional way to interact with the computer. Nothing prevents you from continuing to use the mouse or keyboard if you prefer them. For cases where it's easier to just touch the screen, you'd have that option. Obviously there's room for touch to do much more, but that doesn't mean it's "wrong" to simply provide another way to do what you can already do now. There is no downside.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingsoc
Again, what problem are you solving?
?! You QUOTED the examples I cited directly above where you wrote this question!
Here's another, really, really, basic one. Below is a list of items for sale on Craigslist. Your eyes zero in on the one you want to open. What's quicker, more natural and easier: reaching for the mouse and clicking on the link, or just touching it on the screen with your finger?
Now obviously using the mouse is not a hardship and that use on its own may not justify the cost and effort required to implement touch tech, but it illustrates a more general point: that selecting is more naturally accomplished without the need for an intermediate tool.
If touch capability were common, you'd see web and app developers start making their product interfaces easier to poke around. I have no doubt that we'd see reasons for touch that you and I haven't thought of, as developers find ways to make their products easier to understand and operate. If nothing else, it would be a great step towards making web site and app interfaces more similar across mobile and desktop devices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingsoc
You have to take full advantage of touch if you're going to make touch a central component - if you're going to make it truly a value-add for most people, most of the time.
If touch was the only option I would agree, but there's no reason for it to be. We didn't get rid of keyboards when the mouse came along. We didn't throw away the mouse when we got graphics tablets. I see no reason not to simply add touch to existing products, essentially as-is, and let the developer community run with it. If what companies like Wacom and Adobe did with tablets is any indication of what can be done with new input capabilities, I don't think Apple would need to be very involved at all. Obviously they COULD make it a more immersive experience, but it wouldn't be NECESSARY for the input method to have value.
Even if nothing new ever developed, which is unimaginable, simply being able to flip through photos, web pages and files with swipes, select and scroll with touches, touch-and-hold for a loupe, and zoom with pinches would, for me, be enough reason to have it.
If you’d just read in the first place, you wouldn’t have needed to.
If others were as specific and clear about what they mean as I am, I wouldn't have to do what you're doing, which is making up your own interpretations of what they mean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
It’s blindingly obvious that people do not believe that a fully multitouch UX for the desktop is ludicrous.
No, the exact OPPOSITE is "blindingly obvious." Go back through the thread and count how many posts refer to the notion of a touch screen Mac as "ludicrous."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
You’re one of the few who would say so
Oh fer... and you accuse ME of poor reading comprehension.
I can't imagine how I can make this easier to understand, but here's an attempt:
If Apple can come up with an ergonomically sensible touch screen computer that doesn't require a keyboard and mouse, great, I'm all for that.
IN THE MEANTIME, I see no reason not to add touch capability to existing form factors, especially portables. The fact that you couldn't type on the screen is not an issue because you would still have a keyboard and trackpad/mouse.
The rest of your post was enlightening and great food for thought. Why couldn't you have written THAT in the first place instead of just taking shots?
No, the exact OPPOSITE is "blindingly obvious." Go back through the thread and count how many posts refer to the notion of a touch screen Mac as "ludicrous."
Yes. In YOUR format.
If Apple can come up with an ergonomically sensible touch screen computer that doesn't require a keyboard and mouse, great, I'm all for that.
An ergonomically sensible touchscreen computer is not a vertical touchscreen computer. Ergo, your vision is a poor one.
...I see no reason not to add touch capability to existing form factors, especially portables.
Because it’s garbage and no one would use it.
The fact that you couldn't type on the screen is not an issue because you would still have a keyboard and trackpad/mouse.
Of course not. The fact that you still have a keyboard and mouse renders the touchscreen itself useless, therefore there’s no point in adding it to a UI designed for a single point of input.
As the arbiter of all things touch, I hereby decree that TS wins this thread; Schultz loses.
I sit too far away from my iMac to touch the screen. It would therefore require Apple to design an entirely new form-factor if they wished to implement touch, as TS has stated several times.
When we use our iDevices, we hold them at a slanted angle close to our bodies, which makes it very easy to manipulate the screen with our fingers. To achieve the same comfort whilst sitting at a desk would take a lot of thought and redesign. I can't imagine how it would be done, to be honest. Typing on a keyboard at a desk is best done as it is now. To create an all-in-one computer that you can also type on would be nigh-on impossible. Think of lighting. As soon as you angle the screen more horizontally, you'll get reflections of the ceiling lights. That's one area where a desktop or laptop still beats an iPad or iPhone.
[...] if they bundle a new feature and people use it and then find it's not useful, they'll say bad things about it.
I'm not saying you're wrong (I may later, but I'm not prepared to yet ), but I can't think of an example of that ever happening. Can you?
For the HP Touchsmart, reviewers say the touch addition is a gimmick and mostly useless. There's a test here in Photoshop:
[VIDEO]
When I use a laptop with a mouse, I don't even use the trackpad for extra gestures, my hand is pretty much welded to the mouse because it's too inefficient to jump back and forth between two input methods. Although you can compare moving a mouse vs touching an item on-screen, usually the hand is already on the mouse so the comparison would be between moving the hand to the screen vs moving the mouse to the position. The latter is still faster.
What I do prefer with touch is being able to make natural movements like drawing curves. It's extremely hard to draw a natural looking curve with a mouse.
For laptops, I would really just like the base to become more of a touch input and I'd like to be able to draw on it the way that a wacom works but a pen wouldn't be needed, just finger painting is fine. This would be much more relaxed than holding a hand up to the display and you wouldn't obscure the display either. It's harder to see where the fingers would press but they can have circles to represent press points vs the mouse and if they can detect between tapping and pressing like the watch, they can let you rest your finger on the surface without activating and just gentle pressure would activate the tools.
If the base was like a display but perhaps not a full LCD display, you could build your kind of audio switch board too. It would transform into sliders and switches and your display would just show the UI like a tracks list.
You just can't help it, can you? You can't just express an opinion without insulting anyone who feels differently.
By the way, you're plainly and demonstrably wrong, because lots of people already do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Of course not. The fact that you still have a keyboard and mouse renders the touchscreen itself useless, therefore there’s no point in adding it to a UI designed for a single point of input.
Again, wrong. I outlined a bunch of generic actions that would be really handy. I also explained how it made it possible for a guy in our engineering department to replace expensive dedicated cart machines with comparatively inexpensive touch screen controlled generic computers. Obviously the second example is decidedly application-specific, but it again shows how much difference that one little feature can make when applied with a little imagination. I'm sure all kinds of other people can come up with all kinds of other clever uses. I'd feel bad for you that those possibilities don't seem to exist in your world, but you make it hard to feel anything but animosity towards you.
Once again, AI degenerates from sharing ideas about how things could be improved into a pathetic, petty argument, with insults and choosing up sides and deciding who's "right" and who's "wrong." I don't know how some of you live that way. I really prefer spending time with people who leave me feeling good instead of annoyed and frustrated. You carry on if you like. I'm fed up with this nonsense.
Comments
I'm not talking about their marketing, I'm talking about typing without having an armrest. Typing with a stretched out arm is no fun when doing that for an extensive period of time. Period.
Oh, okay. I thought we were past flogging that particular dead horse, but I guess not.
I can't for the life of me imagine why anyone would try typing on the touch screen when there's a keyboard right in front of them. Nor do I understand why it needs to be said (much less re-said over and over again). You don't hear people saying a mouse is a bad idea because it doesn't accept verbal instructions. Anyone with a better-than-two-digit IQ can determine that a screwdriver makes a lousy hammer.
So now honestly, Phil, what was your point? You obviously don't REALLY believe that "it's hard to type on a vertical surface" is a valid argument against touch screens on computers with keyboards, so what the hell ARE you talking about?
You obviously don't REALLY believe that "it's hard to type on a vertical surface" is a valid argument against touch screens on computers with keyboards, so what the hell ARE you talking about?
Computers without keyboards. How on Earth is this confusing for you? The idea behind a touchscreen is to remove the need for a physical keyboard and a mouse.
[...] if they bundle a new feature and people use it and then find it's not useful, they'll say bad things about it.
I'm not saying you're wrong (I may later, but I'm not prepared to yet
), but I can't think of an example of that ever happening. Can you?
The inability of mouse and keyboard to address more than one "point" at a time.
That's a good general point about when touch screen might be preferable to a mouse too. I love seeing industrial strength professional computing setups, always impresses me. Thanks for posting.
I see TS already answered your question.
You obviously don't REALLY believe that "it's hard to type on a vertical surface" is a valid argument against touch screens on computers with keyboards, so what the hell ARE you talking about?
Computers without keyboards. How on Earth is this confusing for you? The idea behind a touchscreen is to remove the need for a physical keyboard and a mouse.
If THAT'S what people are talking about when they say the idea is ludicrous, then I concur. That's sure as hell not what *I* mean when I say I want touch screen capability on my computer. I mean take the existing form factor and add touch capability to the screen. What you're describing sounds like an iPad. If I wanted THAT I could buy one NOW.
That's tangental to the discussion in THIS particular case though, as I made it VERY clear that I meant existing form factor with touch added, NOT a touch-ONLY computer, explicitly stating my support for using the keyboard for typing. I don't know how some people keep overlooking that.
The inability of mouse and keyboard to address more than one "point" at a time. With a touch screen (and presumably a touch pad) it should be possible to grab two points at once and manipulate them simultaneously. Like pinch/pull, or this fader goes up while that one goes down.
Also quicker selection of elements. On a screen with many items displayed, it's faster and more intuitive to "touch" the one your eyes have selected than it is to click on it with a mouse. I probably wouldn't buy a touch screen just for that alone, but I can tell you that it made the difference between "impractical" and "works great" for a playback system in our control room. (You'll see, below.)
Yes, I can see the point of having touch screen functionality; I have a Surface, and I find that I use the keyboard for typing and I use the touch screen for most other kinds of interaction (occasionally needing a mouse for precision work).
As I've repeatedly said, I am not debating the value of touch; there's enormous value to be had. The point I'm making is that it is poor design to simply take an existing iMac and slap a touch screen on it. Again, what problem are you solving?
In this context you already have a touch pad and keyboard.
To make this proposition truly valuable, I think you'd need to do two things:
1) Enable the user to angle the screen appropriately and;
2) Have an OS and applications that are designed for touch interfaces. If you just take what's there and slap touch on it, then you are not only solving very little, but you're just adding another layer of superfluous interaction (for example, your icon sizes haven't changed, your menu structures are the same - you aren't maximising for touch).
Apple are, I think, unlikely to do this because it doesn't make good design sense. If they go down the route of a touch screen on a desktop or laptop device, I think they will complement that with some genuinely useful touch-enabled changes. And that is the key.
Quote:I guess I don't understand what you perceive as the limitations inherent in present systems. Obviously software has to be able to accommodate touch gestures, but even if a particular app added no NEW capability at all and simply provided the means to control it as-is via the screen, it would be an improvement. Obviously it would be BETTER if a title is customized to take full advantage of touch, but it's not NECESSARY.
You've said you don't think current hardware is good enough, but you haven't said why. I gave you a bunch of real-world examples of how and why there simply isn't a problem even with existing form-factors. If you can explain what stands between a user and effective use of a touch screen using existing hardware I'm prepared to be persuaded, but considering that I'm already doing just that at work all day, every day, your arguments will have to be pretty convincing.
Your first paragraph is where we differ, I think. A current application that just "adds touch" to its existing structure doesn't necessarily mean that there's an automatic improvement. In many cases, the opposite may be true (I've seen so many cases where "traditional" apps have been moved to a touch screen and the interface becomes cumbersome - it was designed for a mouse, not a finger tip). This is the part that Apple fortunately understands really well.
You have to take full advantage of touch if you're going to make touch a central component - if you're going to make it truly a value-add for most people, most of the time.
The examples you've given me aren't great because they are very specific to your role. Now, in your role, that's great - have at it. I can see the usefulness there, absolutely.
But that bears no relationship whatsoever with the use cases in the broader world - what you have to do, really, is make the argument that applying a touch screen to existing form factors and software is going to be workable in the mainstream market, because that's what's relevant in this discussion.
I'll just round this off by pointing out again that I'm a fan of touch, and I can definitely see the use of it (as I said, I have a Surface that I use regularly). I can see the productivity benefits there, and the comfort and ease-of-use benefits.
But, again, if Apple were to go this way, they would really have to design a product that takes full advantage of touch control. Apple are all about restraint; they won't add something unless it really makes sense. Think about your iPhone and the way it controls and animates. Think about its design standards, inherent in iOS. And then compare that to OS X. The two serve different purposes and work with different interface mechanisms.
This is not to say that OS X can't be made "touch friendly" (it already has some iOS aspects to it that start moving it down this path), but it's not quite there yet.
Well I certainly missed it. But sure, a touch screen for occasional tapping could be useful, though I wouldn't know who on earth Apple is going to make OSX scale up icons and such for a touch friendly experience. Dedicated apps, that's something else.
Excellent post, excellent points!
Learn how to read, please.
Yeah, we know. You want a garbage implementation that absolutely no one else wants or would use.
No, you couldn’t buy a desktop computer with a desktop multitouch OS now.
Because every single time this has happened, it has failed miserably. Because it is a miserable implementation. Because the other way is better.
Learn how to read, please.
I've been thinking carefully about how best to respond to that. See, I was VERY clear about what *I* was talking about, and yet people responded to me by referring to something other than what I wrote. The people to whom I responded made no mention of form factor whatsoever, so I'm left wondering where the reading comprehension problem actually lies?
That's in addition to your typical rude, condescending, "I'm-better-than-you" tone and language. You're certainly entitled to your preferences and wants, but you are NOT entitled to insult anyone whose views differ from your own.
Finally, you dismiss what I'm describing to your own detriment. My limited experience with simply adding touch to a desktop UI is very positive. It's not the full realization of the potential touch could bring, but it works fine. What's YOUR experience with it, Mr. Expert?
Until you get your hands on a touch screen machine and use it in real life, please just shut up. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Well I personally like touch screens but the more I think about it, I probably wouldn't buy an iMac if it had one as I've never been a big fan of the all in ones. Though I guess technically the Lenovo ThinkVision 4K monitor I ordered can be called one as well as it has an integrated Nvidia K1 chip but it will be used as monitor, the other part is just a bonus. The Apple machine that I would love to see a touchscreen on is the MacBook Air, then make it so it can rotate 180 degrees like the Lenovo Yoga, that would be just ultimate for me. A lot of you might not have the need for this tech but it makes me happier then a mosquito locked in a cabin for the night at a fat camp. Though again it's not such a big deal if Apple does it or not, I have a Surface Pro 3 and a new humongous 20" 4K tablet from Panasonic waiting for me when I get home, hopefully by then the new monitor will also be their, giving me 3 touch screen input devices for me to create a complete virtual mixing table.
Something like this, I can't wait, Mac Pro, Lenovo 4K 28" bendable monitor using good software, oh man, drrrroooollll.
Hey Lorin, before I choose the software do you have any opinions, what would you use?
If you’d just read in the first place, you wouldn’t have needed to.
It’s blindingly obvious that people do not believe that a fully multitouch UX for the desktop is ludicrous. You’re one of the few who would say so, and your only alternative is a cobbled together implementation that has performed extremely poorly in every consumer and professional use to date. If you had read the posts, you would have seen that the ‘ludicrous’ thing would be to continue to suggest such a UI, not the other way around.
Finally, you dismiss what I'm describing to your own detriment.
A future in which vertical touchscreen laptops and desktops don’t exist is not my detriment.
"Kiss my ass, shithead."
All that can be said is, again, “Learn to read.”
And this would have been applicable would it were many, many years ago. As it stands, this has already happened, which is why I’m commenting on it at all. What do you take me for, an idiot? Why would I say something is garbage if I haven’t used it? The only conclusion to be made here is that you jump to them. Without reading–or thinking.
I’ve used vertical touchscreen desktops since 1994. Not a single one of them has been good in any respect. I know exactly what I want from a desktop touchscreen: no keyboard, no mouse, not vertical.
The closest thing I’ve found to a good UX/UI combination is, shockingly, Windows 8. I’m serious. At least the Metro parts of it. The fact that they shoved a touchscreen UI on to a mouse+keyboard UX makes the software horrible. And the fact that 90% of the UI is still built for mouse+keyboard means you can’t really use a touchscreen UX with it. That’s where they went wrong; Microsoft can’t commit because they don’t have a single original bone in their body. And they’re so terrified of the future and actually making any change of their own to the code stolen from Apple that Windows 10 isn’t a rewrite of their OS. They skipped a version number because it would conflict with references within the OS from TWENTY YEARS AGO. Windows 8 failed because they have no innovators. Windows 10 has already failed, even without being released, because they have no innovators.
Apple will get desktop multitouch right. They’ll get desktop touchscreen computers right. They’ve already done it with pocket and portables. OS X is slowly guiding its userbase toward multitouch on the desktop. I’ve said this since 2007. When the first post-Macintosh is revealed, not only will everyone be relieved that it’s finally here and they can use their software “as it was meant to be used”, the design Apple picks will be all but obvious to the use thereof.
And unless Apple decides to get into the business of designing new chairs and desks to make a vertical touchscreen so much as usable at all, it’s not going to be a vertical touchscreen computer. It’s a completely separate argument, but people really need to shut up and allow chairs to get the true ergonomic once-over they need.
The point I'm making is that it is poor design to simply take an existing iMac and slap a touch screen on it.
And I disagree. There's no liability whatsoever to adding an additional way to interact with the computer. Nothing prevents you from continuing to use the mouse or keyboard if you prefer them. For cases where it's easier to just touch the screen, you'd have that option. Obviously there's room for touch to do much more, but that doesn't mean it's "wrong" to simply provide another way to do what you can already do now. There is no downside.
Again, what problem are you solving?
?! You QUOTED the examples I cited directly above where you wrote this question!
Here's another, really, really, basic one. Below is a list of items for sale on Craigslist. Your eyes zero in on the one you want to open. What's quicker, more natural and easier: reaching for the mouse and clicking on the link, or just touching it on the screen with your finger?
Now obviously using the mouse is not a hardship and that use on its own may not justify the cost and effort required to implement touch tech, but it illustrates a more general point: that selecting is more naturally accomplished without the need for an intermediate tool.
If touch capability were common, you'd see web and app developers start making their product interfaces easier to poke around. I have no doubt that we'd see reasons for touch that you and I haven't thought of, as developers find ways to make their products easier to understand and operate. If nothing else, it would be a great step towards making web site and app interfaces more similar across mobile and desktop devices.
You have to take full advantage of touch if you're going to make touch a central component - if you're going to make it truly a value-add for most people, most of the time.
If touch was the only option I would agree, but there's no reason for it to be. We didn't get rid of keyboards when the mouse came along. We didn't throw away the mouse when we got graphics tablets. I see no reason not to simply add touch to existing products, essentially as-is, and let the developer community run with it. If what companies like Wacom and Adobe did with tablets is any indication of what can be done with new input capabilities, I don't think Apple would need to be very involved at all. Obviously they COULD make it a more immersive experience, but it wouldn't be NECESSARY for the input method to have value.
Even if nothing new ever developed, which is unimaginable, simply being able to flip through photos, web pages and files with swipes, select and scroll with touches, touch-and-hold for a loupe, and zoom with pinches would, for me, be enough reason to have it.
If you’d just read in the first place, you wouldn’t have needed to.
If others were as specific and clear about what they mean as I am, I wouldn't have to do what you're doing, which is making up your own interpretations of what they mean.
It’s blindingly obvious that people do not believe that a fully multitouch UX for the desktop is ludicrous.
No, the exact OPPOSITE is "blindingly obvious." Go back through the thread and count how many posts refer to the notion of a touch screen Mac as "ludicrous."
You’re one of the few who would say so
Oh fer... and you accuse ME of poor reading comprehension.
I can't imagine how I can make this easier to understand, but here's an attempt:
If Apple can come up with an ergonomically sensible touch screen computer that doesn't require a keyboard and mouse, great, I'm all for that.
IN THE MEANTIME, I see no reason not to add touch capability to existing form factors, especially portables. The fact that you couldn't type on the screen is not an issue because you would still have a keyboard and trackpad/mouse.
The rest of your post was enlightening and great food for thought. Why couldn't you have written THAT in the first place instead of just taking shots?
No, the exact OPPOSITE is "blindingly obvious." Go back through the thread and count how many posts refer to the notion of a touch screen Mac as "ludicrous."
Yes. In YOUR format.
An ergonomically sensible touchscreen computer is not a vertical touchscreen computer. Ergo, your vision is a poor one.
Because it’s garbage and no one would use it.
Of course not. The fact that you still have a keyboard and mouse renders the touchscreen itself useless, therefore there’s no point in adding it to a UI designed for a single point of input.
I sit too far away from my iMac to touch the screen. It would therefore require Apple to design an entirely new form-factor if they wished to implement touch, as TS has stated several times.
When we use our iDevices, we hold them at a slanted angle close to our bodies, which makes it very easy to manipulate the screen with our fingers. To achieve the same comfort whilst sitting at a desk would take a lot of thought and redesign. I can't imagine how it would be done, to be honest. Typing on a keyboard at a desk is best done as it is now. To create an all-in-one computer that you can also type on would be nigh-on impossible. Think of lighting. As soon as you angle the screen more horizontally, you'll get reflections of the ceiling lights. That's one area where a desktop or laptop still beats an iPad or iPhone.
For the HP Touchsmart, reviewers say the touch addition is a gimmick and mostly useless. There's a test here in Photoshop:
[VIDEO]
When I use a laptop with a mouse, I don't even use the trackpad for extra gestures, my hand is pretty much welded to the mouse because it's too inefficient to jump back and forth between two input methods. Although you can compare moving a mouse vs touching an item on-screen, usually the hand is already on the mouse so the comparison would be between moving the hand to the screen vs moving the mouse to the position. The latter is still faster.
What I do prefer with touch is being able to make natural movements like drawing curves. It's extremely hard to draw a natural looking curve with a mouse.
For laptops, I would really just like the base to become more of a touch input and I'd like to be able to draw on it the way that a wacom works but a pen wouldn't be needed, just finger painting is fine. This would be much more relaxed than holding a hand up to the display and you wouldn't obscure the display either. It's harder to see where the fingers would press but they can have circles to represent press points vs the mouse and if they can detect between tapping and pressing like the watch, they can let you rest your finger on the surface without activating and just gentle pressure would activate the tools.
If the base was like a display but perhaps not a full LCD display, you could build your kind of audio switch board too. It would transform into sliders and switches and your display would just show the UI like a tracks list.
You just can't help it, can you? You can't just express an opinion without insulting anyone who feels differently.
By the way, you're plainly and demonstrably wrong, because lots of people already do.
Quote:
Of course not. The fact that you still have a keyboard and mouse renders the touchscreen itself useless, therefore there’s no point in adding it to a UI designed for a single point of input.
Again, wrong. I outlined a bunch of generic actions that would be really handy. I also explained how it made it possible for a guy in our engineering department to replace expensive dedicated cart machines with comparatively inexpensive touch screen controlled generic computers. Obviously the second example is decidedly application-specific, but it again shows how much difference that one little feature can make when applied with a little imagination. I'm sure all kinds of other people can come up with all kinds of other clever uses. I'd feel bad for you that those possibilities don't seem to exist in your world, but you make it hard to feel anything but animosity towards you.
Once again, AI degenerates from sharing ideas about how things could be improved into a pathetic, petty argument, with insults and choosing up sides and deciding who's "right" and who's "wrong." I don't know how some of you live that way. I really prefer spending time with people who leave me feeling good instead of annoyed and frustrated. You carry on if you like. I'm fed up with this nonsense.
Sales numbers and reviews are not my opinion.
I'm fed up with this nonsense.
What, not reading? Good; that is nonsense.
Every time TS accuses someone of not reading a kitten dies. He really has it in for those kittens.