Touch control for a computer as the main pointing method makes no sense. It lacks pixel precsion and required broad, tiring arm movements (like a big Wacom tablet--only worse if you must hold your arm up in the air).
Touch control to SUPPLEMENT the mouse--just like the scroll ball and Apple Remote do--could be great.
However, there is no magic fingerprint-free coating. The iPhone, like any touch device, WILL need to be wiped off every now and then. People will deal with that. But on an iMac? it probably depends on the lighting in the room. It could be tolerable.
I agree with all of these. People who are seeing multi-touch as the replacement next-gen panacea for input devices are mistaken for these reasons. I personally think Apple will out-do us all in the thinking department and the multi-touch "supplements" will be natural, integrated, and somehow just perfect with whatever hardware they're included in.
I have used a TomTom GO 700 GPS with a LCD touch screen with full on screen keyboard for several years now and find the remarks about dirty and scratched screens over the top. If you insist on using touch screens with a big mac in your hands it will get dirty. Who would do that anyway. Wash your hands, clean your screen when necessary and all will be well.
I agree.
The office I provide tech support for (a major Conference/Training Center) uses touch screen control monitors for all room functions - drapes, mikes, audio controls, screens up/down, lighting, host computer control (displays a host computer on the touch screen for remote control from the podium), etc.
The screens sit on the podium, recessed about four inches below the podium surface, at a very comfortable angle (about the angle of a / mark) from the speaker, a little less than arms length from the speaker's standing position. We don't get any complaints about it being tiring, we don't need to clean the screens more than maybe once a week (if that), and they don't get all gummed up with finger grease. There IS a coating on the monitor that makes it less visible - you don't really notice the smudges till you turn it off.
I think the concern about finger grease IS overblown - this IS NOT new technology, it's been around for twenty years! It's just that Apple is bringing it to a new application - the cell phone - and it's therefor getting a lot more attention because of it.
Take a deep breath, step back and realize that when this comes out, Apple will most likely have anticipated most of your concerns - they usually do take user interface issues pretty seriously in their products! You might be pleasantly surprised, because I also think that this has the potential to radically change the way we look at computer interface and design.
In case you didn't know. People are actually greasy. We oose it. It's a fact. Most people think snakes are slimy creatures, but that is actually a load of crap. Snakes are greaseless. People however have oily skin. It's part of our makeup. That's why you shouldn't touch your face too much for you will get acne that you yourself caused.
That's why we are all talking about the grease factor. You can wash your hands all day but your hands will naturally replenish your skin with natural oils.
Good point, good point. This really reminds me of the disussions that I was having with some friends about the back of the iPod. It's terribly shiny, and shows fingerprints easily.Oh, well. I'm sure that there will be cases made for the iPhone. Something along the line of the thin silicone that iSkin uses on the scrollwheel in their Evo3 cases. Or maybe we'll all end up having greasy iPhone screens. *GASP!* Maybe steve will realize some of us want a stylus.
Good point, good point. This really reminds me of the disussions that I was having with some friends about the back of the iPod. It's terribly shiny, and shows fingerprints easily....
Homeland Security has mandated that the surfaces of devices popular with a "certain element of our society" be manufactured to maximize fingerprint retention. If your device has wifi then there is also the possibility of it being instantly transmitted to DHS. And no, 3G isn't required for that...
Maybe steve will realize some of us want a stylus.
A stylus is required for other touch-based interfaces because they are designed to require high precision. The iPhone's interface is designed to be used by big, fat fingers, so there is no need for extra precision and hence no need for a stylus.
Plus, a stylus is something else to lose; it takes up space because you need somewhere to stash it away while you're not using it (and Apple wants to keep things small); it slows you down when you first start using the device because you have to pull the stylus out rather than just tapping immediately; and it creates a psychological layer of separation between the user and the device. You may think those last two are silly and inconsequential, but this is a company that takes minor details like this very seriously. For instance, they put the Mac's menubar flush against the top edge of the screen rather than as part of a window to take advantage of the almost imperceptible speed advantage... it improves the experience without most people noticing it, but once you get used to it and have to go without, you really notice the shortcomings of other systems. Using your finger rather than a stylus (in a UI designed for fingers) will add that extra bit of "good user experience" that you may not think is important at first, but will really miss once you've gotten accustomed to it.
But the biggest reason not to use a stylus? MULTItouch. You can't do multitouch with a stylus, and they want to make a lot of use of this feature. If you're holding a stylus and have to put it away before doing a multitouch gesture, you're going to find it annoying. Hell, even the finger flick scrolling method that only requires a single point of contact would be less natural feeling with a stylus. Remember, the iPhone's interface is not the typical click-click-click interface everyone is used to. It's full of gestures and makes use of multiple points of contact. You need fingers for all that.
Homeland Security has mandated that the surfaces of devices popular with a "certain element of our society" be manufactured to maximize fingerprint retention. If your device has wifi then there is also the possibility of it being instantly transmitted to DHS. And no, 3G isn't required for that...
A stylus is required for other touch-based interfaces because they are designed to require high precision. The iPhone's interface is designed to be used by big, fat fingers, so there is no need for extra precision and hence no need for a stylus.
Plus, a stylus is something else to lose; it takes up space because you need somewhere to stash it away while you're not using it (and Apple wants to keep things small); it slows you down when you first start using the device because you have to pull the stylus out rather than just tapping immediately; and it creates a psychological layer of separation between the user and the device. You may think those last two are silly and inconsequential, but this is a company that takes minor details like this very seriously. For instance, they put the Mac's menubar flush against the top edge of the screen rather than as part of a window to take advantage of the almost imperceptible speed advantage... it improves the experience without most people noticing it, but once you get used to it and have to go without, you really notice the shortcomings of other systems. Using your finger rather than a stylus (in a UI designed for fingers) will add that extra bit of "good user experience" that you may not think is important at first, but will really miss once you've gotten accustomed to it.
But the biggest reason not to use a stylus? MULTItouch. You can't do multitouch with a stylus, and they want to make a lot of use of this feature. If you're holding a stylus and have to put it away before doing a multitouch gesture, you're going to find it annoying. Hell, even the finger flick scrolling method that only requires a single point of contact would be less natural feeling with a stylus. Remember, the iPhone's interface is not the typical click-click-click interface everyone is used to. It's full of gestures and makes use of multiple points of contact. You need fingers for all that.
That's the problem with the iPhone's touch-screen. The lack of any possibility for precision work.
We have to remember that Jobs makes mistakes. He is SO focused on what he wants, that he often forgets what others want.
Look at how many want a headless Mac that costs less than a Mac Pro, but is more sophisticated than the Mini. I'll bet that there is a big market for that, and with desktop sales dwindling, there would be no harm in trying one. But, so far, at least, he won't do it.
I'm not so sure that the iPhone is going to be a good replacement for my Treo 700p. While it does a bit more in some areas, and the interface is certainly better, it also does less in other areas that are important.
I have never lost a stylus, and it's certainly a poor reason not to allow the use of one.
I see this more useful on small screens than large. I'm thinking of something small, but larger than an iPhone, more like a MacTablet that is in the 7 to 10 inch range. A thin, flat, OSX Mac with touch screen and no keyboard, operable with the fingers. The same new technology that Apple showed on the iPhone for typing could be used for selecting buttons and menu items with the finger.
Kind of a Star Trek TNG data pad, or a Dynabook kind of thing. Flash memory, quarter inch thick..
That's the problem with the iPhone's touch-screen. The lack of any possibility for precision work.
That's not true. You're forgetting that it has zoom capabilities. So you could theoretically zoom in to work on a single pixel, just like working in Photoshop.
That's not true. You're forgetting that it has zoom capabilities. So you could theoretically zoom in to work on a single pixel, just like working in Photoshop.
Yeah, sure..... like I'll have the patience (and visual context) for that, as an average user....
Yeah, sure..... like I'll have the patience (and visual context) for that, as an average user....
Is an average user doing pixel editing?
I can imagine that a variant of multitouch that can be supplemented to allow fine detail control though the use of a stylus. Heck, stylus control is possible now, and even an inexpensive tablet (at least my Wacom Graphire) seems to be fairly precise.
That's not true. You're forgetting that it has zoom capabilities. So you could theoretically zoom in to work on a single pixel, just like working in Photoshop.
I thought about that, but it wouldn't work.
Do you use a graphics tablet? I have a 12 x 18, because I did a lot of graphics work.
Just think of sticking your finger on there, instead of the stylus point. You would have to magnify to at least 1600% to be able to do any work because the finger is such an imprecise instrument.
Now think of this aprox 2.25 x 3.5" screen at 480 x 320. Even if your photo, or drawing, was 640 x480, your finger takes up such a large portion of the screen that you would again have to magnify to very large numbers. With the small, low rez screen, that would mean that you would see almost nothing of the image you are working on.
Your finger would also cover the area of interest, so that you couldn't get an accurate selection of pixels, even if you magnified so that one picture pixel was 16 x 16 on the screen.
Don't forget that this screen is 160 ppi. Therefore, 16 pixels to a side would be only a tenth of an inch square. Could your finger find that square without hitting another one by mistake?
Even if you did magnify to that size, the screen would then only be showing an actual image area of 30 x 20 pixels! How can you work with that? Even an image of 480 x 320 would only show as 60 x 40.
I can imagine that a variant of multitouch that can be supplemented to allow fine detail control though the use of a stylus. Heck, stylus control is possible now, and even an inexpensive tablet (at least my Wacom Graphire) seems to be fairly precise.
Stylus control is NOT possible now. Remember we had this discussion already. Jobs said that the screen ONLY responds to a finger (or, I guess, some other fleshy body part—DON'T get me started, it's too late. )
It won't respond to a fingernail either, which is too bad, for that would solve some of that problem.
I'm not the average user, nor, I suspect, are many other people here. But, my above post to Kolchak shows just some of the problems we will find.
Cleaning the screen on the iPhone isn't the issue. That is hardly a problem. Its the assumption of a Mac Pro workstation or other desktops relying on a multi-touch screen to be effective. Its a ridiculous thought. I'm not buying into UBS Investment Researchs' analysis, or prediction of a mega-multi-touch platform.
Cleaning the screen on the iPhone isn't the issue. That is hardly a problem. Its the assumption of a Mac Pro workstation or other desktops relying on a multi-touch screen to be effective. Its a ridiculous thought. I'm not buying into UBS Investment Researchs' analysis, or prediction of a mega-multi-touch platform.
I have to say, though, that if it doesn't add too much to the cost of a monitor, it will be used. Touch screens are not rare because they have little use, they're rare because they're expensive.
While I wouldn't use them for most editing tasks, I can see them as being useful. Programs would be re-written to take advantage of it.
Everyone here who wants a tablet will want one. To say the least.
Don't forget that the PC crowd said the same thing about the Mac's mouse for 6 years, until they had little choice, after Windows 3.1 started to take over.
The arguments about them were fierce! But, few today give it a thought. Do you want to go back to XYWrite, with it's several hundred two letter commands?
If touch tech came on all of Apple's monitors, people would find it helpful.
I think the analysts are getting excited like little kids on Christmas over this multi-touch thing. I think we have yet to see how well Apple has solved the smudging and scratching problems inherent in a touch system. Also, how much does multitouch even matter to a non-handheld device.
Exactly my concerns. I don't understand how these people here and elsewhere get excited about such a feature. I cannot see how a touch screen is more usable than mouse-keyboard in a general purpose computer. And then there is those smudges and fingerprints all over the screen. Sorry, I don't see the logic behind.
What amazes me is that, even though it's obvious that Apple will not contain the Touchscreen technology to just the iPhone, it's overlooked what is going to be the big use of the technology.
When the iPhone was introduced it trumped, what I believe, the more important product: the AppleTV. The main use of the touchscreen tech is going to be the Universal Remote...who invented that? The Woz of course. what better way to bring Woz back into the apple fold (he still gets a paycheck from apple) than this?
Comments
Touch control for a computer as the main pointing method makes no sense. It lacks pixel precsion and required broad, tiring arm movements (like a big Wacom tablet--only worse if you must hold your arm up in the air).
Touch control to SUPPLEMENT the mouse--just like the scroll ball and Apple Remote do--could be great.
However, there is no magic fingerprint-free coating. The iPhone, like any touch device, WILL need to be wiped off every now and then. People will deal with that. But on an iMac? it probably depends on the lighting in the room. It could be tolerable.
I agree with all of these. People who are seeing multi-touch as the replacement next-gen panacea for input devices are mistaken for these reasons. I personally think Apple will out-do us all in the thinking department and the multi-touch "supplements" will be natural, integrated, and somehow just perfect with whatever hardware they're included in.
I have used a TomTom GO 700 GPS with a LCD touch screen with full on screen keyboard for several years now and find the remarks about dirty and scratched screens over the top. If you insist on using touch screens with a big mac in your hands it will get dirty. Who would do that anyway. Wash your hands, clean your screen when necessary and all will be well.
I agree.
The office I provide tech support for (a major Conference/Training Center) uses touch screen control monitors for all room functions - drapes, mikes, audio controls, screens up/down, lighting, host computer control (displays a host computer on the touch screen for remote control from the podium), etc.
The screens sit on the podium, recessed about four inches below the podium surface, at a very comfortable angle (about the angle of a / mark) from the speaker, a little less than arms length from the speaker's standing position. We don't get any complaints about it being tiring, we don't need to clean the screens more than maybe once a week (if that), and they don't get all gummed up with finger grease. There IS a coating on the monitor that makes it less visible - you don't really notice the smudges till you turn it off.
I think the concern about finger grease IS overblown - this IS NOT new technology, it's been around for twenty years! It's just that Apple is bringing it to a new application - the cell phone - and it's therefor getting a lot more attention because of it.
Take a deep breath, step back and realize that when this comes out, Apple will most likely have anticipated most of your concerns - they usually do take user interface issues pretty seriously in their products! You might be pleasantly surprised, because I also think that this has the potential to radically change the way we look at computer interface and design.
In case you didn't know. People are actually greasy. We oose it. It's a fact. Most people think snakes are slimy creatures, but that is actually a load of crap. Snakes are greaseless. People however have oily skin. It's part of our makeup. That's why you shouldn't touch your face too much for you will get acne that you yourself caused.
That's why we are all talking about the grease factor. You can wash your hands all day but your hands will naturally replenish your skin with natural oils.
Good point, good point. This really reminds me of the disussions that I was having with some friends about the back of the iPod. It's terribly shiny, and shows fingerprints easily.Oh, well. I'm sure that there will be cases made for the iPhone. Something along the line of the thin silicone that iSkin uses on the scrollwheel in their Evo3 cases. Or maybe we'll all end up having greasy iPhone screens. *GASP!* Maybe steve will realize some of us want a stylus.
Good point, good point. This really reminds me of the disussions that I was having with some friends about the back of the iPod. It's terribly shiny, and shows fingerprints easily....
Homeland Security has mandated that the surfaces of devices popular with a "certain element of our society" be manufactured to maximize fingerprint retention. If your device has wifi then there is also the possibility of it being instantly transmitted to DHS. And no, 3G isn't required for that...
Maybe steve will realize some of us want a stylus.
A stylus is required for other touch-based interfaces because they are designed to require high precision. The iPhone's interface is designed to be used by big, fat fingers, so there is no need for extra precision and hence no need for a stylus.
Plus, a stylus is something else to lose; it takes up space because you need somewhere to stash it away while you're not using it (and Apple wants to keep things small); it slows you down when you first start using the device because you have to pull the stylus out rather than just tapping immediately; and it creates a psychological layer of separation between the user and the device. You may think those last two are silly and inconsequential, but this is a company that takes minor details like this very seriously. For instance, they put the Mac's menubar flush against the top edge of the screen rather than as part of a window to take advantage of the almost imperceptible speed advantage... it improves the experience without most people noticing it, but once you get used to it and have to go without, you really notice the shortcomings of other systems. Using your finger rather than a stylus (in a UI designed for fingers) will add that extra bit of "good user experience" that you may not think is important at first, but will really miss once you've gotten accustomed to it.
But the biggest reason not to use a stylus? MULTItouch. You can't do multitouch with a stylus, and they want to make a lot of use of this feature. If you're holding a stylus and have to put it away before doing a multitouch gesture, you're going to find it annoying. Hell, even the finger flick scrolling method that only requires a single point of contact would be less natural feeling with a stylus. Remember, the iPhone's interface is not the typical click-click-click interface everyone is used to. It's full of gestures and makes use of multiple points of contact. You need fingers for all that.
Homeland Security has mandated that the surfaces of devices popular with a "certain element of our society" be manufactured to maximize fingerprint retention. If your device has wifi then there is also the possibility of it being instantly transmitted to DHS. And no, 3G isn't required for that...
That's very cute.
A stylus is required for other touch-based interfaces because they are designed to require high precision. The iPhone's interface is designed to be used by big, fat fingers, so there is no need for extra precision and hence no need for a stylus.
Plus, a stylus is something else to lose; it takes up space because you need somewhere to stash it away while you're not using it (and Apple wants to keep things small); it slows you down when you first start using the device because you have to pull the stylus out rather than just tapping immediately; and it creates a psychological layer of separation between the user and the device. You may think those last two are silly and inconsequential, but this is a company that takes minor details like this very seriously. For instance, they put the Mac's menubar flush against the top edge of the screen rather than as part of a window to take advantage of the almost imperceptible speed advantage... it improves the experience without most people noticing it, but once you get used to it and have to go without, you really notice the shortcomings of other systems. Using your finger rather than a stylus (in a UI designed for fingers) will add that extra bit of "good user experience" that you may not think is important at first, but will really miss once you've gotten accustomed to it.
But the biggest reason not to use a stylus? MULTItouch. You can't do multitouch with a stylus, and they want to make a lot of use of this feature. If you're holding a stylus and have to put it away before doing a multitouch gesture, you're going to find it annoying. Hell, even the finger flick scrolling method that only requires a single point of contact would be less natural feeling with a stylus. Remember, the iPhone's interface is not the typical click-click-click interface everyone is used to. It's full of gestures and makes use of multiple points of contact. You need fingers for all that.
That's the problem with the iPhone's touch-screen. The lack of any possibility for precision work.
We have to remember that Jobs makes mistakes. He is SO focused on what he wants, that he often forgets what others want.
Look at how many want a headless Mac that costs less than a Mac Pro, but is more sophisticated than the Mini. I'll bet that there is a big market for that, and with desktop sales dwindling, there would be no harm in trying one. But, so far, at least, he won't do it.
I'm not so sure that the iPhone is going to be a good replacement for my Treo 700p. While it does a bit more in some areas, and the interface is certainly better, it also does less in other areas that are important.
I have never lost a stylus, and it's certainly a poor reason not to allow the use of one.
Kind of a Star Trek TNG data pad, or a Dynabook kind of thing. Flash memory, quarter inch thick..
Thank God I didn't get involved in this thread.
yeah
..still... at least no-one has posted "multi touch screens on iMacs!!! apple is TEH DOOMEDD!!!111!!!"
etc.
YET
That's the problem with the iPhone's touch-screen. The lack of any possibility for precision work.
That's not true. You're forgetting that it has zoom capabilities. So you could theoretically zoom in to work on a single pixel, just like working in Photoshop.
That's not true. You're forgetting that it has zoom capabilities. So you could theoretically zoom in to work on a single pixel, just like working in Photoshop.
Yeah, sure..... like I'll have the patience (and visual context) for that, as an average user....
Yeah, sure..... like I'll have the patience (and visual context) for that, as an average user....
Is an average user doing pixel editing?
I can imagine that a variant of multitouch that can be supplemented to allow fine detail control though the use of a stylus. Heck, stylus control is possible now, and even an inexpensive tablet (at least my Wacom Graphire) seems to be fairly precise.
That's not true. You're forgetting that it has zoom capabilities. So you could theoretically zoom in to work on a single pixel, just like working in Photoshop.
I thought about that, but it wouldn't work.
Do you use a graphics tablet? I have a 12 x 18, because I did a lot of graphics work.
Just think of sticking your finger on there, instead of the stylus point. You would have to magnify to at least 1600% to be able to do any work because the finger is such an imprecise instrument.
Now think of this aprox 2.25 x 3.5" screen at 480 x 320. Even if your photo, or drawing, was 640 x480, your finger takes up such a large portion of the screen that you would again have to magnify to very large numbers. With the small, low rez screen, that would mean that you would see almost nothing of the image you are working on.
Your finger would also cover the area of interest, so that you couldn't get an accurate selection of pixels, even if you magnified so that one picture pixel was 16 x 16 on the screen.
Don't forget that this screen is 160 ppi. Therefore, 16 pixels to a side would be only a tenth of an inch square. Could your finger find that square without hitting another one by mistake?
Even if you did magnify to that size, the screen would then only be showing an actual image area of 30 x 20 pixels! How can you work with that? Even an image of 480 x 320 would only show as 60 x 40.
Is an average user doing pixel editing?
I can imagine that a variant of multitouch that can be supplemented to allow fine detail control though the use of a stylus. Heck, stylus control is possible now, and even an inexpensive tablet (at least my Wacom Graphire) seems to be fairly precise.
Stylus control is NOT possible now. Remember we had this discussion already. Jobs said that the screen ONLY responds to a finger (or, I guess, some other fleshy body part—DON'T get me started, it's too late.
It won't respond to a fingernail either, which is too bad, for that would solve some of that problem.
I'm not the average user, nor, I suspect, are many other people here. But, my above post to Kolchak shows just some of the problems we will find.
Cleaning the screen on the iPhone isn't the issue. That is hardly a problem. Its the assumption of a Mac Pro workstation or other desktops relying on a multi-touch screen to be effective. Its a ridiculous thought. I'm not buying into UBS Investment Researchs' analysis, or prediction of a mega-multi-touch platform.
I have to say, though, that if it doesn't add too much to the cost of a monitor, it will be used. Touch screens are not rare because they have little use, they're rare because they're expensive.
While I wouldn't use them for most editing tasks, I can see them as being useful. Programs would be re-written to take advantage of it.
Everyone here who wants a tablet will want one. To say the least.
Don't forget that the PC crowd said the same thing about the Mac's mouse for 6 years, until they had little choice, after Windows 3.1 started to take over.
The arguments about them were fierce! But, few today give it a thought. Do you want to go back to XYWrite, with it's several hundred two letter commands?
If touch tech came on all of Apple's monitors, people would find it helpful.
That's my 2¢.
I think the analysts are getting excited like little kids on Christmas over this multi-touch thing. I think we have yet to see how well Apple has solved the smudging and scratching problems inherent in a touch system. Also, how much does multitouch even matter to a non-handheld device.
Exactly my concerns. I don't understand how these people here and elsewhere get excited about such a feature. I cannot see how a touch screen is more usable than mouse-keyboard in a general purpose computer. And then there is those smudges and fingerprints all over the screen.
When the iPhone was introduced it trumped, what I believe, the more important product: the AppleTV. The main use of the touchscreen tech is going to be the Universal Remote...who invented that? The Woz of course. what better way to bring Woz back into the apple fold (he still gets a paycheck from apple) than this?
more here.