As a follow on to my last post "The Big Picture on Apple's Multi-Touch Technology", I think it's worthwhile looking at these 2 short videos on Microsoft-owned TouchLight technology.
Spoken (or written) like someone who's never tried Multitouch technology in its original form. I've been using an iGesture tablet for years, made by Fingerworks....
And that was spoken (or written) like someone who only skimmed over my post. You are talking about a tablet, read my post... I said if we're talking about a tablet, it's different. I'm talking about desktop systems with large displays. I think it's OUSTANDING technology for a tablet and my post didn't refute that. I'm saying it would likely NOT be a change for the iMac or ACD that is warranted. Again, I wouldn't want to sit close to a large display with my arm extended in the air. With a tablet, I can touch it right on my desk or on my lap so it wouldn't tire my arm plus the display isn't nearly as large. I never said the technology was bad or that I wouldn't like it, all I'm saying is that it has it's place.
You apparently really don't understand what an iGesture tablet is. It's about the shape and size of a 6x9 graphics tablet and acts as a pointing device in place of a mouse or trackball. See the original devices at Fingerworks' website. I am not talking about a tablet computer, which you seem to be fixated on. MultiTouch is NOT synonymous with touchscreen technology, does not have to be integrated with the screen and doesn't need any correlation with screen size. I'm running my iGesture with dual 20" LCDs right now and I'm not waving my hands in front of me. One flick of my fingers across the pad can send my cursor from one side of the one screen to the far side of the other, thanks to my very high acceleration settings. The tablet is next to my keyboard, where it should be. It would work fine with a 30" ACD or a Dell 30" display, which is next on my shopping list.
You apparently really don't understand what an iGesture tablet is. It's about the shape and size of a 6x9 graphics tablet and acts as a pointing device in place of a mouse or trackball. See the original devices at Fingerworks' website. I am not talking about a tablet computer, which you seem to be fixated on. MultiTouch is NOT synonymous with touchscreen technology, does not have to be integrated with the screen and doesn't need any correlation with screen size. I'm running my iGesture with dual 20" LCDs right now and I'm not waving my hands in front of me. One flick of my fingers across the pad can send my cursor from one side of the one screen to the far side of the other, thanks to my very high acceleration settings. The tablet is next to my keyboard, where it should be. It would work fine with a 30" ACD or a Dell 30" display, which is next on my shopping list.
Ok, well if I misunderstood you, I apologize. I will look into the product you are talking about. And I must say, I'm sure if Apple were to incorporate this technology into their products, they would presweat the details I'm worried about and would make the experience enjoyable so I will reserve judgment until there's a product on the table. How's that?
I think that when this comes to the desktop it won't be to replace the mouse or the keyboard, it will exist to suppelement them. For some things, mouse control is very efficent. For some things, keyboard control is very efficient. For some things, multi-touch will be very efficient and/or intuitive. Not much of a comment but I think that these three interface options will make for one very powerful platform.
Ok, well if I misunderstood you, I apologize. I will look into the product you are talking about. And I must say, I'm sure if Apple were to incorporate this technology into their products, they would presweat the details I'm worried about and would make the experience enjoyable so I will reserve judgment until there's a product on the table. How's that?
Sorry if I sound like a Fingerworks evangelist, but pretty much everyone who's ever used the iGesture tablets and taken the time to learn them has loved them. There's one of their low-end models on eBay now, bid up to over $400 already. That tablet originally retailed for $129. Name any other tech item (bought to use rather than for a collection somewhere) that appreciated in value after it ceased production.
I am much more efficient with my tablet than I ever was with mice, trackballs, thumbballs and graphics tablets. For instance, I can switch from moving the mouse pointer to moving a text cursor to clipboard operations literally in fractions of a second without moving my hands to the keyboard. If you've never used one, you cannot make an informed statement about whether it's less efficient, intuitive, etc. than a mouse. I've used just about every pointing device ever attached to a computer. None have ever matched this. I'm still kicking myself that I put off buying a spare -- just before I heard Fingerworks go out of business.
What I'd personally like to see is the option of getting a multi-touch keyboard and no mouse with your new Mac for an extra $300. To control the mouse you simply use one finger in the keyboards' display, and to type you simply tap the keyboard with two fingers to reveal the virtual keyboard. That's right, no mouse, no keyboard, just a 15 degree display resting on your desk, the size and shape of a regular keyboard. With some very clever thoughtful implementation of this idea and this M-T technology this could absolutely be a revolutionary game changer.
What I'd personally like to see is the option of getting a multi-tough keyboard and no mouse with your new Mac for an extra $300. To control the mouse you simply use one finger in the keyboards' display, and to type you simply tap the keyboard with two fingers to reveal the virtual keyboard. That's right, no mouse, no keyboard, just a 15 degree display resting on your desk, the size and shape of a regular keyboard. With some very clever thoughtful implementation of this idea and this M-T technology this could absolutely be a revolutionary game changer.
That was done a long time ago. Again, check the Fingerworks website I pointed to above. They made the Touchstream LP keyboard that used MultiTouch technology as well as allowed typing, and it doesn't need a display, either. It seems that with Apple's unveiling of the iPhone, people are wedded to the idea that MultiTouch=touchscreen. It is not so. Why would you need a display on your keyboard anyway? It's not like the keys change position or seeing the permanently printed key positions all the time is a horrible distraction. Other than to display the keys, what would you need to show on the keyboard?
Your inexperience with the full MT technology is making you think in only one or two finger mode. As far as I can tell, the iPhone is using only a limited implementation of the MultiTouch technology they bought from Fingerworks. iGesture tablets can sense anywhere from one to five fingers. They use one finger for text cursor control and two fingers for mouse control, three fingers for double clicking and dragging, etc. I can switch back and forth between about 30 different functions instantly just by using different fingers and gestures and not have to reach for my keyboard. Just for web surfing alone, I can do forward, back, reload, stop loading, scroll a page at a time, scroll horizontally and vertically a line at a time like using the arrow keys, home, end, pressing enter, escape, highlight, cut, copy, paste, increase/decrease text size, open new tab, close tab, quit, drag URL to the desktop or URLwell, find, control-click and command-click, all from the tablet using various gestures. (And probably more functions I can't recall off the top of my head.)
And again, tactile feedback is essential for most people, making virtual keyboards undesirable. I have an iGesture Numpad that uses MultiTouch and I still can't do data entry on its virtual numeric keypad at all, even though with a regular keypad, I can do about 160 keystrokes per minute.
There have been lots of threads on this forum about multi-touch. Including this one, there are now 64. We're all trying to predict the next incarnation, if any, of an MT device that Apple will release to the public. Many interesting concepts have been put forth. Some individuals have expressed great promise and an expectation of "reduction to practice" for such devices (I'll put myself at the head of that line). Others have expressed legitimate engineering concerns, impracticality and potential "flaws" in MT based computers.
In order to bring this discussion to another level, lets look at some data. The following site lists 228 Apple patents applications extracted from the US Patent & Trademark Office database. The search criteria used was "AN/"Apple+Computer".
I posted comments on the Pogue post under the pseudonym "Sugar Ray" Leonard" (long story). Another commenter to that post, an Engineer who reviews patents during product designs stated that 73 of the applications concern MT describing 10 separate inventions.
You now have access to the patent data to draw your own conclusions.
Clearly Apple has big plans for MT and holds a significant patent position on the technology. Consider that most of us have only been thinking about MT for about a month whereas Apple has had almost 3 years to refine the original FingerWorks technology, add to the basic technology and test many prototypes which undoubtedly addressed the engineering, cost and usability issues brought up in this forum.
But wait there's more! Another edition of "They should do that"
compares Jeff Han's MT technology and Apple's. Furthermore, cited in that article is Microsoft's Touchlight technology. Could there be a new confrontation brewing between Apple and Microsoft in the MT arena? Perhaps, but one thing is for sure in my mind--MT is coming to the consumer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
That was done a long time ago. Again, check the Fingerworks website I pointed to above. They made the Touchstream LP keyboard that used MultiTouch technology as well as allowed typing, and it doesn't need a display, either. It seems that with Apple's unveiling of the iPhone, people are wedded to the idea that MultiTouch=touchscreen. It is not so. Why would you need a display on your keyboard anyway? It's not like the keys change position or seeing the permanently printed key positions all the time is a horrible distraction. Other than to display the keys, what would you need to show on the keyboard?
Your inexperience with the full MT technology is making you think in only one or two finger mode. As far as I can tell, the iPhone is using only a limited implementation of the MultiTouch technology they bought from Fingerworks. iGesture tablets can sense anywhere from one to five fingers. They use one finger for text cursor control and two fingers for mouse control, three fingers for double clicking and dragging, etc. I can switch back and forth between about 30 different functions instantly just by using different fingers and gestures and not have to reach for my keyboard. Just for web surfing alone, I can do forward, back, reload, stop loading, scroll a page at a time, scroll horizontally and vertically a line at a time like using the arrow keys, home, end, pressing enter, escape, highlight, cut, copy, paste, increase/decrease text size, open new tab, close tab, quit, drag URL to the desktop or URLwell, find, control-click and command-click, all from the tablet using various gestures. (And probably more functions I can't recall off the top of my head.)
And again, tactile feedback is essential for most people, making virtual keyboards undesirable. I have an iGesture Numpad that uses MultiTouch and I still can't do data entry on its virtual numeric keypad at all, even though with a regular keypad, I can do about 160 keystrokes per minute
Kolcak,
I think you are the only one here who truly understands what Multi-Touch is (and its great power) when it was implimented using FingerWorks technology. However, I suggest you look closely at patent publications 20060256590 "Mechanical Overlay" (#26 in the list) and 20060097991 " Multipoint Touchscreen" (#73 in the list) both of which are available in the link above referring to Apple's 228 computer related patent applications. A totally new way to impliment multi-touch using multiple mechanical overlays is described in 20060256590. As a FingerWorks super-user, I'd be interested in hearing your comments on these 2 applications.
For everyone, at least look through the list of Apple patent applications to see how many aspects of Multi-Touch Apple has attempted to patent to date. For anyone not used to reading patent applications, focus in on the claims section. It is by far the most important part of such documents.
I'm not the only Fingerworks user here. There was a Touchstream user in one of the other topics, although I can't remember which one. I know about the mechanical overlay patent. That was covered in an AI story a few weeks ago. Seems like a solution in search of a problem. If you're going to leave the overlay on semi-permanently, you might as well just use specialized keypads like X-Keys. If you're going to change them by application, that would seem to be more trouble than it's worth. Every time I switch applications, I have to shuffle through a stack of overlays to find the corresponding one? No, thanks. I also don't dispute that MultiTouch can be used with screens, as it is on the iPhone. But the problem is that people who aren't familiar with MT look at that and think MultiTouch means only on-screen gestures. It's far more than that.
I agree on the mechanical overlays, just wanted to hear your opinion. It smacks of a patent that's just trying to cover all the bases. Also, agree that iPhone is only a very minimalist on-screen implimentation of MT, nothing compared to the dedicated separate panel advancements(s) to come.
I'm still wading thru the patent apps to get clues as to where Apple is going. Patent language is intentionally obtuse to throw off the competition. One concept that is repeated in many MT patents is "multiple regions" in the user input "area". It's leading me in the direction of a more or less standard size keyboard (lose/move the function keys?) plus a second region ( an expanded track pad area? with iconic fn keys?) with a built-in inlaid "iGestures" type pad to perform the operations you described in your post to Ireland. Practical implimentation of FW+ a standard keyboard in a single region of the laptop thus reduces to a geometric/engineering/ergonomic problem.
One concept that is repeated in many MT patents is "multiple regions" in the user input "area". It's leading me in the direction of a more or less standard size keyboard (lose/move the function keys?) plus a second region ( an expanded track pad area? with iconic fn keys?) with a built-in inlaid "iGestures" type pad to perform the operations you described in your post to Ireland. Practical implimentation of FW+ a standard keyboard in a single region of the laptop thus reduces to a geometric/engineering/ergonomic problem.
Actually, Fingerworks made one of those, too. It was based on the Microsoft Natural Pro keyboard with an inlaid iGesture Numpad taking the place of the numeric and cursor keypads. I really wanted one when I first looked for iGesture products, because I already used and liked the Natural Pro keyboard. But it was already discontinued at that time because it was too expensive to make. As it turned out, it was for the better anyway. I never got the hang of the virtual keypads on my tablet, eventually disabling them entirely to avoid accidentally typing in numbers when I actually want to use gestures, so I'm glad I have real keypads.
I think part of the cognitive dissonance being shown here comes from the difference between an input device with discrete input points (eg: each separate key on a keyboard) and an input device with a single continuous input point (eg: the surface of a multi-touch panel). In the former, the input that an application receives depends on the different input points you trigger. It doesn't matter which finger you use to acutuate them. In the latter, the situation is essentially reversed to your fingers being the actuation points. It no longer matters where on the surface you make the input, but it does matter which fingers you use and how you use them.
Instead of 102 keys on a keyboard, you now have 10 "keys". Your fingers. Just like a keyboard, they can be used individually, or chorded together. On a keyboard, pressing the Shift key and a letter produces different input than just pressing a letter by itself. Similarly, putting down one finger on a multi-touch surface is different than putting down two fingers. Where the multi-touch surface shines, however, is its ability to interpret more than just binary states on singular points. Where a keyboard can only detect if fixed points (keys) are on (down) or off (up), a multi-touch surface like those produced by FingerWorks is also capable of determining motion on multiple points, relationship of input points (four fingers spread apart is different than four fingers close together), proximity (above the surface itself) and possibly other attributes.
The difficulty with this type off input device is most likely in the fact that while keyboard keys are clearly labeled with their primary function, your fingers are not. A person using a TouchStream LP surface for the first time wouldn't know that using the index and middle fingers will move the mouse, or that four fingers together equals a Shift key. The challenge is to come up with finger-based input that is intuitive and can be remembered easily once learned. This is where multi-touch overlayed on top of a display can help. The graphical user interface itself can provide clues on what finger commands are possible or appropriate. Using your finger to press a displayed button is intuitive. Using two fingers to "strech" an area to zoom in or out is easy to understand and remember once learned. The converse of this is to give a multi-touch surface discrete contact points again, as alluded to in Apple's patent filings on mechanical overlays. But, just because there are defined input points, doesn't mean that the multi-touch surface is wasted. The surface would still be capable of detecting non-discrete input (like a volume slider or video jog wheel), and accepting inputs with different physical requirements (eg: a piano key versus a keyboard key).
No matter how multi-touch technology is used, all it boils down to is that we no longer have to have, "control buttons that are fixed in plastic, and are the same for every application," as Steve noted in his Keynote. The surface might replicate existing Keyboard layouts. It might act as a trackpad. It might simulate a musical keyboard. And, with the exception of mechnical overlays, it could do all of these at the same time. That's how the TouchStream LP from FingerWorks worked. The surface itself had keyboard keys printed on the surface for typing, but you can also move the mouse, select text, issue commands, and make any sort of gesture on the same surface at the same time. There's no "keyboard mode" or "gesture mode". It's just one versatile surface.
Edited to Add: If this is still confusing to people, I can probably make a recording of my TouchStream LP doing actual tasks on Mac OS X. Post a message if this is of interest to you.
Further reading of the Apple patent apps describes the use of the bottom of a laptop to house the Optical Disk Drive (ODD). The user would invert the laptop to insert the CD or DVD. Space on a laptop not normally used (the bottom) is now usable. In the patent, one big reason cited for this invention was the ability to "capture" more of the precious internal space (volume) of the laptop. So this has lead me down the path of placing a retractable MT iGesture type pad (~5" x ~7 "x 0.3") in the volume/space now occupied by the ODD in conventional laptops. So, what you then get is a full, conventional keyboard, trackpad and, with the push of a button, a popout MT iGesture pad. Voila! No need to learn touch typing on a virtual keyboard and the benefits of a conveniently located MT pad sized correctly. If the ODD placement on the bottom is saleable/practical, this could work. It would however suffer from "Catholic School Desk" syndrome--right handed people only need apply (10-13% percent of the population is left handed).
One further point. The next generation of an MT gesture pad has to be more intuitive than the original FW design. I think a combination of customizable software displays, uni-point icon tapping, two point sliding/pinching/grabbing gestures, and more intuitive multipoint gestures are needed. If FW had survived, I believe their evolution would have gone in this direction.
I think a combination of customizable software displays, uni-point icon tapping, two point sliding/pinching/grabbing gestures, and more intuitive multipoint gestures are needed. If FW had survived, I believe their evolution would have gone in this direction.
IMHO, the original Fingerworks gestures were intuitive enough. Cut? Pinch with finger and thumb, just like you're picking something up. Paste? Reverse the motion, just like putting something down. Open file or application: counterclockwise twisting motion with four fingers, like unscrewing (opening) a jar lid. Clockwise to close, again just like a lid. Most of the functions were easy to remember like that. And Fingerworks differentiated between using one finger and using two because a computer requires more functions than an iPhone. An iPhone has no need for text cursor control, because it's a small screen and there's only limited use of text on an iPhone anyway.
Like I wrote before, I think the main reason Fingerworks devices never caught on was because of the high cost compared to cheap optical mice. Unfortunately, there's not much of a market for high-end equipment with "different" functionality. That's what kept the Mac down for so many years.
Edited to Add: If this is still confusing to people, I can probably make a recording of my TouchStream LP doing actual tasks on Mac OS X. Post a message if this is of interest to you.
IMHO, the original Fingerworks gestures were intuitive enough.....
Do you think if FW had continued on as a company that their MT technology would have evolved further? Reading through all the FW firmware updates from 2001 thru Feb. 2005, one sees continual improvements in making chording more intuitive and in clarifications of ambiguities between similiar chording gestures. The introduction of the MyGestures editor in March,2003 added further significant value by enabling user customizable chords. The introduction of XWinder in 2004, enabling window movement and sizing, was another big improvement. So, on its own, FW the company was constantly improving and evolving the technology. Despite these improvements, the original iGestures pad had very few on-panel feedback "displays" to the user e.g.like the flathand induced squares to tell the user that USB had been reset. The 2005 model didn't "talk" much to the user. It also didn't have any on-panel user programmable icons. To me, this was just a characteristic of the early generation stage of the iGestures pad circa early 2005.
IMO, I think Elias and Westerman, the inventors of FW MT technology, with the full resources of Apple engineering behind them, have further developed the technology. How much, who knows? I think that one of the many paths for improvement of FW MT would involve enhanced integration of multipoint gestures with application-dependent iconic displays on the iGestures panel. If you are working in Excel,for example, combining intuitive chording gestures to select a range of cells with on-panel icons to complete complex activities ( perform a linear regression on the values in the selected range , graph it and show relevant statistics,i.e. execute a macro) makes sense to me as a next evolutionary step in MT/FW technology.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kolchak
Like I wrote before, I think the main reason Fingerworks devices never caught on was because of the high cost compared to cheap optical mice. Unfortunately, there's not much of a market for high-end equipment with "different" functionality. That's what kept the Mac down for so many years .
The Apple Mighty Mouse I'm using right now costs $70 and won't have one one hundreth the functionality of a 2007 model MT panel. If Apple reduced the cost of an integrated MT panel to $150-$300 per laptop, would it be worth it? Would there be an increased market for it? I say yes, but of course it's just my opinion. This is a different era for the Mac and Apple. Before Ipod, who would have predicted that people would pay $200+ for a portable music player?
I think that one of the many paths for improvement of FW MT would involve enhanced integration of multipoint gestures with application-dependent iconic displays on the iGestures panel. If you are working in Excel,for example, combining intuitive chording gestures to select a range of cells with on-panel icons to complete complex activities ( perform a linear regression on the values in the selected range , graph it and show relevant statistics,i.e. execute a macro) makes sense to me as a next evolutionary step in MT/FW technology.
This still seems like unnecessary complication to me. Why add a display to the pointing device when you're already using a display? Aside from adding cost, it means you have to look back and forth at two different displays. People who touchtype without looking at the keyboard type far faster than people who have to look at the keyboard then at the screen to make sure they haven't mistyped. Similarly, people can operate mice and current MT tablets without having to look at the device, just the screen.
It would be much easier for an application to be written with such customized palettes on the screen, so you can see them just by looking over a few inches. That would also make it useful for people without MT devices. Lowest common denominator is the name of the game. You write software for MT only and you'll piss off a hell of a lot of people who don't use it. There's nothing in your example that implicitly or explicitly needs MultiTouch.
This still seems like unnecessary complication to me. Why add a display to the pointing device when you're already using a display? Aside from adding cost, it means you have to look back and forth at two different displays. People who touchtype without looking at the keyboard type far faster than people who have to look at the keyboard then at the screen to make sure they haven't mistyped. Similarly, people can operate mice and current MT tablets without having to look at the device, just the screen.
It would be much easier for an application to be written with such customized palettes on the screen, so you can see them just by looking over a few inches. That would also make it useful for people without MT devices. Lowest common denominator is the name of the game. You write software for MT only and you'll piss off a hell of a lot of people who don't use it. There's nothing in your example that implicitly or explicitly needs MultiTouch.
You make some very legitimate points. I think I use the computer much differently than you. I don't type 100 wpm--I do very little typing ( actually I hate to type). I mostly import numeric data into relational databases and spreadsheet programs. I then execute my own macros and scripts to analyze such data using graphs,charts and statistics. I do write reports which rely heavily on regular tables, pivot tables, graphs,etc. Other than that, it's just email, web browsing and other simple stuff. On big spreadsheets and tables, I would use MT to select groups of data (I hate mousing around to do that) and then touch an icon on the panel to execute a script. Since I also do a lot of multiple graph overlay comparisons, I think MT would be great for that as well. So, I suppose my proposals are heavily weighted by my own biases and wishes.
Comments
http://news.com.com/1606-2_3-6096513.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTIlD6aIZ98
There is a lot to think about vis-a-vis Multi-Touch and TouchLight.
Spoken (or written) like someone who's never tried Multitouch technology in its original form. I've been using an iGesture tablet for years, made by Fingerworks....
And that was spoken (or written) like someone who only skimmed over my post. You are talking about a tablet, read my post... I said if we're talking about a tablet, it's different. I'm talking about desktop systems with large displays. I think it's OUSTANDING technology for a tablet and my post didn't refute that. I'm saying it would likely NOT be a change for the iMac or ACD that is warranted. Again, I wouldn't want to sit close to a large display with my arm extended in the air. With a tablet, I can touch it right on my desk or on my lap so it wouldn't tire my arm plus the display isn't nearly as large. I never said the technology was bad or that I wouldn't like it, all I'm saying is that it has it's place.
You apparently really don't understand what an iGesture tablet is. It's about the shape and size of a 6x9 graphics tablet and acts as a pointing device in place of a mouse or trackball. See the original devices at Fingerworks' website. I am not talking about a tablet computer, which you seem to be fixated on. MultiTouch is NOT synonymous with touchscreen technology, does not have to be integrated with the screen and doesn't need any correlation with screen size. I'm running my iGesture with dual 20" LCDs right now and I'm not waving my hands in front of me. One flick of my fingers across the pad can send my cursor from one side of the one screen to the far side of the other, thanks to my very high acceleration settings. The tablet is next to my keyboard, where it should be. It would work fine with a 30" ACD or a Dell 30" display, which is next on my shopping list.
Ok, well if I misunderstood you, I apologize. I will look into the product you are talking about. And I must say, I'm sure if Apple were to incorporate this technology into their products, they would presweat the details I'm worried about and would make the experience enjoyable so I will reserve judgment until there's a product on the table. How's that?
Ok, well if I misunderstood you, I apologize. I will look into the product you are talking about. And I must say, I'm sure if Apple were to incorporate this technology into their products, they would presweat the details I'm worried about and would make the experience enjoyable so I will reserve judgment until there's a product on the table. How's that?
Sorry if I sound like a Fingerworks evangelist, but pretty much everyone who's ever used the iGesture tablets and taken the time to learn them has loved them. There's one of their low-end models on eBay now, bid up to over $400 already. That tablet originally retailed for $129. Name any other tech item (bought to use rather than for a collection somewhere) that appreciated in value after it ceased production.
I am much more efficient with my tablet than I ever was with mice, trackballs, thumbballs and graphics tablets. For instance, I can switch from moving the mouse pointer to moving a text cursor to clipboard operations literally in fractions of a second without moving my hands to the keyboard. If you've never used one, you cannot make an informed statement about whether it's less efficient, intuitive, etc. than a mouse. I've used just about every pointing device ever attached to a computer. None have ever matched this. I'm still kicking myself that I put off buying a spare -- just before I heard Fingerworks go out of business.
What I'd personally like to see is the option of getting a multi-tough keyboard and no mouse with your new Mac for an extra $300. To control the mouse you simply use one finger in the keyboards' display, and to type you simply tap the keyboard with two fingers to reveal the virtual keyboard. That's right, no mouse, no keyboard, just a 15 degree display resting on your desk, the size and shape of a regular keyboard. With some very clever thoughtful implementation of this idea and this M-T technology this could absolutely be a revolutionary game changer.
That was done a long time ago. Again, check the Fingerworks website I pointed to above. They made the Touchstream LP keyboard that used MultiTouch technology as well as allowed typing, and it doesn't need a display, either. It seems that with Apple's unveiling of the iPhone, people are wedded to the idea that MultiTouch=touchscreen. It is not so. Why would you need a display on your keyboard anyway? It's not like the keys change position or seeing the permanently printed key positions all the time is a horrible distraction. Other than to display the keys, what would you need to show on the keyboard?
Your inexperience with the full MT technology is making you think in only one or two finger mode. As far as I can tell, the iPhone is using only a limited implementation of the MultiTouch technology they bought from Fingerworks. iGesture tablets can sense anywhere from one to five fingers. They use one finger for text cursor control and two fingers for mouse control, three fingers for double clicking and dragging, etc. I can switch back and forth between about 30 different functions instantly just by using different fingers and gestures and not have to reach for my keyboard. Just for web surfing alone, I can do forward, back, reload, stop loading, scroll a page at a time, scroll horizontally and vertically a line at a time like using the arrow keys, home, end, pressing enter, escape, highlight, cut, copy, paste, increase/decrease text size, open new tab, close tab, quit, drag URL to the desktop or URLwell, find, control-click and command-click, all from the tablet using various gestures. (And probably more functions I can't recall off the top of my head.)
And again, tactile feedback is essential for most people, making virtual keyboards undesirable. I have an iGesture Numpad that uses MultiTouch and I still can't do data entry on its virtual numeric keypad at all, even though with a regular keypad, I can do about 160 keystrokes per minute.
There have been lots of threads on this forum about multi-touch. Including this one, there are now 64. We're all trying to predict the next incarnation, if any, of an MT device that Apple will release to the public. Many interesting concepts have been put forth. Some individuals have expressed great promise and an expectation of "reduction to practice" for such devices (I'll put myself at the head of that line). Others have expressed legitimate engineering concerns, impracticality and potential "flaws" in MT based computers.
In order to bring this discussion to another level, lets look at some data. The following site lists 228 Apple patents applications extracted from the US Patent & Trademark Office database. The search criteria used was "AN/"Apple+Computer".
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-...FIELD2=&d=PG01
I tracked down this information starting from a New York Times comment on a David Pogue post
http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/0...or-the-iphone/
and a subsequent Google search that identified the website called "They should do that".
http://www.theyshoulddothat.com/2006...bitions_1.html
I posted comments on the Pogue post under the pseudonym "Sugar Ray" Leonard" (long story). Another commenter to that post, an Engineer who reviews patents during product designs stated that 73 of the applications concern MT describing 10 separate inventions.
You now have access to the patent data to draw your own conclusions.
Clearly Apple has big plans for MT and holds a significant patent position on the technology. Consider that most of us have only been thinking about MT for about a month whereas Apple has had almost 3 years to refine the original FingerWorks technology, add to the basic technology and test many prototypes which undoubtedly addressed the engineering, cost and usability issues brought up in this forum.
But wait there's more! Another edition of "They should do that"
http://www.theyshoulddothat.com/2007...hans_mult.html
compares Jeff Han's MT technology and Apple's. Furthermore, cited in that article is Microsoft's Touchlight technology. Could there be a new confrontation brewing between Apple and Microsoft in the MT arena? Perhaps, but one thing is for sure in my mind--MT is coming to the consumer.
That was done a long time ago. Again, check the Fingerworks website I pointed to above. They made the Touchstream LP keyboard that used MultiTouch technology as well as allowed typing, and it doesn't need a display, either. It seems that with Apple's unveiling of the iPhone, people are wedded to the idea that MultiTouch=touchscreen. It is not so. Why would you need a display on your keyboard anyway? It's not like the keys change position or seeing the permanently printed key positions all the time is a horrible distraction. Other than to display the keys, what would you need to show on the keyboard?
Your inexperience with the full MT technology is making you think in only one or two finger mode. As far as I can tell, the iPhone is using only a limited implementation of the MultiTouch technology they bought from Fingerworks. iGesture tablets can sense anywhere from one to five fingers. They use one finger for text cursor control and two fingers for mouse control, three fingers for double clicking and dragging, etc. I can switch back and forth between about 30 different functions instantly just by using different fingers and gestures and not have to reach for my keyboard. Just for web surfing alone, I can do forward, back, reload, stop loading, scroll a page at a time, scroll horizontally and vertically a line at a time like using the arrow keys, home, end, pressing enter, escape, highlight, cut, copy, paste, increase/decrease text size, open new tab, close tab, quit, drag URL to the desktop or URLwell, find, control-click and command-click, all from the tablet using various gestures. (And probably more functions I can't recall off the top of my head.)
And again, tactile feedback is essential for most people, making virtual keyboards undesirable. I have an iGesture Numpad that uses MultiTouch and I still can't do data entry on its virtual numeric keypad at all, even though with a regular keypad, I can do about 160 keystrokes per minute
Kolcak,
I think you are the only one here who truly understands what Multi-Touch is (and its great power) when it was implimented using FingerWorks technology. However, I suggest you look closely at patent publications 20060256590 "Mechanical Overlay" (#26 in the list) and 20060097991 " Multipoint Touchscreen" (#73 in the list) both of which are available in the link above referring to Apple's 228 computer related patent applications. A totally new way to impliment multi-touch using multiple mechanical overlays is described in 20060256590. As a FingerWorks super-user, I'd be interested in hearing your comments on these 2 applications.
For everyone, at least look through the list of Apple patent applications to see how many aspects of Multi-Touch Apple has attempted to patent to date. For anyone not used to reading patent applications, focus in on the claims section. It is by far the most important part of such documents.
I'm still wading thru the patent apps to get clues as to where Apple is going. Patent language is intentionally obtuse to throw off the competition. One concept that is repeated in many MT patents is "multiple regions" in the user input "area". It's leading me in the direction of a more or less standard size keyboard (lose/move the function keys?) plus a second region ( an expanded track pad area? with iconic fn keys?) with a built-in inlaid "iGestures" type pad to perform the operations you described in your post to Ireland. Practical implimentation of FW+ a standard keyboard in a single region of the laptop thus reduces to a geometric/engineering/ergonomic problem.
One concept that is repeated in many MT patents is "multiple regions" in the user input "area". It's leading me in the direction of a more or less standard size keyboard (lose/move the function keys?) plus a second region ( an expanded track pad area? with iconic fn keys?) with a built-in inlaid "iGestures" type pad to perform the operations you described in your post to Ireland. Practical implimentation of FW+ a standard keyboard in a single region of the laptop thus reduces to a geometric/engineering/ergonomic problem.
Actually, Fingerworks made one of those, too. It was based on the Microsoft Natural Pro keyboard with an inlaid iGesture Numpad taking the place of the numeric and cursor keypads. I really wanted one when I first looked for iGesture products, because I already used and liked the Natural Pro keyboard. But it was already discontinued at that time because it was too expensive to make. As it turned out, it was for the better anyway. I never got the hang of the virtual keypads on my tablet, eventually disabling them entirely to avoid accidentally typing in numbers when I actually want to use gestures, so I'm glad I have real keypads.
I'm not the only Fingerworks user here. There was a Touchstream user in one of the other topics, although I can't remember which one.
I'm guessing you're referring to me.
I think part of the cognitive dissonance being shown here comes from the difference between an input device with discrete input points (eg: each separate key on a keyboard) and an input device with a single continuous input point (eg: the surface of a multi-touch panel). In the former, the input that an application receives depends on the different input points you trigger. It doesn't matter which finger you use to acutuate them. In the latter, the situation is essentially reversed to your fingers being the actuation points. It no longer matters where on the surface you make the input, but it does matter which fingers you use and how you use them.
Instead of 102 keys on a keyboard, you now have 10 "keys". Your fingers. Just like a keyboard, they can be used individually, or chorded together. On a keyboard, pressing the Shift key and a letter produces different input than just pressing a letter by itself. Similarly, putting down one finger on a multi-touch surface is different than putting down two fingers. Where the multi-touch surface shines, however, is its ability to interpret more than just binary states on singular points. Where a keyboard can only detect if fixed points (keys) are on (down) or off (up), a multi-touch surface like those produced by FingerWorks is also capable of determining motion on multiple points, relationship of input points (four fingers spread apart is different than four fingers close together), proximity (above the surface itself) and possibly other attributes.
The difficulty with this type off input device is most likely in the fact that while keyboard keys are clearly labeled with their primary function, your fingers are not. A person using a TouchStream LP surface for the first time wouldn't know that using the index and middle fingers will move the mouse, or that four fingers together equals a Shift key. The challenge is to come up with finger-based input that is intuitive and can be remembered easily once learned. This is where multi-touch overlayed on top of a display can help. The graphical user interface itself can provide clues on what finger commands are possible or appropriate. Using your finger to press a displayed button is intuitive. Using two fingers to "strech" an area to zoom in or out is easy to understand and remember once learned. The converse of this is to give a multi-touch surface discrete contact points again, as alluded to in Apple's patent filings on mechanical overlays. But, just because there are defined input points, doesn't mean that the multi-touch surface is wasted. The surface would still be capable of detecting non-discrete input (like a volume slider or video jog wheel), and accepting inputs with different physical requirements (eg: a piano key versus a keyboard key).
No matter how multi-touch technology is used, all it boils down to is that we no longer have to have, "control buttons that are fixed in plastic, and are the same for every application," as Steve noted in his Keynote. The surface might replicate existing Keyboard layouts. It might act as a trackpad. It might simulate a musical keyboard. And, with the exception of mechnical overlays, it could do all of these at the same time. That's how the TouchStream LP from FingerWorks worked. The surface itself had keyboard keys printed on the surface for typing, but you can also move the mouse, select text, issue commands, and make any sort of gesture on the same surface at the same time. There's no "keyboard mode" or "gesture mode". It's just one versatile surface.
Edited to Add: If this is still confusing to people, I can probably make a recording of my TouchStream LP doing actual tasks on Mac OS X. Post a message if this is of interest to you.
One further point. The next generation of an MT gesture pad has to be more intuitive than the original FW design. I think a combination of customizable software displays, uni-point icon tapping, two point sliding/pinching/grabbing gestures, and more intuitive multipoint gestures are needed. If FW had survived, I believe their evolution would have gone in this direction.
I think a combination of customizable software displays, uni-point icon tapping, two point sliding/pinching/grabbing gestures, and more intuitive multipoint gestures are needed. If FW had survived, I believe their evolution would have gone in this direction.
IMHO, the original Fingerworks gestures were intuitive enough. Cut? Pinch with finger and thumb, just like you're picking something up. Paste? Reverse the motion, just like putting something down. Open file or application: counterclockwise twisting motion with four fingers, like unscrewing (opening) a jar lid. Clockwise to close, again just like a lid. Most of the functions were easy to remember like that. And Fingerworks differentiated between using one finger and using two because a computer requires more functions than an iPhone. An iPhone has no need for text cursor control, because it's a small screen and there's only limited use of text on an iPhone anyway.
Like I wrote before, I think the main reason Fingerworks devices never caught on was because of the high cost compared to cheap optical mice. Unfortunately, there's not much of a market for high-end equipment with "different" functionality. That's what kept the Mac down for so many years.
I'm guessing you're referring to me.
Edited to Add: If this is still confusing to people, I can probably make a recording of my TouchStream LP doing actual tasks on Mac OS X. Post a message if this is of interest to you.
THIS INTERESTS ME . . .
I would love to see this in action
THIS INTERESTS ME . . .
I would love to see this in action
Alright. I'll grab a camera for the weekend and whip something up!
IMHO, the original Fingerworks gestures were intuitive enough.....
Do you think if FW had continued on as a company that their MT technology would have evolved further? Reading through all the FW firmware updates from 2001 thru Feb. 2005, one sees continual improvements in making chording more intuitive and in clarifications of ambiguities between similiar chording gestures. The introduction of the MyGestures editor in March,2003 added further significant value by enabling user customizable chords. The introduction of XWinder in 2004, enabling window movement and sizing, was another big improvement. So, on its own, FW the company was constantly improving and evolving the technology. Despite these improvements, the original iGestures pad had very few on-panel feedback "displays" to the user e.g.like the flathand induced squares to tell the user that USB had been reset. The 2005 model didn't "talk" much to the user. It also didn't have any on-panel user programmable icons. To me, this was just a characteristic of the early generation stage of the iGestures pad circa early 2005.
IMO, I think Elias and Westerman, the inventors of FW MT technology, with the full resources of Apple engineering behind them, have further developed the technology. How much, who knows? I think that one of the many paths for improvement of FW MT would involve enhanced integration of multipoint gestures with application-dependent iconic displays on the iGestures panel. If you are working in Excel,for example, combining intuitive chording gestures to select a range of cells with on-panel icons to complete complex activities ( perform a linear regression on the values in the selected range , graph it and show relevant statistics,i.e. execute a macro) makes sense to me as a next evolutionary step in MT/FW technology.
Like I wrote before, I think the main reason Fingerworks devices never caught on was because of the high cost compared to cheap optical mice. Unfortunately, there's not much of a market for high-end equipment with "different" functionality. That's what kept the Mac down for so many years .
The Apple Mighty Mouse I'm using right now costs $70 and won't have one one hundreth the functionality of a 2007 model MT panel. If Apple reduced the cost of an integrated MT panel to $150-$300 per laptop, would it be worth it? Would there be an increased market for it? I say yes, but of course it's just my opinion. This is a different era for the Mac and Apple. Before Ipod, who would have predicted that people would pay $200+ for a portable music player?
I think that one of the many paths for improvement of FW MT would involve enhanced integration of multipoint gestures with application-dependent iconic displays on the iGestures panel. If you are working in Excel,for example, combining intuitive chording gestures to select a range of cells with on-panel icons to complete complex activities ( perform a linear regression on the values in the selected range , graph it and show relevant statistics,i.e. execute a macro) makes sense to me as a next evolutionary step in MT/FW technology.
This still seems like unnecessary complication to me. Why add a display to the pointing device when you're already using a display? Aside from adding cost, it means you have to look back and forth at two different displays. People who touchtype without looking at the keyboard type far faster than people who have to look at the keyboard then at the screen to make sure they haven't mistyped. Similarly, people can operate mice and current MT tablets without having to look at the device, just the screen.
It would be much easier for an application to be written with such customized palettes on the screen, so you can see them just by looking over a few inches. That would also make it useful for people without MT devices. Lowest common denominator is the name of the game. You write software for MT only and you'll piss off a hell of a lot of people who don't use it. There's nothing in your example that implicitly or explicitly needs MultiTouch.
This still seems like unnecessary complication to me. Why add a display to the pointing device when you're already using a display? Aside from adding cost, it means you have to look back and forth at two different displays. People who touchtype without looking at the keyboard type far faster than people who have to look at the keyboard then at the screen to make sure they haven't mistyped. Similarly, people can operate mice and current MT tablets without having to look at the device, just the screen.
It would be much easier for an application to be written with such customized palettes on the screen, so you can see them just by looking over a few inches. That would also make it useful for people without MT devices. Lowest common denominator is the name of the game. You write software for MT only and you'll piss off a hell of a lot of people who don't use it. There's nothing in your example that implicitly or explicitly needs MultiTouch.
You make some very legitimate points. I think I use the computer much differently than you. I don't type 100 wpm--I do very little typing ( actually I hate to type). I mostly import numeric data into relational databases and spreadsheet programs. I then execute my own macros and scripts to analyze such data using graphs,charts and statistics. I do write reports which rely heavily on regular tables, pivot tables, graphs,etc. Other than that, it's just email, web browsing and other simple stuff. On big spreadsheets and tables, I would use MT to select groups of data (I hate mousing around to do that) and then touch an icon on the panel to execute a script. Since I also do a lot of multiple graph overlay comparisons, I think MT would be great for that as well. So, I suppose my proposals are heavily weighted by my own biases and wishes.