Apple's multi-touch technology seen spawning "mega-platform"

1468910

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 198
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,299member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    Not necessarily as precise as a pen or more precise than a mouse, but I think that you can save a lot of time with multitouch, at least for the rough work, then maybe go back and fine tune it with some other pointing device. It looks like it would be a better brainstorming tool, making it easier to rearrange and adjust clips, cuts and other elements for experimentation.



    Right.



    People are still looking at the monitor staring them in the face, and assume that that's the way they have to be. And I agree that if the monitor is set up they way they are now, multi-touch would be a pain, reaching up a hundred times a day would get tiring.



    But, put that monitor down, at an angle, the way you can use the Wacom LCD tablet, and using one hand would become much easier to manipulate many functions rather than a two or three key command sequence that requires both hands, or a mouse/trackball, which requires moving the pointer around the screen, and then using one of several click functions.



    Moving an image around with the finger is much easier than using the keyboard or the mouse/trackball. Then use the pinch to expand the size or shrink it, the finger again to center it back where it's needed.



    Much easier than the way it's done now, and faster as well.



    What I would find to be perfect would be the combo of multi-touch and stylus.



    If, somehow two different sensing mechanisms could be built into this, it would be the best of both worlds.



    If the multi-touch functions would be distinct from those from the stylus, it would work.



    So the finger couldn't affect pixel, or other painting/drawing functions. The stylus would be able to do those as well as the menu, movement functions of the multi-touch, except that only one point could be selected.



    If you put your finger to the image, the computer would know that you wanted to move it, or change its size, so it wouldn't make the mistake of affecting the drawing. The stylus buttons would control what it does at the moment, as it does now. You could select which way is easier for you.
  • Reply 102 of 198
    pbpb Posts: 4,244member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


    Not necessarily as precise as a pen or more precise than a mouse, but I think that you can save a lot of time with multitouch, at least for the rough work, then maybe go back and fine tune it with some other pointing device. It looks like it would be a better brainstorming tool, making it easier to rearrange and adjust clips, cuts and other elements for experimentation.



    This seems fine.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpinDrift View Post


    There's no reason why a finger couldn't be as accurate as a mouse or stylus if applications were developed that way. You could pinch zoom in and out in an instant down to sub pixel level and almost feel what you are designing.



    I am not convinced it would be simple like that in practice.
  • Reply 103 of 198
    kolchakkolchak Posts: 1,398member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Yes, much of that is important as well, and due to how the Wacom stylus works, could not be duplicated on the touchscreen easily.



    Functions that will never be required by over 99.9% of the population. Nobody ever said MultiTouch was supposed to replace every control device on the face of the Earth. For instance, it cannot replace 3Dconnexion devices. It can't replace joysticks or flight yokes. If you desperately need all the functionality of a Wacom tablet, there's absolutely nothing preventing you from plugging one into the USB port.



    Quote:

    Yes, I did mention those desks.



    The bulk of the crt was to blame, as was the idea of getting more desk space for the office worker.



    And yet slim LCDs have been predominant for years now. Why haven't these desks made a comeback with shallower LCD holders? The 45º incline does in fact take quite a bit more space, a major problem for many people who already have limited desk space. We'd nearly be going back to the footprint of CRT monitors.
  • Reply 104 of 198
    dappledapple Posts: 44member
    Those who are stuck on touching the actual video screen are on a wild goose chase, IMO.



    Apple is on the verge of reinventing the computer, IMO.



    A new era is quickly approaching and a revolution is already under way, IMO.



    The competition is not prepared to face their grim reality: It is all patented.



    P.S. I am just guessing
  • Reply 105 of 198
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,299member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Kolchak View Post


    Functions that will never be required by over 99.9% of the population. Nobody ever said MultiTouch was supposed to replace every control device on the face of the Earth. For instance, it cannot replace 3Dconnexion devices. It can't replace joysticks or flight yokes. If you desperately need all the functionality of a Wacom tablet, there's absolutely nothing preventing you from plugging one into the USB port.



    I didn't say that it would, or should replace those devices, but it certainly could suppliment them.



    I have also said, several times, that I use a 12 x 18 Wacom tablet.



    Quote:

    And yet slim LCDs have been predominant for years now. Why haven't these desks made a comeback with shallower LCD holders? The 45º incline does in fact take quite a bit more space, a major problem for many people who already have limited desk space. We'd nearly be going back to the footprint of CRT monitors.



    New concepts take some thinking about. It isn't easy for everyone, I'll admit.



    The LCD's wouldn't have to be locked into a 45° position, any more than most monitors now have to be locked into the same height, or vertical and horizontal angles. In fact, vertical adjustments, while popular now, except for Apple's units, naturally, weren't even possible for the older crt monitors, because of the weight and bulk.



    The desks wouldn't be shallower. The room behind the crt's was free. It was the front of the screens that mattered.



    What a lot of people don't realise, it that LCD's save no room at all on a standard depth desk. You don't slide an LCD any further back on your desk simply because you can. Thewre is still the need to read what's on the screen. With higher rez models, if anything, you have to get closer. The rear of the desk then becomes wasted space for most people with standard 30" deep desks. LCD's advantages are with narrow desks, less than 24".



    Wacoms's LCD tablets are popular, even at the high prices they command. They aren't large enough for me, so I haven't bought one.
  • Reply 106 of 198
    kolchakkolchak Posts: 1,398member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I didn't say that it would, or should replace those devices, but it certainly could suppliment them.



    I have also said, several times, that I use a 12 x 18 Wacom tablet.



    There's your contradiction right there. On the one hand, you castigate MultiTouch for not being able to do what a graphics tablet can, namely pixel-accurate pointing. On the other hand, you write MultiTouch need only supplement a graphics tablet. In which case, you negate your original complaint.
  • Reply 107 of 198
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,299member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Kolchak View Post


    There's your contradiction right there. On the one hand, you castigate MultiTouch for not being able to do what a graphics tablet can, namely pixel-accurate pointing. On the other hand, you write MultiTouch need only supplement a graphics tablet. In which case, you negate your original complaint.



    You're misinterpreting what I'm saying.



    There are two threads to this conversation.



    The first is what we can, or can't, do on an iPhone's small, low rez screen.



    The second is what we can, or can't, do on a large hi rez monitor, or graphic tablet.



    The two are not the same.
  • Reply 108 of 198
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I find that most keyboards these days have poor enough feedback that typing on a monitor keyboard wouldn't be worse. If the monitor is big enough, that would work for a lot of people. My wife's old Atari 400 had a flat, feedbackless keyboard, and she got used to it. A lot of industrial, factory floor equipment, in critical applications, also use such keyboards, so it's not out of the question.



    One (small) study disagrees.



    http://ergo.human.cornell.edu/Grads/JTSdefense1.pdf



    Presented at the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 49th Meeting (published in the Proceedings for the meeting) so it is peer reviewed.



    Comparing a FingerWorks Ultra to a Dell AT101W keyboard. Traditional keyboard is faster with lower error rates. See presentations for limitations of the study (which are many but typical for that size study and HCI studies in general).



    Vinea
  • Reply 109 of 198
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    What a lot of people don't realise, it that LCD's save no room at all on a standard depth desk. You don't slide an LCD any further back on your desk simply because you can. Thewre is still the need to read what's on the screen. With higher rez models, if anything, you have to get closer. The rear of the desk then becomes wasted space for most people with standard 30" deep desks. LCD's advantages are with narrow desks, less than 24".



    I'm sitting at a 30" deep desk and my montior is pushed back as far as it can go. In fact, looking around...no one has any space behind their LCDs...mostly higher resolution dual 21" and single 24" Dells. This statement is silly.



    Quote:

    Wacoms's LCD tablets are popular, even at the high prices they command. They aren't large enough for me, so I haven't bought one.



    The Cintiq is 21" which is plenty large for most folks. Folks that need more space typically use it as a secondary display which is what I did when I kept one on my desk. Along with my 3dconnexion puck, mouse and keyboard.



    Multi-touch would have been nice to have on the Cintiq but not the panacea some folks think it will be. It won't replace the keyboard for anyone that needs to type documents of any length at all. Nor would it replace the 3DOF controller except in some circumstances...I read a paper about a "ballonning" gesture for selection in a 3-d space that would be handy for some but not all interaction.



    Vinea
  • Reply 110 of 198
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,299member
    I reposted this because it was messed up, and somehow I couldn't correct it.
  • Reply 111 of 198
    kolchakkolchak Posts: 1,398member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    My wife's old Atari 400 had a flat, feedbackless keyboard, and she got used to it. A lot of industrial, factory floor equipment, in critical applications, also use such keyboards, so it's not out of the question.



    Replacement keyboards for the 400 were a fairly good business back then. Quite a few companies made them as many people hated the original keyboard. I knew someone who bought the 800 instead almost exclusively because it had a real keyboard. Also, that was a membrane keyboard, not a capacitance keyboard. You could rest your fingertips on it. Industrial equipment isn't used for long documents. You enter a few commands and parameters and that's it, something easily done with hunt and peck.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I said MOST keyboards. There are some good ones out there as well. I find the newest Apple models to be so mushy, that I constantly make errors, and I have to amend my posts too often because of it.



    That I can agree with. I don't like the feel of Apple's keyboards in the last few years, either. As much as I hate Microsoft, I like their keyboards. But you're making exactly the point. If just mushy feedback can produce more errors, imagine what zero feedback would do.
  • Reply 112 of 198
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,299member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vinea View Post


    One (small) study disagrees.



    http://ergo.human.cornell.edu/Grads/JTSdefense1.pdf



    Presented at the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 49th Meeting (published in the Proceedings for the meeting) so it is peer reviewed.



    Comparing a FingerWorks Ultra to a Dell AT101W keyboard. Traditional keyboard is faster with lower error rates. See presentations for limitations of the study (which are many but typical for that size study and HCI studies in general).



    Vinea



    I said MOST keyboards. There are some good ones out there as well. I find the newest Apple models to be so mushy, that I constantly make errors, and I have to amend my posts too often because of it.



    From the report. This fits most of Apple's newer keyboards:



    " Consistent with past research suggesting that light resistance, low-hysteresislinear-spring keyboards with less key travel are

    prone to inadvertent errors by typists (Brunner & Richardson,

    1984). "



    It was thought that the MTK coukld result in less injury:



    "The MTK may help to decrease the likelihood of MSDs by reducing the amount of time spent in awkward wrist postures while engaged in repetitive work, a guideline endorsed in previous research . "





    So, it's a little of one, and a little of the other.
  • Reply 113 of 198
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,299member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vinea View Post


    I'm sitting at a 30" deep desk and my montior is pushed back as far as it can go. In fact, looking around...no one has any space behind their LCDs...mostly higher resolution dual 21" and single 24" Dells. This statement is silly.



    Well you work environment is very unusual then. I have never seen anyone using a large hi rez monitor push it to the back of a 30" desk, as you claim to be doing. If you do that then you won't resolve the fine detail. You must have extraordinary vision. Most of us, as we pass our mid 30's find that we have to move closer.



    Just try to do photo edition at a 30" distance.





    Quote:

    The Cintiq is 21" which is plenty large for most folks. Folks that need more space typically use it as a secondary display which is what I did when I kept one on my desk. Along with my 3dconnexion puck, mouse and keyboard.



    Multi-touch would have been nice to have on the Cintiq but not the panacea some folks think it will be. It won't replace the keyboard for anyone that needs to type documents of any length at all. Nor would it replace the 3DOF controller except in some circumstances...I read a paper about a "ballonning" gesture for selection in a 3-d space that would be handy for some but not all interaction.



    Vinea



    There's an expression: "Each to his own".
  • Reply 114 of 198
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,299member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Kolchak View Post


    Replacement keyboards for the 400 were a fairly good business back then. Quite a few companies made them as many people hated the original keyboard. I knew someone who bought the 800 instead almost exclusively because it had a real keyboard. Also, that was a membrane keyboard, not a capacitance keyboard. You could rest your fingertips on it. Industrial equipment isn't used for long documents. You enter a few commands and parameters and that's it, something easily done with hunt and peck.



    My 800 had an excellent keyboard. Sure, I know that the 400's wasn't capacitive. I didn't say it was. Some people replaced theirs, but not most.



    I'm not saying that these would be ideal for great amounts of writing, but good enough for some everyday tasks. I wouldn't want to replace a regular keyboard with one either. But, when in a program where I'm simply typing names for files or short, quick lines, it would be fine.



    But, you know, times change. When I was in JHS and HS, my mom had an old Underwood, which had the keys arranged in a pattern where the back rows of keys were several inches higher than the front row. They also took quite a bit of force to use. I remember that when computer keyboards first came out, they were criticized as being too flat, and not having enough resistance.



    My mom was a legal secretary, and typed very quickly. I know, because despite having taken typing in HS, I could never type quickly on that, without tangling up the keys, so my mom typed my reports for me until I entered college.



    People used machines like that for 70 years. No one today would ever manage on one.



    Possibility, the same thing will be said about what we use now, which has gotten progressively worse since my first $189 Mac Pro keyboard, which was superb.



    Quote:

    That I can agree with. I don't like the feel of Apple's keyboards in the last few years, either. As much as I hate Microsoft, I like their keyboards. But you're making exactly the point. If just mushy feedback can produce more errors, imagine what zero feedback would do.



    Go by what I said above.
  • Reply 115 of 198
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    I said MOST keyboards. There are some good ones out there as well. I find the newest Apple models to be so mushy, that I constantly make errors, and I have to amend my posts too often because of it.



    I don't think the new Dell keyboards are substantially better than the apple keyboard I'm typing on now. AND I would think the standard Dell keyboard would translate into MOST over Apple ones anyway.



    MOST keyboards are NOT the Atari 400 like keyboards you mentioned or any other kind of flat or chicklet keyboards.



    Quote:

    From the report. This fits most of Apple's newer keyboards:



    " Consistent with past research suggesting that light resistance, low-hysteresislinear-spring keyboards with less key travel are prone to inadvertent errors by typists (Brunner & Richardson, 1984). "



    The current Apple Pro keyboard is a membrane type and has less travel than the "selectric" type mechanical keys like the old Apple Extended Keyboard II (or older Dells) but far more than the multitouch keyboards (zero).



    Therefore it is in between the two types but MUCH closer to the tested keyboard (an older "clicky" Dell) and equivalent to modern Dells.



    In any case, you CAN buy a "clicky" Apple keyboard...



    http://matias.ca/tactilepro/index.php



    ...rendering your objection completely moot.



    Quote:

    It was thought that the MTK coukld result in less injury:



    "The MTK may help to decrease the likelihood of MSDs by reducing the amount of time spent in awkward wrist postures while engaged in repetitive work, a guideline endorsed in previous research . "



    So, it's a little of one, and a little of the other.



    That aspect of the study is based on measured wrist angle which then may or may not translate into reduced MSDs.



    The lower speed and accuracy are direct measurements.



    Perhaps you have a study that shows MT keyboards more efficient than conventional keyboards? No?



    Amusing that you would quote a couple lines out of context while ignoring the first bullet item:



    "Subjects were significantly more accurate on the typing tasks during the conventional keyboard condition, despite the presence of key travel."



    If you can't type now with an Apple keyboard expect your experience on a MT keyboard to be far worse.



    I'm sure you're going to try to dodge around what you mean by "most" and continue to be defensive but geez...there's a study that says MT keyboards aren't as efficient presented at a HCI conference (a major one to boot). Can't you just accept that and move on? So there's hard data that contradicts your position...perhaps instead of poo-pooing the data you might adjust your opinion for once?



    Vinea
  • Reply 116 of 198
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,299member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vinea View Post


    In any case, you CAN buy a "clicky" Apple keyboard...



    http://matias.ca/tactilepro/index.php



    ...rendering your objection completely moot.



    My objection is not completely moot, because very few people will be buying those keyboards, or even know about them. I thought about buying one myself, but it isn't as good as you might think.



    Quote:

    That aspect of the study is based on measured wrist angle which then may or may not translate into reduced MSDs.



    They certainly stated that they thought it would.



    Quote:

    The lower speed and accuracy are direct measurements.



    Perhaps you have a study that shows MT keyboards more efficient than conventional keyboards? No?



    I never said they were. You are saying I said that.



    Quote:

    Amusing that you would quote a couple lines out of context while ignoring the first bullet item:



    "Subjects were significantly more accurate on the typing tasks during the conventional keyboard condition, despite the presence of key travel."



    If you can't type now with an Apple keyboard expect your experience on a MT keyboard to be far worse.



    I'm sure you're going to try to dodge around what you mean by "most" and continue to be defensive but geez...there's a study that says MT keyboards aren't as efficient presented at a HCI conference (a major one to boot). Can't you just accept that and move on? So there's hard data that contradicts your position...perhaps instead of poo-pooing the data you might adjust your opinion for once?



    Vinea



    Vinea, you are doing it again. You overstate your case.



    The typists they were talking about were considered to be "experienced" typists, who typed over 45 words a minute, which is faster than most type. These are people who type far more than the person I'm thinking about, for the purpose we were originally talking about, until you turned it into something else.



    But, again, I never stated that this should replace a regular keyboard, only supplement it.



    I like the way you scrounge around trying to contradict what I say, even though your argument always goes further than what I said in the first place.
  • Reply 117 of 198
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    Well you work environment is very unusual then. I have never seen anyone using a large hi rez monitor push it to the back of a 30" desk, as you claim to be doing. If you do that then you won't resolve the fine detail. You must have extraordinary vision. Most of us, as we pass our mid 30's find that we have to move closer.



    Yes, my work environment is so wierd that I must be mistaken or lying. Perhaps you haven't considered that for a 30" distance I measure 20" from front of desk to monitor surface (ie a little under 2 sheets of paper).



    Thus the LCD from back of the stand plus a little for cables to the front of the monitor is around 10". I see maybe a couple three inches from the edge of the stand to the back of the desk which is flush against a partition. Its a 30" ACD. The dual 24" Dell's left me with less desk space so they must have taken a little bit more depth than the ACD (probably because I angled them a little).



    HOWEVER, since you're insinuatinig I'm lying or confused given a 1680 horizontal pixel count and a 30" diagonal screen size and a 30" viewing distance it comes out to a mere 33.64 pixels per degree.



    You can sit as far as 53.5" away to get to 60 pixels per degree.



    http://home1.gte.net/res18h39/calculator.htm



    I can certainly see 1 pixel objects from my seating distance (about 30") with no problems.



    A person with 20/20 vision (which I don't have) can see 60 pixels per degree meaning folks with "normal" vision can see detail about twice as small as the 30" ACD can display at that 30" distance.



    Even with a 23" 1920x1200 pixel display it comes out to 50 pixels per degree at 30". Within the limit of "old eyes".



    Quote:

    Just try to do photo edition at a 30" distance.



    Most folks don't do photos but since I'm am also a UI developer I deal with 1 pixel offsets all the time. Sometimes I might *GASP* lean forward a little, zoom in, use guide lines or use my Cinitq.



    Most folks around here are systems engineers which means they look mostly at PowerPoint and Word. The extra screen real-estate of larger and higher resolution monitors is spent seeing more of the document or drawing or a larger image of a slide.



    I would say that most LCD monitors used in the office is used for text and not photos or graphical manipulation. Our secretary has a 21" LCD (not WS) monitor and I just took a look...it's pushed to the back of her desk. She just can see more of the documents she's working on at one time.



    If you've NEVER seen anyone with their LCD monitor at the back of their desks I would say your experience is "very limited".



    Quote:

    There's an expression: "Each to his own".



    There's another expression: "Talking out one's ass".



    Vinea
  • Reply 118 of 198
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,299member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by vinea View Post


    Yes, my work environment is so wierd that I must be mistaken or lying. Perhaps you haven't considered that for a 30" distance I measure 20" from front of desk to monitor surface (ie a little under 2 sheets of paper).



    Thus the LCD from back of the stand plus a little for cables to the front of the monitor is around 10". I see maybe a couple three inches from the edge of the stand to the back of the desk which is flush against a partition. Its a 30" ACD. The dual 24" Dell's left me with less desk space so they must have taken a little bit more depth than the ACD (probably because I angled them a little).



    As far back as you can go implies all the way to the back of the desk. from a normal seating position, that would give 30" as I stated. Since I've not seen people push their monitors to the back of their 30" desks, it does sound unusual.



    But, now you state tyhat it isn't as far back as it can go.



    So, fine.



    Quote:

    HOWEVER, since you're insinuatinig I'm lying or confused given a 1680 horizontal pixel count and a 30" diagonal screen size and a 30" viewing distance it comes out to a mere 33.64 pixels per degree.



    You can sit as far as 53.5" away to get to 60 pixels per degree.



    http://home1.gte.net/res18h39/calculator.htm



    I can certainly see 1 pixel objects from my seating distance (about 30") with no problems.



    A person with 20/20 vision (which I don't have) can see 60 pixels per degree meaning folks with "normal" vision can see detail about twice as small as the 30" ACD can display at that 30" distance.



    Even with a 23" 1920x1200 pixel display it comes out to 50 pixels per degree at 30". Within the limit of "old eyes".



    I love those definitive charts, and calculators. The problem with them is that they only tell part of the story. While it;'s true that 20/20 vision enables one to see to one degree, a number I've used myself on these forms more than once, and supplied links to charts as well, it only applies for a black and white pixel array. The closer the grey tones are, the lower the resolution we can see. When the greys (or colors) are close, we can't tell the difference between them, unless the size is great. Try it yourself.



    Quote:

    Most folks don't do photos but since I'm am also a UI developer I deal with 1 pixel offsets all the time. Sometimes I might *GASP* lean forward a little, zoom in, use guide lines or use my Cinitq.



    Most folks around here are systems engineers which means they look mostly at PowerPoint and Word. The extra screen real-estate of larger and higher resolution monitors is spent seeing more of the document or drawing or a larger image of a slide.



    I would say that most LCD monitors used in the office is used for text and not photos or graphical manipulation. Our secretary has a 21" LCD (not WS) monitor and I just took a look...it's pushed to the back of her desk. She just can see more of the documents she's working on at one time.



    If you've NEVER seen anyone with their LCD monitor at the back of their desks I would say your experience is "very limited".



    These people aren't using these monitors for detailed viewing, certainly not for any length of time, so the occasional "leaning in" Works.



    Quote:

    There's another expression: "Talking out one's ass".



    Vinea



    No, you don't always get it right, but you sure try.



    Getting stupid like that seems to be your best shot, though.
  • Reply 119 of 198
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    My objection is not completely moot, because very few people will be buying those keyboards, or even know about them. I thought about buying one myself, but it isn't as good as you might think.



    It is moot because when you compare MT keyboards against conventional keyboards that are still produced you're potentially talking about a 40% performance hit and 80% accuracy vs 95%+ accuracy.



    Even if you assume that current membrane keyboards are slightly more error prone and slower than older switch based keyboards. The difference between the two aren't THAT large. Not 40% large.



    Quote:

    They certainly stated that they thought it would.



    They also disproved most of their original hypothesis as well...but as the effect is inferred it's less concrete than the measured performance hit.



    Quote:

    I never said they were. You are saying I said that.



    True, you didn't say MT was better. You said MT (flat, no feedback) keyboards would be no worse than conventional ones. Mkay...the study shows that MT keyboards ARE indeed worse.



    Quote:

    Vinea, you are doing it again. You overstate your case.



    The typists they were talking about were considered to be "experienced" typists, who typed over 45 words a minute, which is faster than most type. These are people who type far more than the person I'm thinking about, for the purpose we were originally talking about, until you turned it into something else.



    But, again, I never stated that this should replace a regular keyboard, only supplement it.



    You stated: "I find that most keyboards these days have poor enough feedback that typing on a monitor keyboard wouldn't be worse. If the monitor is big enough, that would work for a lot of people. My wife's old Atari 400 had a flat, feedbackless keyboard, and she got used to it. A lot of industrial, factory floor equipment, in critical applications, also use such keyboards, so it's not out of the question."



    This study says different. That's ALL I said in the original post. How is that "overstating" my case? You made an assertion that a study says is likely incorrect.



    1) Typing on a monitor keyboard IS likely worse based on a study with another kind of zero travel MT keyboard



    2) Typing on an Atari 400 feedbackless keyboard was shown to be worse (in as much as its closer to the MT keyboard in question) regardless of whether or not your wife "got used to it".



    And yes...they used "proficient" typists because well...using non-proficient typpists in evaluating keyboards would be dumb. 45 WPM is by no means excessive...it's within 1 SD from median in one study (21.3 to 54.7 WPM - median of 38 WPM). "Hunt and Peck" typists can achieve up to 37 WPM.



    Yes, 45 WPM is faster than the median but still within "average" and below many WPM minimums for typists.



    Quote:

    I like the way you scrounge around trying to contradict what I say, even though your argument always goes further than what I said in the first place.



    Gee, amazing how in every case I include exactly the words you write specific to a piece of information that contradicts it. You choose to turn this into some bizzare evasion of what was a very simple post that said:



    "A study showed that it IS worse than your Apple keyboard".



    I didn't comment on ANYTHING else you wrote in that post. Any amplification was limited to saying "this study is limited in the usual ways...".



    I provided info in a neutral format about something you were mis-informed about.



    Vinea
  • Reply 120 of 198
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post


    As far back as you can go implies all the way to the back of the desk. from a normal seating position, that would give 30" as I stated. Since I've not seen people push their monitors to the back of their 30" desks, it does sound unusual.



    But, now you state tyhat it isn't as far back as it can go.



    So, fine.



    Its 2" from the back of the desk. What are you insane? Is the monitor supposed to levitate off the back of my desk so the FRONT of the screen can be 30" from the front of the desk? Fine add 2" to all the calculations and you still come nowhere near the limitations of the human eye.



    Or do you have some LCD monitor that is 0" thick?



    Your original quote: "What a lot of people don't realise, it that LCD's save no room at all on a standard depth desk."



    Now I know why you think that...to "save room" in your book you need to occupy zero space.



    Quote:

    I love those definitive charts, and calculators. The problem with them is that they only tell part of the story. While it;'s true that 20/20 vision enables one to see to one degree, a number I've used myself on these forms more than once, and supplied links to charts as well, it only applies for a black and white pixel array. The closer the grey tones are, the lower the resolution we can see. When the greys (or colors) are close, we can't tell the difference between them, unless the size is great. Try it yourself.



    Gee...and human can actually see much finer detail than 1 arc minute as has been shown in studies (things like power lines in the distance). Do you wish the breakdown by color spectrum as well? Because humans have different resolving capabilities there as well.



    This is stupid. If the resolution was close I'd give it to you. It's HALF.



    Quote:

    These people aren't using these monitors for detailed viewing, certainly not for any length of time, so the occasional "leaning in" Works.



    These people don't use it for detailed viewing of high resolution photos/graphics at ALL (well not strictly true but close enough). The point is not everyone that owns what you deem to be a "high resolution" monitor uses it for photo work or detailed graphics. Neither will users of ANY MT display.



    This also has nothing to do with your assertion that LCDs SAVE NO SPACE ON THE DESKTOP.



    Which is a pretty stupid assertion to begin with. What space DO they save then? None? because they're still the same width and height.



    Rest assured that a 30" CRT would be a hell of a lot deeper than 10" on my desk. IF it even fit without overhanging so far forward to tip over.



    Quote:

    No, you don't always get it right, but you sure try.



    Getting stupid like that seems to be your best shot, though.



    Saying LCDs save no space is just bizzare. And to then claim victory because the FRONT of my ACD is 10" from the rear of the desk instead of 8" is even more bizzare. Its not like I can even really get it THAT much further back...the cord cuts into some of that space.



    Get it right? Jeez...you aren't even on the same plane of reality on this issue. Stupid is indeed the right word.



    Vinea
Sign In or Register to comment.