Why All the Fuss Over Touch Interfaces?
Steve Jobs had a point while unveiling the iPhone's multi-touch interface for the first time. Virtual controls are versatile, because they allow layout changes to suit whatever purpose. Creative software makers will definitely find a way to take advantage of this, just ask any avid Nintendo DS player.
I've tried out the iPhone's interface, and while it's very easy to pick up and use, the fact still remains that, for productivity purposes, nothing can beat a physical keypad or thumbboard.
That's because no matter how advanced or clever a touch-interface becomes, they still lack the tactile feedback generated by traditional smartphone and PDA buttons. You know that you've successfully pressed a button, because of that click or slight depression, and you unconsciously move on to the next task in the sequence. Such quick response simply isn't possible on a screen that stays flat when you press on it.
There's no doubt that someone will eventually find a way to work physical feedback effectively into touch interface-at no severe penalty to battery life. I'm not exactly sure, but a leader in this area is probably a major auto component manufacturer. They've found that electromagnetic pulses can make a finger feel like it's pressed something, and they're currently working on making the process more reliable.
But for now, I can't help but wonder: why is every manufacturer jumping on the touch-interface bandwagon? Did Apple's marketing strike once again?
Image from Darla.
CellularPronto
November 7th, 2007 at 7:02 am #
Touch screen is on so many devices – Palm, Windows Mobile, and Symbian. What is remarkable about Apple is its adaptive innovation. Same case on the ipod, Apple is not the first to introduce mp3 players, it improved them.