3 ms·

If the emphasis is on "keys", then those images don't refute the comment you replied to.

acdha 10y ago
Depends on whether you define “key” to include only single-purpose hardware keys or include several decades of prior art referring to “soft keys”, “virtual keyboards”, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_key https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_key https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_keyboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_keyboard I personally don't feel the need to be that pedantic — since I've used both good touchscreen keyboards and wretched hardware, I'd prefer to focus on the quality of any specific implementation rather than philosophical debates about the nature of a “key”.
- khedoros1 10y ago
  Well, you understood the distinction that I was making, and I think it's a useful one to make. I'm aware of soft keys and virtual keyboards (it's been hard not to be, for a big chunk of my life). Physical/soft/virtual keys all have their own use-cases and some potential for overlap when you might choose one or the other. That's why I was making the distinction; I feel like you chose the interpretation of "key" that could be trivially dismissed, rather than what they probably meant in the context of their complaint. Luckily, we've got two implementations that we can compare, and that it would be logical to assume we're talking about: The Touch Bar and the row of keys that it replaced. The TB adds some pros: continuous (slider-like) or discrete (key-like) behavior, display of dynamic information, and general flexibility. It has some cons too, though: Lack of tactile feedback makes it impossible to use without looking, it potentially requires extra key-presses (and glances to the keyboard) to use the old functionality, key placement isn't predictable, etc. My point being: It's reasonable to assume that the comment you originally replied to was complaining about the difference between virtual and physical keys, but your reply basically said "that doesn't matter, because you can simulate the missing keys".

acdha 10y ago

Depends on whether you define “key” to include only single-purpose hardware keys or include several decades of prior art referring to “soft keys”, “virtual keyboards”, etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_key https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_key https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_keyboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_keyboard I personally don't feel the need to be that pedantic — since I've used both good touchscreen keyboards and wretched hardware, I'd prefer to focus on the quality of any specific implementation rather than philosophical debates about the nature of a “key”.

khedoros1 10y ago
Well, you understood the distinction that I was making, and I think it's a useful one to make. I'm aware of soft keys and virtual keyboards (it's been hard not to be, for a big chunk of my life). Physical/soft/virtual keys all have their own use-cases and some potential for overlap when you might choose one or the other. That's why I was making the distinction; I feel like you chose the interpretation of "key" that could be trivially dismissed, rather than what they probably meant in the context of their complaint. Luckily, we've got two implementations that we can compare, and that it would be logical to assume we're talking about: The Touch Bar and the row of keys that it replaced. The TB adds some pros: continuous (slider-like) or discrete (key-like) behavior, display of dynamic information, and general flexibility. It has some cons too, though: Lack of tactile feedback makes it impossible to use without looking, it potentially requires extra key-presses (and glances to the keyboard) to use the old functionality, key placement isn't predictable, etc. My point being: It's reasonable to assume that the comment you originally replied to was complaining about the difference between virtual and physical keys, but your reply basically said "that doesn't matter, because you can simulate the missing keys".