4 ms·

TrackPoint is basically a joystick.

DonHopkins 7y ago
Ted Selker, who developed the Trackpoint at IBM Almaden Research Lab, always calls it the "Joy Button", but IBM just wouldn't go with that. But at least they made it red (thanks to industrial designer Richard Sapper)! TrackPoint (2011) (microsoft.com) [Buxton Collection]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9437780 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9437780 https://www.microsoft.com/buxtoncollection/detail.aspx?id=60 https://www.microsoft.com/buxtoncollection/detail.aspx?id=60 Some stuff I wrote about the Trackpoint and relative input devices in general: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18340403 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18340403 >Input devices should allow users to configure a velocity mapping curve (which could be negative to reverse the motion). X-Widows had a crude threshold-based mouse acceleration scheme, but it's better to have an arbitrary curve, like the TrackPoint uses, that can be optimized for the particular user, input device, screen size, and scrolling or pointing task at hand. >https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Mouse_acceleration https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Mouse_acceleration >One of the patented (but probably expired by now) aspects of the Trackpoint is that it has a very highly refined pressure=>cursor speed transfer function, that has a couple of plateaus in it that map a wide range of pressures to one slow or fast but constant speed. The slow speed notch is good for precise predictable fine positioning, and the fast speed notch is tuned to be just below eye tracking speed, so you don't lose sight of the cursor. But you can push even harder than the fast plateau to go above the eye tracking plateau and flick the cursor really fast if you want, or push even lighter than the slow plateau, for super fine positioning. (The TrackPoint sensor is outrageously more sensitive than it needs to be, so it can sense very soft touches, or even your breath blowing on it.) Ted Selker demonstrated an early version of the "pointing stick" in 1991: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hhnlaUxsL8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hhnlaUxsL8 Ted always reminds me of another distinguished "Button Man": Mr. Lossoff from Nero Wolfe's "Mother Hunt". Those Button Men can be pretty intense! https://youtu.be/UBOG5556_0g?t=12m5s https://youtu.be/UBOG5556_0g?t=12m5s
- monocasa 7y ago
  The relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/243/ https://xkcd.com/243/
  - DonHopkins 7y ago
    Vis-à-vis mamelons, Ted actually build a prototype Thinkpad keyboard with TWO trackpoints, which he loved to show at his New Paradigms for Using Computers workshop at IBM Almaden Research Lab. While I'm not sure if this video of the 1995 New Paradigms for Using Computers workshop actually shows a dual-nippled Thinkpad, it does include a great talk by Doug Engelbart, and quite a few other interesting people! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD9NUWDCyHI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD9NUWDCyHI The multi-Trackpoint keyboard was extremely approachable and attractive, and everybody who saw them instantly wanted to get their hands on them and try them out! (But you had to keep them away from babies.) He made a lot of different prototypes over time, but unfortunately IBM never shipped a Thinkpad with two nipples. That was because OS/2 (and every other contemporary operating system and window system and application) had no idea how to handle two cursors at the same time, so it would have required rewriting all the applications and gui toolkits and window systems from the ground up to support dual trackpoints. The failure to inherently support multiple cursors by default was one of Doug Engelbart's major disappointments about mainstream non-collaborative user interfaces, because collaboration was the whole point of NLS/Augment, so multiple cursors weren't a feature so much as a symptom. Bret Victor discussed it in a few words on Doug Engelbart that he wrote on the day of his death: http://worrydream.com/Engelbart/ http://worrydream.com/Engelbart/ >Say you bring up his 1968 demo on YouTube and watch a bit. At one point, the face of a remote collaborator, Bill Paxton, appears on screen, and Engelbart and Paxton have a conversation. >"Ah!", you say. "That's like Skype!" >Then, Engelbart and Paxton start simultaneously working with the document on the screen. >"Ah!", you say. "That's like screen sharing!" >No. It is not like screen sharing at all. >If you look closer, you'll notice that there are two individual mouse pointers. Engelbart and Paxton are each controlling their own pointer. >"Okay," you say, "so they have separate mouse pointers, and when we screen share today, we have to fight over a single pointer. That's a trivial detail; it's still basically the same thing." >No. It is not the same thing. At all. It misses the intent of the design, and for a research system, the intent matters most. >Engelbart's vision, from the beginning, was collaborative. His vision was people working together in a shared intellectual space. His entire system was designed around that intent. >From that perspective, separate pointers weren't a feature so much as a symptom. It was the only design that could have made any sense. It just fell out. The collaborators both have to point at information on the screen, in the same way that they would both point at information on a chalkboard. Obviously they need their own pointers. >Likewise, for every aspect of Engelbart's system. The entire system was designed around a clear intent. >Our screen sharing, on the other hand, is a bolted-on hack that doesn't alter the single-user design of our present computers. Our computers are fundamentally designed with a single-user assumption through-and-through, and simply mirroring a display remotely doesn't magically transform them into collaborative environments. >If you attempt to make sense of Engelbart's design by drawing correspondences to our present-day systems, you will miss the point, because our present-day systems do not embody Engelbart's intent. Engelbart hated our present-day systems.
walrus01 7y ago
Slight topic derail, I recently handed a thinkpad to a person who had grown up using tablets and laptops with "modern" touchpad pointing devices. It's my older thinkpad I keep around to ssh into things. They were completely and utterly surprised by the presence of the trackpoint and found it to be extremely unusual.
- smacktoward 7y ago
  At least for me, TrackPoint is one of those things that once it "clicks" is extremely hard to give up. Working on a laptop without a TrackPoint always feels clumsy and inelegant, even with all the improvements trackpads have seen. There's just something about the combination of a mechanical pointer and where it's placed relative to the keyboard that feels right. All IBM's original patents on TrackPoint must surely have expired by now, so it always surprised me that we didn't see other OEMs start offering it as an option. There are a couple that have, but only on a few models, and by all accounts non-IBM/Lenovo TrackPoint implementations aren't quite as good for some reason. Disappointing!
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    I would gladly accept the job of reeling in the golden age of the TrackPoint at Dell; and I don't think it would be tremendously difficult, especially now that any patents on the greatest untapped innovations would by now have expired (sorry, inventors!).
    - ngcc_hk 7y ago
      I like track ball of the old apple MacBook more. Still opt for track ball to these days.
      - microcolonel 7y ago
        I might have stuck with my Kensington Slimblade, but I begun noticing the latency and the polling jitter (since, like most trackballs, it only runs at 125Hz) after switching to a 165Hz display, so I couldn't keep it. If I had time to add 1000Hz polling to the thing, I'd probably still be using it.

Ted Selker, who developed the Trackpoint at IBM Almaden Research Lab, always calls it the "Joy Button", but IBM just wouldn't go with that. But at least they made it red (thanks to industrial designer Richard Sapper)! TrackPoint (2011) (microsoft.com) [Buxton Collection]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9437780 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9437780 https://www.microsoft.com/buxtoncollection/detail.aspx?id=60 https://www.microsoft.com/buxtoncollection/detail.aspx?id=60 Some stuff I wrote about the Trackpoint and relative input devices in general: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18340403 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18340403 >Input devices should allow users to configure a velocity mapping curve (which could be negative to reverse the motion). X-Widows had a crude threshold-based mouse acceleration scheme, but it's better to have an arbitrary curve, like the TrackPoint uses, that can be optimized for the particular user, input device, screen size, and scrolling or pointing task at hand. >https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Mouse_acceleration https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Mouse_acceleration >One of the patented (but probably expired by now) aspects of the Trackpoint is that it has a very highly refined pressure=>cursor speed transfer function, that has a couple of plateaus in it that map a wide range of pressures to one slow or fast but constant speed. The slow speed notch is good for precise predictable fine positioning, and the fast speed notch is tuned to be just below eye tracking speed, so you don't lose sight of the cursor. But you can push even harder than the fast plateau to go above the eye tracking plateau and flick the cursor really fast if you want, or push even lighter than the slow plateau, for super fine positioning. (The TrackPoint sensor is outrageously more sensitive than it needs to be, so it can sense very soft touches, or even your breath blowing on it.) Ted Selker demonstrated an early version of the "pointing stick" in 1991: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hhnlaUxsL8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hhnlaUxsL8 Ted always reminds me of another distinguished "Button Man": Mr. Lossoff from Nero Wolfe's "Mother Hunt". Those Button Men can be pretty intense! https://youtu.be/UBOG5556_0g?t=12m5s https://youtu.be/UBOG5556_0g?t=12m5s

monocasa 7y ago
The relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/243/ https://xkcd.com/243/
- DonHopkins 7y ago
  Vis-à-vis mamelons, Ted actually build a prototype Thinkpad keyboard with TWO trackpoints, which he loved to show at his New Paradigms for Using Computers workshop at IBM Almaden Research Lab. While I'm not sure if this video of the 1995 New Paradigms for Using Computers workshop actually shows a dual-nippled Thinkpad, it does include a great talk by Doug Engelbart, and quite a few other interesting people! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD9NUWDCyHI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oD9NUWDCyHI The multi-Trackpoint keyboard was extremely approachable and attractive, and everybody who saw them instantly wanted to get their hands on them and try them out! (But you had to keep them away from babies.) He made a lot of different prototypes over time, but unfortunately IBM never shipped a Thinkpad with two nipples. That was because OS/2 (and every other contemporary operating system and window system and application) had no idea how to handle two cursors at the same time, so it would have required rewriting all the applications and gui toolkits and window systems from the ground up to support dual trackpoints. The failure to inherently support multiple cursors by default was one of Doug Engelbart's major disappointments about mainstream non-collaborative user interfaces, because collaboration was the whole point of NLS/Augment, so multiple cursors weren't a feature so much as a symptom. Bret Victor discussed it in a few words on Doug Engelbart that he wrote on the day of his death: http://worrydream.com/Engelbart/ http://worrydream.com/Engelbart/ >Say you bring up his 1968 demo on YouTube and watch a bit. At one point, the face of a remote collaborator, Bill Paxton, appears on screen, and Engelbart and Paxton have a conversation. >"Ah!", you say. "That's like Skype!" >Then, Engelbart and Paxton start simultaneously working with the document on the screen. >"Ah!", you say. "That's like screen sharing!" >No. It is not like screen sharing at all. >If you look closer, you'll notice that there are two individual mouse pointers. Engelbart and Paxton are each controlling their own pointer. >"Okay," you say, "so they have separate mouse pointers, and when we screen share today, we have to fight over a single pointer. That's a trivial detail; it's still basically the same thing." >No. It is not the same thing. At all. It misses the intent of the design, and for a research system, the intent matters most. >Engelbart's vision, from the beginning, was collaborative. His vision was people working together in a shared intellectual space. His entire system was designed around that intent. >From that perspective, separate pointers weren't a feature so much as a symptom. It was the only design that could have made any sense. It just fell out. The collaborators both have to point at information on the screen, in the same way that they would both point at information on a chalkboard. Obviously they need their own pointers. >Likewise, for every aspect of Engelbart's system. The entire system was designed around a clear intent. >Our screen sharing, on the other hand, is a bolted-on hack that doesn't alter the single-user design of our present computers. Our computers are fundamentally designed with a single-user assumption through-and-through, and simply mirroring a display remotely doesn't magically transform them into collaborative environments. >If you attempt to make sense of Engelbart's design by drawing correspondences to our present-day systems, you will miss the point, because our present-day systems do not embody Engelbart's intent. Engelbart hated our present-day systems.

walrus01 7y ago

Slight topic derail, I recently handed a thinkpad to a person who had grown up using tablets and laptops with "modern" touchpad pointing devices. It's my older thinkpad I keep around to ssh into things. They were completely and utterly surprised by the presence of the trackpoint and found it to be extremely unusual.

smacktoward 7y ago
At least for me, TrackPoint is one of those things that once it "clicks" is extremely hard to give up. Working on a laptop without a TrackPoint always feels clumsy and inelegant, even with all the improvements trackpads have seen. There's just something about the combination of a mechanical pointer and where it's placed relative to the keyboard that feels right. All IBM's original patents on TrackPoint must surely have expired by now, so it always surprised me that we didn't see other OEMs start offering it as an option. There are a couple that have, but only on a few models, and by all accounts non-IBM/Lenovo TrackPoint implementations aren't quite as good for some reason. Disappointing!
- microcolonel 7y ago
  I would gladly accept the job of reeling in the golden age of the TrackPoint at Dell; and I don't think it would be tremendously difficult, especially now that any patents on the greatest untapped innovations would by now have expired (sorry, inventors!).
  - ngcc_hk 7y ago
    I like track ball of the old apple MacBook more. Still opt for track ball to these days.
    - microcolonel 7y ago
      I might have stuck with my Kensington Slimblade, but I begun noticing the latency and the polling jitter (since, like most trackballs, it only runs at 125Hz) after switching to a 165Hz display, so I couldn't keep it. If I had time to add 1000Hz polling to the thing, I'd probably still be using it.