5 ms·
Touch controls are only warranted when you need to support a large number of varied interactions which can't be supported by physical controls, or if you have t
by skohan 6y ago
Touch controls are only warranted when you need to support a large number of varied interactions which can't be supported by physical controls, or if you have to support arbitrary gesture-based input (like a drawing tablet for example). If that's not the case, physical controls are always better. If you're operating a vehicle, or can't look at the display for any reason, tactile controls are leagues better.
- systemvoltage 6y agoAgreed and you nailed it - an iPhone with touchscreen makes total sense.
- cgriswald 6y agoI don’t think it’s quite so black-and-white although I agree roughly with where you draw the line. My car has tactile controls but they control a cursor on a non-touch screen. In this case touch screen controls would be superior because it would be faster and there would be less time looking at the display. An argument could be made for more controls to get away from the need for a cursor/menu at all, and while I largely agree, at some point you’re likely to have so many controls you end up looking at the controls anyway, even with tactile hints. Even if not, in this case the major controls are basically shortcuts and they’re the most commonly used and important shortcuts. Adding more buttons and knobs for things used less frequently or of lesser importance would muddy the waters and make these controls more difficult to use. To muddy the waters further, some controls can do double duty with things like cycling through functions, double clicks, contextual presses, etc.
- throwaway744678 6y agoAnother benefit, for kitchen appliances: a flat screen is easier to clean than physical knobs.
- pessimizer 6y agoGeneral purpose computing requires generic control systems. If your device knows its purpose, it shouldn't need a touchscreen.