4 ms·
I feel like a lot of people have forgotten that before the iPhone, touchscreens were widely regarded as a terrible interface only suitable for niche application
by AdamH12113 4y ago
I feel like a lot of people have forgotten that before the iPhone, touchscreens were widely regarded as a terrible interface only suitable for niche applications like kiosks. There were good reasons for that, and latency and lack of tactile feedback were high on the list. Touchscreens have proved effective in situations where you need a highly-flexible interface in a small space, but an awful lot of devices (like appliances) have more space and don't need the flexibility, so they end up taking all of the downsides with none of the benefits.
A lot of designers (or marketers) seem to be trying to copy the look and feel of Apple devices without understanding the factors that led to their design.
- pcurve 4y agoI agree. I get why the trade off is worthwhile on smartphone. But I hate the push in automotive application. Yes, I'd like a big screen for navigation, but don't replace HVAC controls. It's not just about touch screen. There is overuse of capacitive buttons in cars. And it is all about dollars.
- tomtheelder 4y agoAlthough I'm very much on the side of using more low-tech interfaces, it's important to remember that pre-iPhone touchscreens were a VERY different beast. Resistive touchscreens, in particular, were awful.
- AdamH12113 4y agoThis is very true. Resistive touchscreens were slower, less reliable, and IIRC had coarser position sensing. Since we're talking about history, it's also worth noting that early opinions on touchscreens tended to assume they would be desk-mounted or wall-mounted, which leads to the gorilla arm problem.