Reading mode: Light Dark

A rant against touch screens

Go to last post
Touch screens make good interfaces for those applications when one can be reasonably expected to look at the screen while using it. Otherwise, it should be backed up by a haptic interface. I.e. in a car where eyes must be on the road. Or in photography when the attention is on the subject,

Having a touchscreen opens up an incredible level of control with infinite flexibility. It becomes a bad thing when touch screen is there at the expense of other crucial nterface options.
 
One thing I don't like about touch screens devices is that they normally require two hands to operate. One to hold the device, the other to touch it.

Sounds like a small issue but for a Dad that often has a kid in one other hand it's a deal breaker.

A slight exception is the iphone. Some how I manage to hold that thing with two fingers and tap the shutter button with my thumb.
 
R Butler said:
...touch screens are not inherently good or bad. It's the implementation that makes all the difference.
Click to expand...
Cannot agree more with this. Once you have used an iPhone you understand how incredibly good a touch interface can be. Buttons can be context-sensitive, in a smart way. Try that with dedicated buttons. However, it has to be designed well. If it is, it's much better than a scattering of physical buttons.

On a camera you will always need some physical buttons, those you need to operate without looking at them while shooting. The rest can be relegated to the touch screen.
 
I'm with you. It's ok in a cell phone but I would not want one in a camera. At least not to control any functions. If they made it well and it worked in really cold (say, minus 30 Celsius and below) I guess I could live with one to use for zooming. Well, maybe not.

Earthlight

--

http://jari.pic.fi/kuvat/
 
i was just about to type the verry same words :D but you got there first well said
and to all the gimick lovers who like touch screens MOOOOO
Marty4650 said:
Robert Hoy said:
Would you rather have them hit a button to hear the cow say "moo" instead of touch the cow?
Click to expand...
Actually, I'd prefer to take them out to a farm to see a real cow.

But, you can't go by me.
I'm old fashioned..



--
Marty
http://www.fluidr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132
http://www.flickr.com/photos/marty4650/sets/72157606210120132/show/
my blog: http://marty4650.blogspot.com/
Olympus E-30
Olympus E-P1

Click to expand...
 
I remember an old Sony camcorder I owned - hard buttons for most everything

The next model had no buttons, but a touch screen interface even for things like play or rewind (those were tape days) - it was ridiculously inconvenient.

But of course, the "nice" thing with touch screens, is that you save a lot of manufacturing cost (no hard buttons) - and you can even add firmware updates to evolve the functionality later on.

Then came Apple, who had a few strokes of genius such as:
  • touch to indicate focus point (this IS indeed faster and much more intuitive)
  • swipe to move (it is also faster)
  • zoom in or out with the fingers (I get repeatedly frustrated that my d7k forces me to press keys to do this)
 
antoineb said:
I remember an old Sony camcorder I owned - hard buttons for most everything

The next model had no buttons, but a touch screen interface even for things like play or rewind (those were tape days) - it was ridiculously inconvenient.

But of course, the "nice" thing with touch screens, is that you save a lot of manufacturing cost (no hard buttons) - and you can even add firmware updates to evolve the functionality later on.

Then came Apple, who had a few strokes of genius such as:
  • touch to indicate focus point (this IS indeed faster and much more intuitive)
Click to expand...
No it isnt !!! a simple focus ring on my old OM1n was as fast as ever needed exept for motor sport (which i dont photograph)
antoineb said:
  • swipe to move (it is also faster)
Click to expand...
Might be on some things but not on a camera ...
antoineb said:
  • zoom in or out with the fingers (I get repeatedly frustrated that my d7k forces me to press keys to do this)
Click to expand...
come on... again a ring on the lens is faster and more intuative zoom in and out with a simple twist of a ring while watching through the optical viewfinder easy :D
 
friedduck said:
Am I the only one that thinks that this is nuts?! Touch screens are horrible interfaces for anything that you have to do quickly, or by feel. It's bad enough that most cars have this nonsense but now we have to endure it in cameras? (A Lexus I borrowed recently was an exercise in frustration--an example of how NOT to do it.) I'm all for change and I'm sure that there are improvements to be made without the limits of everything having to be mechanically linked, but it seems like the makers are making the poor assumption that what's good for a phone must also be good for a camera.

My only hope is that the reviewers don't embrace them and it becomes a passing fad!

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I don't see how pecking at small nubby little buttons is really any better. On a compact, consumer-level camera where space is very limited, there's just not much room for buttons. If there is room, the buttons tend to be quite small. A touchscreen, which allows room for much large-sized buttons, is actually a much better option. Look at the size of those icons on the touchscreen. They are very large, compared to what the size of physical buttons would be! Much easier to hit...and to hit quickly.

As for the notion of hitting buttons "by feel", how many consumers really do it all by feel on these small consumer cameras?!? Probably hardly any. The overwhelming majority of users still need to look at what they are hitting. And with small physical buttons, that means looking at very small buttons with very small icons or very small fonts, that are practically impossible to see in low light. A touchscreen with large buttons, large icons, large font is a much better option for the average consumer. Heck, if you look at those buttons on the touchscreen, they are practically as large as your thumb. Imagine if physical buttons could be that large: it's be pretty nice, but obviously, there's just not enough room for it on a camera. Unfortunately, only shutter buttons get the "large button" treatment...unless you're talking about the buttons on a modern touchscreen UI.

Plus, I don't see how you conclude that something that is "good for a phone" can't also be good for a camera. I can operate my touchscreen smart phone very quickly and easily. There's no reason why that can't also be done with a touchscreen camera. How is it any different? Touch interface is touch interface.
 
T3 said:
As for the notion of hitting buttons "by feel", how many consumers really do it all by feel on these small consumer cameras?!? Probably hardly any. The overwhelming majority of users still need to look at what they are hitting.
Click to expand...
I just posted the following about one of the nice features on my Canon A1200 (a new pocket-size camera with a viewfinder). I was saying how nice it is that I can change some options without taking the camera away from my eye.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=38431216

Many people use cameras with EVFs at eye-level for both framing pictures and reviewing the results. That also means you can go into the menu and make all the selections and adjustments without ever taking the camera from your eye. Much handier than interrupting the shooting to look at and tap the LCD display.

--
Darrell
 
rsn48 said:
I really dislike looking at a greasy computer screen, no one is allowed to touch my screens. I like looking at an image without a thumb print or finger smudge, or multiples of same. I don't like smudges on my camera screen and I don't get the whole IPad phenomena, must be people with no cleanliness standards and don't mind staring through grease smudges.

I also don't like striking keys on a smooth surface as on an Ipad, no tactile response; fingers develop memory based on visually cuing but also tactile senses. We are slowly moving to an inferior technology; just hope all netbooks don't go the way of the goony bird.
Click to expand...
I use an MS Natural keyboard and have since they first came out. I can work with a laptop, large or small, about an hour before my carpal tunnel walls begin a painful collapse. It isn't helped a bit when I have to lift one hand and place it on a monitor I usually keep 24" from my face.

My wife's new all-in-one (Xmas gift from the kids) has a fancy touch screen. Neither of us uses it. If TS happened to be the only input method, it would be a deal killer for me.

--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com
 
mamallama said:
For kids it's great because a mouse is one less thing to fuss with and, by using your finger rather than control a pointer, it's one less thing to mentally think about. But, adults are a bit more intuitive so you "touch" the object with a keen pointer through the mouse instead of using your fat finger.
Click to expand...
That's not how I look at it. Adults are used to using a user input selection device, mouse to move a cursor, because touch screens have only been around a short time. It's not because adults want something more intuitive! It's quicker to touch something than to control something that moves something else to what you want to select. ;)
--
http://roberthoy.zenfolio.com/
http://www.photographybyhoy.com
 
Then don't buy one?

Personally I like the articulated touch screen on my Panasonic G2 a lot - when I don't need to use it, I don't use it. When I do use it, it comes in handy, is very responsive, and is easier than dials and buttons. I can set the focus point and size, take the picture, or just adjust various parameters literally with the touch of a finger. Given two cameras where all else is equal but one has a touch screen and the other doesn't, I would buy the one with the touch screen every time.

To each his own - you are free to not like it and not use it!
 
osage_archer said:
Then don't buy one?

Personally I like the articulated touch screen on my Panasonic G2 a lot - when I don't need to use it, I don't use it. When I do use it, it comes in handy, is very responsive, and is easier than dials and buttons. I can set the focus point and size, take the picture, or just adjust various parameters literally with the touch of a finger. Given two cameras where all else is equal but one has a touch screen and the other doesn't, I would buy the one with the touch screen every time.

To each his own - you are free to not like it and not use it!
Click to expand...
Let me tell you why dials and buttons are better, as a general rule, for ergonomics. I can make nearly any change I want to to the settings on my dSLR without taking my eye from the viewfinder . This is because of the tactile advantage buttons have over the total lack of "feel" of a touch screen.

Try touch-typing on a touch-screen versus a regular keyboard - same thing.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)
 
It would be possible to put the shutter release and ever other button on the camera base plate, that would be very bad human interface design. The idea of a touch screen is excelent... if I could get a camera that would allow ME to program the touch screen interface.
 
Exactly. ;)

--
BRJR ....(LOL, some of us are quite satisfied as Hobbyists ..)


Mr Roygbiv rainbow said:
Stop moaning ! It is only a hundred since we stopped using telegragh messaging , and that was an advance on the smokey fire and blanket method !
Will you never be happy ?
--
Roygbiv
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top