>> ^blankfist:

Most mouseover events are antiquated practices.

Mouseover is still used everywhere; it's not antiquated at all. I know what you're getting at though; most people probably would think of the cheesy rollever effects when they think of what mouseover is used for.

Check the menu at the top of this page for an example; and every link here has a :hover style to slightly change the colour. It's a fairly standard and good UI practice to give feedback.

Where mouseover is mostly used though is in combination with click. Think of any UI that uses drag and drop - it's good practice to give feedback on what you're going to drop onto and mouseover is used to trigger that feedback.

On most OS', mouseover just about any UI element and you'll get feedback

Click then mouseover is supported on most capacitive touch devices (ie drag with your finger). Some implement non selected mouseover by allowing you to touch anywhere on the screen (that doesn't react to a hold event) then move your finger around. This isn't completely intuitive though, and flash apps that use non clicked hover will likely have to be changed or suffer usability problems on a touchscreen.

>> ^brycewi19:

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^brycewi19:
Keep in mind that they're comparing apples to oranges (at least with the iphone). The iphone uses a capacitive touch screen vs. many of those others are resistive. Two different technologies; the capacitive being the newer and better tech, IMO.

That's not strictly true - they're testing smart phones against smart phones.
The technology behind it is a bit irrelevant if you're looking to buy a smartphone with a good touch screen, really. I'm not going to go "well it's less recent tech so i'll buy x phone for trying harder"

Perhaps, but in a sense some of these smartphones have a significant difference in a major tech - the screen type. Sure they're both "smartphones", but they're not the same.
It's like comparing a stickshift to an automatic. Sure, they're both cars, but their transmissions are significantly different.


Yeah i understand that, what i'm saying is this: If you're comparing a manual car to an automatic car and you say "which is the best to drive?" then the method of gear change is irrelevant to that comparison. These guys are asking "which is the most accurate touchscreen smart phone?" So the tech is moot. Mention it in passing, but you may as well mention the colour of the phone.

So yeah, just saying - it isn't apples and oranges at all.

If the title of the video said "Which smartphone uses the touchscreen technology the best?" Then you'd have a point.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^brycewi19:
Keep in mind that they're comparing apples to oranges (at least with the iphone). The iphone uses a capacitive touch screen vs. many of those others are resistive. Two different technologies; the capacitive being the newer and better tech, IMO.

That's not strictly true - they're testing smart phones against smart phones.
The technology behind it is a bit irrelevant if you're looking to buy a smartphone with a good touch screen, really. I'm not going to go "well it's less recent tech so i'll buy x phone for trying harder"


Perhaps, but in a sense some of these smartphones have a significant difference in a major tech - the screen type. Sure they're both "smartphones", but they're not the same.

It's like comparing a stickshift to an automatic. Sure, they're both cars, but their transmissions are significantly different.

>> ^brycewi19:

Keep in mind that they're comparing apples to oranges (at least with the iphone). The iphone uses a capacitive touch screen vs. many of those others are resistive. Two different technologies; the capacitive being the newer and better tech, IMO.


That's not strictly true - they're testing smart phones against smart phones.

The technology behind it is a bit irrelevant if you're looking to buy a smartphone with a good touch screen, really. I'm not going to go "well it's less recent tech so i'll buy x phone for trying harder"

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Just to be clear- all of the phones tested are capacitive touch screens. A resistive touchscreen is the older kind that you would more likely use with a sylus on a Windows 6.5 handset.

>> ^brycewi19:

>> ^Psychologic:
^ I think the Droid, Eris, and Nexus all use capacitive touch, though an older version than the iPhone being tested.

If that Droid is a capacitive touch screen, then it's quite possibly the worst capacitive touch screen I've ever seen tested.
Ick.


Yea, the others are definitely better. The specs say the Droid is capacitive, so that's what I'm going by.

I have a Droid, but the screen really isn't terrible. I can't touch the screen lightly enough that it doesn't register, so sensitivity isn't ever an issue. The only problems I come across with accuracy are either with very small links (zoomed out on web pages) or when using the vertical keyboard (might miss the key 1 or 2 times out of 10).

Those accuracy issues are compensated by the physical keyboard and pinch-zooming in the browser (Dolphin). I also have 2.1 (cyanogen + 1Ghz kernal) on there so speech-to-text is available as well.

I certainly wouldn't complain if the screen were more accurate, but it isn't as much of a problem as the robotic test would seem to indicate. Besides, I figured my Droid would be obsolete in under a year anyway. =)

>> ^Psychologic:

^ I think the Droid, Eris, and Nexus all use capacitive touch, though an older version than the iPhone being tested.


If that Droid is a capacitive touch screen, then it's quite possibly the worst capacitive touch screen I've ever seen tested.


Ick.

^ I think the Droid, Eris, and Nexus all use capacitive touch, though an older version than the iPhone being tested.

Keep in mind that they're comparing apples to oranges (at least with the iphone). The iphone uses a capacitive touch screen vs. many of those others are resistive. Two different technologies; the capacitive being the newer and better tech, IMO.

Ick, stay away from resistive touch screens. Old tech.

It's all about capacitive touch screens now. Like the iphone/ipod touch. Much better response.

Other than that, the French make a good mp4 player, so I'm certain that this Archos tablet will be good quality.

They won't miss these added features because those primarily exposed to Apple's mass marketed products won't expect them by default. If Apple can define tablet PC to lack or not require GPS, a camera, possibly even Flash then that will define their expectations. I'm sure more are and will remain oblivious to the likes of the Archos 5G/9 which is superior to the iPad and does everything it should:

Archos 9 - $600
1.76 lbs.
1.1Ghz ATOM Z510. Runs Windows 7.
8.9", 1024 x 600 pixels resistive, LED backlight.
10.08" x 5.28" x 0.67" thick
7.4v Lithium-Polymer battery, 5 hours, removeable. 36W (12v @ 3a) power adapter.
HDD 60GB (1.8")
WiFi (802,11b/g), Bluetooth 2.0 (EDR)
Microphone.
Stereo Speakers.
Headphone jack.
1.3mp Webcam,
Optical trackpoint mouse,L/R mouse buttons.
Built-in Stand, 2-positions.
USB port.
Lotus Symphony included: Documents, Spreadsheets, Presentations.

iPad - Starting at $500, but $700 for that amount of hard drive space.
1.5 lbs.
1Ghz A4. Runs iPad OS 3.2.
9.7", 1024 x 768 pixels, capacitive, LED backlight, IPS, Oleophobic
9.56" x 7.47" x 0.5" thick.
25Whr Lithium-Polymer battery, 10 hours, fixed. 10W (5v @ 2a) power adapter.
16GB, 32GB, or 64GB flash memory.
WiFi (802,11a/b/g/n), Bluetooth 2.1 (EDR)
Microphone.
Speakers: Mono Audio.
Headphone jack.
iPad versions of iLife apps: $9.99 each (x 3).

Also I think the user utility associated with Apple's products is exaggerated. It's simplicity that they do well, and again the kind of people who are not aware of the customization they might appreciate, are missing out on and might benefit from are the same people that laud it. That and the fact that user utility feels like it's too often conflated with style. The scroll wheel on the iPod sure was a fancy marketing gimmick but having used a 5G iPod now for over a year, I would gladly get tactile controls back. There's simply no comparison, and really the only thing I can assume is Apple users who claim it's efficient have no frame of reference. The same can be said with OS X, sure it's full of stylish transitions, animations and some good features, but I'd wager especially with how familiar everyone is with Windows, it's no more of an efficient work tool. I see Jobs made a big deal about pointing out that the iPad will have a similar user interface to the iPhone. I think that drives home the point that there's nothing that immensely intuitive about Apple devices. They still must be learnt. People are simply more willing to invest time into learning to how to use an interface of a device that is more popular and they predict will be around for a longer time.

Coming back to the iPad, I still think even the average consumer is going to be pissed off by the lack of some features. It's pretty clear that they didn't just want to make a portable internet device that surpasses the iPhone in usability, they wanted to make something that clearly doesn't eat into the market share of their budget MacBook and MacBook Air. They could have loaded a desktop OS on it, but they purposely didn't. I think many will struggle with the idea that an internet device like this can't do Flash, doesn't have a USB port and can't run their favourite PC/Mac programs.

That may be it's downfall or marketing, and simplicity as you mentioned may win out. If Apple says 'revolutionary' enough, maybe they won't realise this device is bested by something that came out in October 2009.

>> ^chilaxe:
I think we'd all prefer a Manhattan Project to set up next generation nuclear, solar, and batteries.

Too bad you've let nimbyists, special interest groups, and envirowackos tell you that recycling nuclear fuel is bad, and MOX is the DEVIL! Well that's alright, we'll take your plutonium up here in Canada, and Japan will take it too, and so will the rest of the world and use it as fuel. We aren't so picky. And you seem to hate the idea of pebble bed reactors, and you absolutely refuse to fund the next generation fission and fusion reactors.

Solar and batteries are a moot method of generation and storage. A better form of passive energy transfer, or capacitance storage medium will be the better option. On top of that, the best way to get "free" energy will be the beam it back to earth method via satellite.

"Instead of power being generated by the relative motion of conductors and fluxes, it's produced by the modial interaction if magneto reluctance and capacitive diractance."

If they would just put some high end solar cells on the top you could just put tap water in it and not worry about finding an H2 gas station.

It is an electric car, and due to the speed at which most fuel cell systems pull energy out of H2, it is generally more cost effective to have more battery capacitance and a smaller fuel cell. The question is how long can this run without fuel? Can I plug it in (or hack it to make it pluggable ala prius) and make short runs to the store without using the fuel cell, or will I be required to drive all the way to the nearest H2 pump just to keep the thing running short distances?

I think tesla motors is taking a better approach, but they don't have all the big auto industry infrastructure that constrains their choices.

Actually, the science behind it all is simply explained. The reason the light is triggered by a large car is from the modial interaction of magneto-reluctance and capacitive directance. So basically, if you have a motorcycle, all you really need to do is attach a differential girdle spring in conjunction with your bike's dingle arm.

Glad I could help.