Touch screen is easier for accessing the dictionary than the Kindle's silly little joystick. Also the dictionary integration is more graceful.

Also, if reading on an iPad, you can pause to google a concept or research related works, email a pertinent passage to a friend or collaborator, etc.

I'm not saying it's an all around better ereader than a Kindle (since it's not, you know, a dedicated ereader), but it's disingenuous to say it's only benefit is a visual gimmick.>> ^KnivesOut:

Ebook reading on the iPad sucks in comparison to dedicated ereaders. Reading on a Nook or Kindle is as second-nature as reading a regular book, and actually a lot more enjoyable (for long reading sessions, they're easier on your body than a real book, for that matter.)
All the iPad has going for it is that gimmicky swipe page-flip.

yah its just unmasking where he touches ,

the i phone and pad touch screens r not high enoughf rez for this detail at that amount of zoom

>> ^dag:

I have one question - So much of Flash uses an "on hover" function. How is that managed on a touch screen?
Honestly I like the Adobe tools in general and Flash as a creative tool- it would be nice though, if they could make the switch and have it output to HTML 5 Canvas, instead of compiled closed binaries.
I shouldn't be against Flash- after all, it's been very good to VideoSift- but I do think the writing is on the wall that we're moving to an open standards plug-in free world.


By "on hover" I take it you mean the mouse event for mouseover where the cursor is over an object. I don't think mouseovers will be necessary for Flash on touchscreens, and are things that can be ignored completely.

Most mouseover events are antiquated practices. Back in the day, everything was html hot links where the link was blue and rolling over it would change it to different color to alert the user that it was clickable. We've grown passed that, and with touchscreens there's no need for it.

Mouse events like Click and Move will be useful.

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

I have one question - So much of Flash uses an "on hover" function. How is that managed on a touch screen?

Honestly I like the Adobe tools in general and Flash as a creative tool- it would be nice though, if they could make the switch and have it output to HTML 5 Canvas, instead of compiled closed binaries.

I shouldn't be against Flash- after all, it's been very good to VideoSift- but I do think the writing is on the wall that we're moving to an open standards plug-in free world.

>> ^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.

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 my #1 gripe with the iPad/iTouch/iPhone and the App Store. You're locked into a distribution channel. It's a false, synthetic market-place, governed by apple design snobs.

I wonder if we'll see Google team up with some of the hardware vendors and build a truly open, android-based touch-screen tablet to respond to the iPad.

Look, I'll just be honest here. I don't dislike apple. I just wasn't impressed with the iphone. In fact, I downright dislike it. Could've been done a lot better. And plenty since have come out with adaptations to the touch screen phone. As far as a rectangle with a button...I don't see anything groundbreaking there. In fact, I like a couple more buttons. Maybe like 3 buttons. Like a mouse should have. I like "properties" and I love dicking around with them.

It's not that apple shouldn't be credited with starting a trend, it's just that they've been surpassed when they should be leading the way. I mean they've had 3[?] upgrades since it first came out...yet those upgrades weren't anything special that'd keep them on the leading edge.

What exactly are the advancements apple has introduced with the iPhone? Icons on a background? They haven't invented the touch-screen afaik. If you consider the lawsuit legit then Nokia and Ericsson should sue the living crap out of each and every cellphone manufacturer.

They should devote their energy to fixing the POS that is iTunes OR letting me manage my music/videos with third party software like WinAmp. Seriously, Apple is the new Microsoft

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.