Talk:Touchscreen/Archive 1

Archive 1

Somebody Please

Merge the page called "touch screen" into this one. Do the right thing. GeneMosher 14:37, 26 June 2005 (UTC)

There is also a need to integrate the touch panel page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.130.103.235 (talk • contribs).

I think the Touch Panel article can likely be deleted. I don't see very much information in Touch Panel article that isn't in the Touch Screen article.--gg4rest 00:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

i dont agree touch panel is redundant in view of this article Tt 225 13:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely. Merging Touchscreen and Touch panel is a clearly good idea. The terms are absolutely synonymous. So.....who's gonna step up and do this???? (Not me, right now, I'm busy.  :-) NuclearWinner 21:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a comment at the top of the page that suggests that there are techincial details related to touch panels that warrant their own article. I'm of the opinion that sort of technical information does not need to be separated from this article, and that it should be merged (with the information referred to at the top of this page added) 209.89.223.239 21:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge done. Guy Harris 09:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

touch panels are a whole different ball of wax than just touch screens as they involve the various factors; tail, controller, bezels, etc. and this should warrant it's own article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anneaholaward (talk • contribs) 09:52, 8 January 2007 (UTC).

Then create such an article (making it something that discusses stuff not mentioned in this article, rather than something redundant with this article such as the old "touch panel" page). Guy Harris 09:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Game Controller

I'm removing the game controller section from this entry as a touchscreen is not a game controller. Just because a portable gaming device (Nintendo DS) uses a touchscreen for input does not make the touchscreen itself a controller. If this were the case, we would also need to include such items as buttons and switches as game controllers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Branin (talk • contribs) .

I think that a touchscreen as a controller fucks up the matches the level of the other devices at Template:Gamepad styles. We don't include items such as buttons and switches because they are part of gamepads, keyboards, etc. If a touchscreen was a component of an input device (as a button is a component of a keyboard), then it would not fit with this list. However, since the touchscreen is the input method, it belongs on this list. -SCEhardT 01:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The DS touchscreen is part of the control system along with the buttons. It is not a separate controller. There are not "touchscreen" game controllers that you can buy for home console use, just as there are no game controllers that consist of a single button or switch, and this is why none of these things belong in a template of game controllers. To be honest, the whole template seems a little annoying, esp. on this page and on "flight yoke". JohnnyMrNinja 02:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of unnecessary Advertisements

how can a device already in the market (touchscreen) be popularized by an operating system not yet released? (windows vista) If windows vista does indeed ship with built-in touchscreen support, and it actually sees widespread use, only then it will make any sense. as it is, i'm kicking it off as advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.64.228.215 (talk) 10:04, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but then who are you? (in other words, why don't you sign your posts? --AVM (talk) 15:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

3rd Type of infra-red Touchscreen

There is also another type of infra-red touchscreen. One that uses two or more line scan cameras such as those made by Nextwindow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.230.123 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 7 May 2006

Touchscreen Technology

Can anyone explain the diffence between the new "Optical Imaging" technology and the technology already explained under the "Infrared" heading? I'm thinking that "Optical Imaging" should be removed, but "Infrared" should be updated to include a few of the additional details from "Optical Imaging".-Atomic 18:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Infrared generally uses a combination of IR transmitters and receivers, and performs "line scans" to locate an object.

Optical imaging is rather different, in that it basically uses cameras and light (sometimes IR, but not necessarily), and the touch is where the shadow is. It requires a bit more processing, but the cost is largely independent of the screen size.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.230.122 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 14 June 2006

In 1974, Dr. Lawrence Weed's group at the University of Vermont Medical School used a Surface Acoustic Wave touchscreen with the PROMIS ("Problem-Oriented Medical Information System") hospital records management system. The underlying terminal were either DEC VT-100s or IBM 3270 (?). Subsequently, in 1976-77, the ZOG group under Dr. Allen Newell at Carnegie-Mellon University used this same technology to build two prototype vector graphics personal computers, called the GDP-II, with touchscreen input capabilities. The touchscreen was dropped as a part of the ZOG project because the touch data would have overwhelmed the communication capability, given the 9600-baud connectivity over phone lines that the ZOG Project was trying to accommodate.

All of the above information is available in public documents from the 1970s including CMU Technical Reports on Zog. I am not sure where to get PROMIS information, but I recall that it was profiled in a mammoth report on Applications of Computers produced by the ACM in 1975. Again I don't recall the name.

In any case, the point I want to make is that Surface Acoustic Wave was the first touchscreen technology to be deployed to lay users as early as 1973. Kameshaiyer (talk) 01:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Kamesh Aiyer.

800 layers?

On the resistive touch screen part it says

A resistive touchscreen panel is composed of 800 layers

This seems very suspicious to me. Is this true? Does anyone have a citation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.129.202 (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Multi-touch

Is it notable enough to divide up the technologies into subsections based on whether they are capable of multi-touch sensing or not? — Omegatron 00:03, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is, that information would be highly valuable. Blue Dinosaur Jr 18:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Agree with editor above, multitouch is good stuff but badly covered here. I wonder if more than just iphone use it. -Ryan Sullivan, 200702202345 estm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.46.97.50 (talk • contribs) 04:46, 21 February 2007

Missing historical development and market data

Anyone knows this: What was the first commercial product category with touchscreens? What time period did they become dominant? MaxPont 11:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What about Inductive Types

Should a section about Inductive (or magnetic) touch screens be added?

An Example of an Inductive types of screens technology is availble at: http://www.pencomputing.com/features/wacom_digitizer_comparison.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SpadenMarvell (talk • contribs) 16:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

touchscreens and blind users

One of the issues at many public places and which blind people face constantly is the need to operate a touch screen. I´'ll conduct some research on this, although I doubt this issue has been known throughout not more people who use them but rather the ones who are unable to use them.

68.205.240.133 17:50, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Touch resolution

I came to this article to find out what kind of resolution a touch can have. None so far. Does anyone have the inside gossip on what area (centimetres or pixels) is triggered by a touch (finger, stylus, etc) and how a mouse click (x, y) is defined from that, whether a block activation can be triggered (e.g. for use by a paint program), etc, etc. 89.242.85.116 19:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Microsoft Surface

Is that a touch technology relevant to this article? If so, presumably the generic nature would be described and the Microsoft device mentioned and referenced in the external links. 89.242.85.116 19:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Ergonomics

Anything? Occasional use in a kiosk application is one thing, using one on the desktop on a daily basis ... is it practical, is it just asking for RSI? Thanks :-) 89.242.85.116 19:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Wanting some updates

If you know or found some information about who invted the touch screen consept? what company, a bit more history about it. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.225.93.250 (talk) 09:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the recent edition of the CERN Courier (http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/42092) the capacitive touchscreen was invented at CERN in 1972 by Bent Stumpe. Together with a colleague he wrote a paper (F Beck and B Stumpe 1973 CERN 73-6) on the idea. By 1976 the control room of the SPS at CERN was fully equipped with touchscreens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linac2000 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Graphics tablet/screen hybrid technique?

The section "Graphics tablet/screen hybrid technique" in the "Technologies" section needs to be rewritten or removed, as it doesn't describe a technology but rather an application. Probably it should be changed to describe the technology behind the application (I think it's inductive). Dan Griscom (talk) 12:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Touchwires

An early form of touch screen was invented at the Royal Radar Establishment in the sixties and was used for experimental air traffic control systems. The Marconi and Plessey companies were involved. The Flight archives contain some details such as the following referenced article: http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1967/1967%20-%202312.html KSE (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Which applications are used in which products?

I came to this article to learn how the touch-screen worked on my computer. From this article, there is no way of knowing which of the many technologies my device uses. All the many types are simply listed, and it's impossible for the layman to know which type is used where.Landroo (talk) 04:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Its generally beyond the scope of this article if you ask me, generally the most common type of touch screen is the resistive, coming second is usage is capacitive, In consumer devices such as PDA's and Laptops/Tablet-pc etc. A 'easy' way to determine the difference between the two is that a resistive touchscreen can use an inert plastic stylus or even any sort of relatively pointed object(pen, fingernails), while a capacitive touch screen requires a finger (or some other conductive object) and won't work with non-conductive pointed objects. --58.110.132.123 (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Along the same lines, it might be useful to include a common product with each type. For example, the Nintendo DS is shown in the article, but it isn't clear why it was chosen. It could be used as an example of the use of a capacitive touch screen, while an iPhone would be a logical example of the use of a capacitive touch screen. --Wikipedia XP (talk) 21:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Diffused Laser Imaging

The Diffused Laser Imaging section doesn't seem to give any external references, and so far I haven't been able to find any other information on the web about this technology. Does anyone have any links for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.194.138 (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

"Touchscreen" or "touch screen"?

Consensus or not, this section is outdated: article's name has already been consolidated. --AVM (talk) 15:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. Default to no move. JPG-GR (talk) 17:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Touchscreen" or "touch screen" ? Various sources:

• prefer "touch screen" over "touchscreen"
  • Merriam-Webster [1][2]
  • Oxford English Dictionary [3][4]
  • Encarta [5][6]
  • Yahoo — 63m vs 47m
  • Wiktionary [7][8]
• prefer "touchscreen" over "touch screen" [9]
  • The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language [10][11]
• can't tell
  • Google — Unfortunately it's hard to search for only "touchscreen" or "touch screen"

There seems to be a general preference for "touch screen". --Underpants (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• I support this move, because the major British, American and Australian dictionaries prefer "touch screen". – Axman (☏) 17:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• I oppose this move, this is simply another case where a compund word commonly found on the internet is still considered two words by the dictionary. I almost never see "touch screen" in my part of the US. Is there a compelling need to rename this page? --Kraftlos (talk) 02:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Gorilla Arm

The gorilla arm section of the article (and anywhere else it is mentioned) feels opinionated and, dare I say, like a joke? Dillonthebookworm (talk) 06:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks and feels like a gorilla?!

quote from the article:

After a short period of time, cramp may begin to set in, and arm movement becomes painful and clumsy -- the operator looks like a gorilla while using the touch screen and feels like one afterwards.

Feels like one?!? I am lively interested who wrote that hahah... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.39.127 (talk) 12:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Fantastic you should keep that one!

Gorilla arm story reads like classic Urban Legend: "Boffins-at-vaguely-specified-place-and-time spend much effort and $ to study thing, only to discover something obvious to a 12 year-old". Gorilla-Arm effect exists for prolonged use without variation of task, but "classic cautionary tale" may well be a tall-tale. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.153.203.207 (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Clarity

The article mentions 'clarity' a few times - it's not clear (ironically) whether that's in reference to translucence, resolution, color saturation, etc. A synonym should be used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.197.248.213 (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Building touch screens

I really believe this section should be eliminated and the information here included in other sections (specifically the Development section).--Fullrabb (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Optical (IR)

This section should be trimmed down. It is dramatically longer than the descriptions for the other technologies. The industry terms are also Infrared and Optical, not Optical (IR) and Optical imaging. Does anyone agree?--Fullrabb (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

PSoC

Does anyone other than me think the sentence "New developments in this area include PSoC (Programmable System-on-Chip) by Cypress Semiconductor." is a blatant advertisement? The PSoC page reads like an infomercial too... 62.219.154.151 (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Frustrated Total Internal Reflection

There's no section on FTIR touch screens, like the one CNN got from Jeff Han at NYU. ref: http://cs.nyu.edu/~jhan/ftirtouch/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.193.242.218 (talk) 01:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Computer Hardware relation not mentionned?

Shouldn't this article be related to computer hardware? There's no link to get anywhere close. I mean 'display of what?' I think for the neophyte it's hard to understand if there were no images. --YCC 08:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cy21 (talk • contribs)

Durability

The Durability part of the chart in the end of the article seems kind of weird. It's not like a capasitive screen will automaticly break up in 2 years. At least there should be some explanation what the time actually means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.61.0.47 (talk) 06:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of touchscreen technologies

As a reader, this section does not make a lot of sense. 4-wire and 5-wire are not mentioned anywhere (apparently they are types of resistive technologies?). Most of the terms compared are not even explained in the article. No external sources are given. What should happen to this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.65.248.218 (talk) 15:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur, as a reader, I was very interested in this section, but am at a loss at understanding what 4-wire and 5-wire technologies are, if not referred to in the above technologies section.

I too was disappointed in this chart for the reasons above. What I would also find instructive would be info on "best for/because". —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisHAu (talk • contribs) 20:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Infrared - plagiarism?

Much (nearly all) of the text in the Infrared subsection of Technologies is found verbatim a 2007 article in "Information Display" (12/07) entitled "An overview of optical-touch technologies," author Ian Maxwell. article can be found here, as of 2010/02/19: An Overview of Optical-Touch Technologies

RPO, Inc. Is the website of a manufacturer of a specific type of optical touchscreen.

This could be an example of plagiarism from their material, or corporate editing without attribution. Either way, as written currently the section is a copyright violation and will be removed as such. If the original content holder contributed the material, and wishes to have it included, they may donate it.

I came across this fact incidentally, while trying to find sources for some of the claims in "Infrared" rather than adding "citation needed" tags.

This article also appeared in a google scholar search (again, 2010/02/19) using the following terms: "information display" 2007 overview optical-touch

Pyrilium (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Gorilla conjecture

Edited, pointed out flaws, and, where are refs. Comment please. Casimirpo (talk) 16:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Undid removal of my expansion of conjecture. We have 'dispute'. Either remove unsourced altogether with expansion, or remove neither. Casimirpo (talk) 19:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

This revert restores an entirely synthetic counterargument to the "gorilla arm" comment. That can be easily referenced to a proper source, while the counterargument appears to be the personal research/opinion of the reverting editor. I've added the gorilla arm reference, and unless someone comes up with a counterargument referenced properly with reliable secondary sources which actually discuss "gorilla arm" then I'll be removing the counterargument again. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole section is entirely synthetic, with supporting sources to be found only in a Jargon dictionary and some blogs.

I scroured Google book search for hits - couldn't find anything on "gorilla arm" outside zoology or biology. I will look in Google Scholar next.

Finally, unless you come up with a citation or reference that supports any other view of Gorilla arm outside "urban tale" - I will be removing the whole section, as sourceless claims do not belong in Wikipedia . 82.181.140.183 (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Found something solid - a study on effect of touchscreen inclination on arm fatigue: According to these researchers, the least fatiguing inclination for an touchscreen was 22.5 degrees of inclination from horizontal, and 30 degree inclination was preferred: http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1125103 - Note that this doesn't support this sections' claims about Gorilla arm's "prima facie"-ness or vert screens dominance in kiosk apps. Only that 90 inclination is fatiguing. Casimirpo (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Just realized there's a discussion of this subsection. When updating the whole Ergonomics and Usage section I did this, and I think fixed the difficult to understand bits, made it more accurate and added a reference. Did not do anything about "This phenomenon is often cited as a prima facie example of what not to do in ergonomics." as it was there, I have heard that, but am not sure how to prove or disprove that. I wouldn't mind that sentence being removed if anyone still wants to Shoobe01 (talk) 23:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Projected Capacitive

The chart in this article has capacitive but not the projected capacitive, which would have different specifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anneaholaward (talk • contribs) 06:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Pictures needed

This article needs updated pictures. There are many touch screens now that are not related to gaming. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anneaholaward (talk • contribs) 06:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Advertisement?

I'm not sure what this line means, but it sounds like advertising to me: "Touch Solutions at Cypress Semiconductor enables designers to select between different usage models,touchscreen vendors and LCD vendors." 77.168.157.177 (talk) 16:08, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

How is this statement related to the technology's development?

The following line appears at the bottom of the development section of the article.

"Touch Solutions at Cypress Semiconductor enables designers to select between different usage models,touchscreen vendors and LCD vendors."

There is no context to the statement, no citation and seems wholly un related to the development of touchscreen technologies. If a commercial product/service is going to be should there not be some sort of "so what?" factor to the statement. Something along the lines of: "Company X" with "Product Y" has helped push the development of touchscreen technology through "Innovation Z" (or popularity/public acceptance)

As it stands that line just seems like an advertisement.

Dsteele 7 (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Touchscreens emerged from corporate research labs in the second half of the 1940s

Where did this information come from? Can someone please add it to the references or something cause i really need to know. Vomya (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

History: First touch screens

The article reads "In 1971, the first "touch sensor" was developed by Doctor Sam Hurst (founder of Elographics) while he was...".

Nevertheless publications presenting earlier developments of touch displays are available, e.g.: Johnson, E.A. (Royal Radar Establishment, Malvern): Touch Displays : A Programmed Man-Machine Interface. in: Singleton, W.T., Easterby, R.s., Whitfield D.C.: Proceedings of the Conference on : The Human Operator in Complex Systems. London 1967, Taylor & Francis.

Maybe someone can investigate this issue more in detail and rework this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.76.97.220 (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, the statement, "In 1974, the first true touch screen incorporating a transparent surface was developed by Sam Hurst and Elographics" is posing problems. This source shows a transparent touch screen that was developed by Bent Stumpe in the early 1970s and manufactured by CERN and put to use in 1973. Are there any technical differences, that makes the CERN example not fall into the category of a "true touch screen incorporating a transparent surface"? --Saddhiyama (talk) 14:30, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Touch panels

Touch panel currently redirects to this article, but probably shouldn't. In industrial computing, "touch panel" means much more than just a touchscreen; it is a complete human machine interface in industrial automation. It consists of a touchscreen (usually, but somtimes just plain LCD and buttons), a microcontroller or single board computer, an industrial networking interface (typically a serial bus such as RS-485, Fieldbus, Profibus, or ControlNet, and an environmentally sealed case; all loaded with proprietary SCADA software for local override management of PLCs and/or local reporting. An example of a fairly high-end system would be the EZ CE Touchpanel (1.5 MB PDF.) I might start a stub shortly, but I don't know enough about it to write an article. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 02:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Touchscreen or touch screen?

Which is it? The article uses both. Not very consistent. -- Frap (talk) 10:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Touchscreen is not a display

I don't think touchscreen should be described as an electronic visual display, because a touchscreen doesn't display anything, it's the underlying display that does that. -- 112.66.114.28 (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, because a touchscreen is distinct from input devices like touchpads by virtue of its combination with an electronic display. It might be possible to make this distinction explicitly though if folks think its warranted. MyNameWasTaken (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

"Laser Image Calibration Technology" - Advertisement?

This section of text, under the construction heading, seems to be an advertisement for a particular brand / type of touchscreen. Even the wording - "common glass onto a common LCD screen and install our FP Board on the glass" I would just delete it, but I've never edited before on Wiki, so I'm trying to be cautious and instead bring it to your attention. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.115.91.194 (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the entire passage under that title looks suspicious. I am looking into it now. Thanks for the note! L2blackbelt (talk) 14:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Removed passage and tagged the offending user, Easitechcn, in change message. Seems to be his first and only edit on Wikipedia. L2blackbelt (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

EMR input?

Though one could argue that EMR (like Wacom EMR input screens) is not really 'touch'screen (it uses a stylus), a reference to or a mentioning of this technologie seems necessary to me. A tablet user looking for an answer how his/her tablet screen works (like me) would end up here and should be informed or directed to an appropriate page. BartYgor (talk) 12:44, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Screen Protector

Currently does not link in well to the overall article. Could potentially fit in if screen scratching is discussed as a problem with touch screens. This is however a problem in common with other portable displays so possibly this section should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Me16328 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice images available !

• 
• 
• 
• 

Yug (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Needs updating

The article seems fine as far as it goes, but since touchscreens are now ubiquitous I think it could do with updating. Time moves fast in this field! (Does that even make sense?).--Deke42 (talk) 16:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. And, I've updated the Ergonomics & Usage section a lot recently to include modern research, and make it more related to the vast sea of capacitive touch devices, since older tech and older standards don't apply as much. I say, either start work, or come up with a list of specific things that you think need to be changed. That'll help and maybe eventually it'll get updated with more direction when the right people wanted by. Shoobe01 (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Why do some capacitative touchpads and touchscreens malfunction?

I have noticed that most capacitative touchpads and touchscreens will sometimes detect a hand or finger an inch or so away from them, and interpret things like typing-without-touching as a series of moves and taps. Does anyone know what causes this for some people and not for others? Doesn't this affect [in]accessibility and [completely broken] ergonomics? 173.66.211.129 (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

input,output or both

is that touchscreen fall into input or both?

Infrared acrylic projection

do you mean FTIR with that? FTIR with cameras was used by Microsoft's tables when they were called Surface table. PixelSense evolution made with Samsung (SUR-40 if I remember well or something were called the models) from what I know uses a per-pixel sensor, not a camera. The Ars Technica article has background info on where that tech came from, how MS acquired it etc.

also see Multi-Touch Sensing through Frustrated Total Internal Reflection http://cs.nyu.edu/~jhan/ftirsense/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.205.181 (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

NUI video

http://videos.howstuffworks.com/ted-conferences/1787-jeff-han-talks-about-touch-driven-computer-screens-video.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.4.205.181 (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

touch hardware interface

What are the most common current standard touch/multitouch hardware interfaces, for external monitors etc? USB? Serial port? What else? HDMI?? What article does/should cover this?-71.174.184.36 (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Sport with ball and mega-touchscreen?

Is there sport with "mega-schermo" touschscreen and ball? Bye — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.38.65.148 (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

...and TV Touchscreen-live?

It can be done with App. of TV, on first "film" on video before live: touch "object" of "film" and internet "display" "Web-page" of this "object". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.38.65.148 (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Touchscreen with cold and hot temperature...

Is there touchscreen-reaction of cold and hot temperature? (for example with water...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.38.65.148 (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Touchscreen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.oakridger.com/columnists/x860698067/G-Samuel-Hurst-the-Tom-Edison-of-ORNL?zc_p=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151213043947/http://electronicdesign.com/Articles/Index.cfm?AD=1&ArticleID=18592 to http://electronicdesign.com/Articles/Index.cfm?AD=1&ArticleID=18592

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Accuracy of Fingers

The article currently claims: "The precision of the human finger alone is much, much higher than this, so when assistive technologies are provided—such as on-screen magnifiers—users can move their finger (once in contact with the screen) with precision as small as 0.1 mm (0.004 in)."

That doesn't make sense. The best possible accuracy would include an area a finger-width across. And while I'm not a touchscreen user, I would often miss by a finger-width or more when I tried to use touchscreens. And I had trouble with the screen reggistering tapping and/or gestures when I hadn't intended or felt any contact. Maybe the most dextrous users can achieve impressive accuracy. 173.66.5.216 (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Please read the several articles on this cited in previous sentences on touch accuracy, and especially the scientific paper referenced for this specific claim. Accuracy has absolutely nothing to do with finger sizes, in general. This is a common fallacy, but is referenced here both for completeness, and to specifically to counter the out of date misunderstanding. Please note the many references for touch accuracy generally, which are across user cohorts, include tens of millions of touch events, etc. Shoobe01 (talk) 14:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• IPad with extensive fingerprints and smudges.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:54, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Tesla 3 white interior.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Starting an app on a smartphone - video.webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2021 (UTC)