Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!bbn!uwmcsd1!ig!jade!ucbcad!zodiac!klee!klee
From: klee@klee.ads.com (Ken Lee)
Newsgroups: comp.cog-eng
Subject: Re: Issues of comp.cog-eng
Message-ID: <1014@zodiac.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 23-Nov-87 18:59:42 EST
Article-I.D.: zodiac.1014
Posted: Mon Nov 23 18:59:42 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 26-Nov-87 21:24:50 EST
References: <19@gollum.Columbia.NCR.COM>
Sender: news@zodiac.UUCP
Reply-To: klee@klee.UUCP (Ken Lee)
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems, Mt. View, CA (415) 941-3912
Lines: 21

In article <19@gollum.Columbia.NCR.COM> rolandi@gollum.UUCP () writes:
>Meanwhile, can anyone give me some pointers to research that examines
>the relative merits of touchscreens versus "mice".

I agree that this "rm *" nonsense is wearing out my "n" key.

As for your question, I think the consensus is that "it depends" on the
application.  Touchscreens are generally unsuitable for intensive applications
because:
1.  excessive fatigue (holding your arm up all day)
2.  your finger hides the thing you're pointing at
3.  fat fingers have low resolution
4.  fingerprints
5.  touch screens cause glare, distortion, and reduce display brightness
6.  a mouse has more degrees of freedom (especially a multi-button mouse)
There are a few other reasons I can't remember right now.  Of course, for
non-intensive, low-resolution applications, like push-button oriented bank
ATM's, touch screens are great.

Ken Lee
klee@ads.arpa