Main > Everything Else

Build your own Surface table

<< < (2/3) > >>

SavannahLion:
It's a cool idea, but you would lack any tactile and positional feedback. As soon as your hand floats away from the virtual button, you would be pounding on the plexi in frustration.

Given that the size of the plexi is limited only by the projector and distance, perhaps one could create a dynamic monitor, touchscreen and bezel?

Let's say you want a 19" 4:3 monitor. That gives you ~15.2"x~11.4". If we make those numbers nice and round, we'll make our bezel that expands the total size to 25" x 25" giving us a the equivalent of a ~35" 1:1 monitor. This gives us ~5" of bezel on the left/right and ~6 3/4" on the top/bottom. That gives one enough room to dynamically assign instruction cards and probably enough room to display just about any bezel (additional research required to determine if a 5" side is enough space) one heart desires. Added bonuses would include an auto rotating monitor, expanding the 19" play area to the full size of the viewing area at the cost of bezel space, inclusion of any touch screen game (baring lag issues of course), a juke, etc. etc.

The only catch is working out the necessary resolution one would need to effectively make such a display.

Ummon:
Well, as far as that goes, once your hand moves away, you're not pounding on an physical button, either. I thought of this idea using small LCD panels, a few years ago. And on that note, isn't the Win model just a glorified LCD? Don't they make touch screen LCD panels, or at least LCD units? Of course they do. Jukebox at the bar. So make a bigger one. I don't see the thousands of dollars in this that these things are sold for. Pshaw.

massive88:
Multi (infinite) touch as opposed to single touch I think is the difference.

SavannahLion:

--- Quote from: Ummon on April 08, 2009, 10:54:50 pm ---Well, as far as that goes, once your hand moves away, you're not pounding on an physical button, either.

--- End quote ---

That doesn't make any sense. You somehow inferred the problem I presented as being a valid problem with current button use. You can feel where buttons are, you can feel their movement, bounce, and (with some) switch engagement. You can touch a button without triggering it. You have to touch a touch screen to trigger it, which would prompt you to have a lightest of feather touches not to trigger. Since not everyone is going to have such a light touch, it would serve to add to the frustration for people who are "heavy handed".

With nothing to feel on a touch screen, chances are really good your fingers are going to float from button center. Not so bad if the interface is at least consistent like the Virtual Laser Keyboard, but when you have a dynamically changing interface that something like this is going to inherently have, people are going to trip up.

Think about the principles of how any touch screen operates. You have virtual buttons presented with a visual representation. Point is people are looking at the "buttons" they're pressing. Why do you think Nokia (or whomever they contracted out) spent so much time and money on a tactile touch screen?

Ummon:

--- Quote from: massive88 on April 09, 2009, 10:42:36 am ---Multi (infinite) touch as opposed to single touch I think is the difference.

--- End quote ---

I thought it was a matter of software.



--- Quote from: SavannahLion on April 10, 2009, 12:45:23 am ---That doesn't make any sense. You somehow inferred the problem I presented as being a valid problem with current button use. You can feel where buttons are, you can feel their movement, bounce, and (with some) switch engagement.
--- End quote ---

Ah, right. Thanks for correcting me on that.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version