View Single Post
Old 10-04-2012, 11:35 PM   #33
ixtab
(offline)
ixtab ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ixtab ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ixtab ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ixtab ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ixtab ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ixtab ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ixtab ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ixtab ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ixtab ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ixtab ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ixtab ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
ixtab's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,903
Karma: 6677485
Join Date: Dec 2011
Device: K3, K4, K5, KPW, KPW2
Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf View Post
So why would Amazon switch from IR TO capacitance and all those fingerprints? The benefit of IR is no extra layer and very good when dealing with fingerprints because of the rink screen. I'm interested in how the new Kobo is with fingerprints since it still uses IR touch. This seems a step backwards (IMHO).
Good point, and good question. I don't know why they switched from IR to capacitive, and honestly I don't see a real reason. It's probably just cheaper.

I still fail to understand why the (technical) method of determining touches (IR vs capacitive) would affect the (optical) visibility of fingerprints. Is it because the capacitive screens actually require a physical press - thereby necessarily leaving some traces - whereas the IR method could (in principle, if you're careful enough) work without ever actually touching the screen?

Still, I've physically touched my KT screen many many times, and I don't see any noticeable fingerprints. Why should that be different on the PW? (Maybe it's the light, I don't know).
ixtab is offline   Reply With Quote