Will Kindle ever do a touch-screen

[Marcy]

Originally Posted by Sonny Blount

Only if

1. Screen quality is not compromised at all.

Not at all.

Originally Posted by Sonny Blount

2. Buttons remain. Touch is a 2-handed operation IMO, buttons work 1-handed.

Buttons are there. I never use them except for the things there is no touch option for (quick shortcut to home screen, pulling up the size and option menus).

However I read 1-handed with the touch screen all the time while nursing my son. I hold the book with my four fingers (reader between my index finger and middle finger) and use my thumbnail to turn the pages.

Originally Posted by Sonny Blount

3. It is able to be disabled. Don't want it accidently triggered.

Can't be disabled. I have never accidentally triggered it while reading. The times I have accidentally and annoyingly triggered it is when I've put the reader down to do something and didn't realize something was touching the screen. I come back to find the book either at the beginning or the end. Luckily I discovered there is a "Return to Previous Position" option in the "Go to" menu so I can easily get back to where I was. I suppose more careful handling would eliminate this problem.

The way the Sony is set up if you turned off the touch screen the device would be useless. There are buttons for some functions, but not all. For instance you couldn't select a book to read. Big downer for an ereader.

The only real negative I find with the PRS-650 and it is a result of something I think is a net positive, is that it is slow to load the home screen if you try to return from a book. I assume this is due to the database crunching as the device sorts the various collections. It probably wouldn't be a problem if I didn't have 2100 books and 330 collections on the reader. I'm willing to put up with it for the amazing collections feature that lets me group series and tagged books together easily, and lets the same book appear in more than one collection without being duplicated on the reader.

-Marcy

[Jazzetta]

Touch screens have two large fails, IMO, outside of the glare issue and the battery life issues, both which may or may not be fixed with some new technology someday.

Problem one: they are a serious annoyance to someone with large hands. My father is 6'8", and his fingers are twice as thick as my thumb. He can not use my iPhone worth a hoot, even dialing is tricky for him. Stylus-type sticks do not help a bit since they are usually like 3 inches long. He says it's like trying to write with a toothpick. (They also don't work on the iPhone.)

And they also make life more difficult on the visibly impaired. All you need is the Kindle to read off the titles as you scroll up and down and you'd have an e-reader that the blind could use. (I don't know if the newer version does or not, mine is way old.) You can feel the buttons easily enough, good luck on feeling your way to the right spot on a touch screen w/out hitting anything else!

The only solution I can see would to have it barking out the name of every spot you touched, and having to do like a triple tap to open something and I think that would be too annoying for words.

I have an iPhone, I consider it a incompletely formed idea that they almost got right. (Seriously, a web device that can't handle Flash? What's the freakin' point?)

It was the first touch screen device I ever bought, and I really can't imagine making the same mistake again. It's awkward, I hit everything but the key I'm aiming for, the screen freezes or just flat out ignores imput, and in the case of my first iPhone, half of it just quit working. (Apple did replace it, but still.... I never had half the keypad of a normal cell phone just quit!)

And fingerprints are just obnoxious squared, even with a screen protector (which costs extra on top of the high price you pay for the item), you still get smears and the protector itself gets cloudy over time. The one I have on there now has shifted off center, which means I'll need to replace it and pay more money again.

Plus there's the problem of touching the wrong part of the screen at the wrong time. I've hung up on more than one person just by holding the phone wrong.

Maybe I'm just too old to stay "with it" anymore, but no, I flat out hate touch screens and do not want them in my e-reader.

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by Crowl

... the whole fingerprint issue is an annoying one ...

Originally Posted by Figwit

... I have two work colleagues who have touch screen Sonys. One says she never uses the touch screen because it is not convenient. She finds it easier to flip the pages with the buttons. The other user prefers to use the stylus for much of the time to prevent smudging the screen ...

Originally Posted by Jazzetta

Touch screens have two large fails ... outside of the glare issue and the battery life issues ... And fingerprints are just obnoxious squared, even with a screen protector (which costs extra on top of the high price you pay for the item), you still get smears and the protector itself gets cloudy over time. ...

IMHO this is a completely fallacious non-issue. Anyone who has actually used a Sony, knows that fingerprints are not an issue. My Sony PRS-650's screen is matt, not glossy, so there is no glare. In normal use, I do not see any fingerprints, smears or smudges. The only way I can see anything like that, is if I go looking for it, by holding the reader up at an odd angle, so the light source reflects off the surface into my eyes. Obviously, that is not the way that I normally hold the reader when reading. So, the point about fingerprints seems to be a specious sophism aimed, at knocking Sony readers. Battery life issues? What battery life issues? Certainly another non-issue, so far as my 650 is concerned.

Originally Posted by Viseguy

... I'll take ... a fingerprint-free "page", thank you very much.

In which case, get yourself a Sony.

Originally Posted by dorino

... I seriously /hope/ there are still two layers, though. Something to protect the e-ink screen; I don't want to pop microcapsules with my nails ...

I don't know what you mean by "microcapsules". The screen surface seems to be quite hard. It is designed to be used as a touch-screen.

Originally Posted by Sonny Blount

Only if

1. Screen quality is not compromised at all.
2. Buttons remain. Touch is a 2-handed operation IMO, buttons work 1-handed.
3. It is able to be disabled. Don't want it accidently triggered.

1. My screen seems to be perfectly legible.
2. I hold my reader with one hand, most of the time when reading, and use my thumb to turn pages.
3. When I first got my 650, I sometimes triggered the touch-screen accidentally. However, I soon got into the habit of keeping my fingers clear of the screen. I find reading works best that way.

[suecsi]

I'd seen elsewhere that the new Sony 350 and 650 were supposed to have the same Pearl e-ink screen as the Kindle 3.

I previously had a Sony PRS505 and a PRS300, plus a Kindle 2i.

I went into Waterstones at the weekend and tried out the Sonys in there, and whilst there were definitely clarity improvements over the previous 600 touchscreens, and blacker text than my PRS505 (which was 'greyer' and similar to my K2i), I still perceived them as being slightly 'fuzzy' - certainly not as crisp as my Kindle 3. I had thought to pick up a 350 for library books but decided against it. I think it is just my eyesight, and with whatever device you end up with, it's 'horses for courses' as we'd say over here.

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by suecsi

I'd seen elsewhere that the new Sony 350 and 650 were supposed to have the same Pearl e-ink screen as the Kindle 3 ... I still perceived them as being slightly 'fuzzy' - certainly not as crisp as my Kindle 3 ...

As I understand it, the Kindle 3 and Sony n50s all use essentially exactly the same e-ink screen display. According to my Sony PRS-650's About page, it uses an E Ink Vizplex display. What does the Kindle 3 use?

As regards any perceived fuzziness, compared with the Kindle 3, obviously you are in the best position to judge this objectively, if you have seen them alongside each other. I have only seen the photos and videos, and read the reviews.

[Marcy]

Originally Posted by Jazzetta

Touch screens have two large fails, IMO, outside of the glare issue and the battery life issues, both which may or may not be fixed with some new technology someday.

Problem one: they are a serious annoyance to someone with large hands. My father is 6'8", and his fingers are twice as thick as my thumb...

And they also make life more difficult on the visibly impaired...

This is again people looking for issues. Guess what? They might not be right for you or your Dad, but most people are not 6'8" and can deal with the touch screen fine. I gave my Dad my old PRS-900 and he loves it. He somehow deals with the touchscreen despite his man-sized fingers and even though it has noticeable glare he still loves it for the large font sizes that his aging eyes can read easily. A PRS-950 would get rid of the glare and I offered to buy one for him, but he said he was happy with the 900.

You can use your fingernails on the touch screen instead of your finger pads, which is what I do. So the large fingers are actually a non-issue. And except for selecting a word in the text to look up in the dictionary when the text is smaller (I read on the smallest size), nothing you select on the Sony is a small area. It is nothing like an iphone where even my small fingers have a hard time on the keyboard.

As to the visually impaired, anyone impaired enough that they can't read the index of books and get their finger on the 1cm strip of screen devoted to each book, is in the legally blind range and not the target audience of an ereader. This is more nonsense like the school that banned the use of Kindles for a class because they couldn't be used by the blind. Guess what? The blind can't use a book either, so why not ban them? But I digress.

A legitimate reason for not liking a touchscreen is "I don't like it." But all these non-reasons are silly trying to make your opinion a fact rather than just an opinion. I've liked using non-touchscreen devices, but a touchscreen that doesn't impact on screen clarity is so much better *for me*. I really liked my PB360, but scrolling around the text to get to a word for dictionary look-up was totally cumbersome.

-Marcy

[Penforhire]

I highly recommend you guys go play with a Sony 650. Your complaints will evaporate and you'll be pounding the table for a touch-type Kindle. Very little fingerprint issue, page turn buttons exist, and ham-size fingers (like mine) are fine.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Marcy

As to the visually impaired, anyone impaired enough that they can't read the index of books and get their finger on the 1cm strip of screen devoted to each book, is in the legally blind range and not the target audience of an ereader. This is more nonsense like the school that banned the use of Kindles for a class because they couldn't be used by the blind. Guess what? The blind can't use a book either, so why not ban them? But I digress.


-Marcy

No, you don't digress, you don't simply understand and you (apparently) don't care. E-readers are great for visually impaired people because (1) you can increase the fonts so much that even some people who are legally blind can read them; and (2) e-readers can use text-to-speech to read to people who otherwise can't read themselves. E-readers have allowed a lot of people to take back up reading who had to stop due to declining vision, and there's no point in crippling the device so that it can't be used that way. Even the iPhone has an accessibility mode to help the visually impaired.

[NickBuzz]

You can not talk about touchscreen when you are talking about a ebook reader. The true ereader, like Kindle, is focused on giving the best experience for reading and for this you need one button for next page and one for previous page.

Do you like to smear your screen everytime you turn a page?

[Marcy]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

No, you don't digress, you don't simply understand and you (apparently) don't care. E-readers are great for visually impaired people because (1) you can increase the fonts so much that even some people who are legally blind can read them; and (2) e-readers can use text-to-speech to read to people who otherwise can't read themselves. E-readers have allowed a lot of people to take back up reading who had to stop due to declining vision, and there's no point in crippling the device so that it can't be used that way. Even the iPhone has an accessibility mode to help the visually impaired.

No, I do understand. The Sony is fine for someone visually impaired, but who sees well enough to read on the larger font sizes. It isn't enough for someone who can't read the book titles.

And since the Sony doesn't do text-to-speech at all, that is a non-issue for this device. It isn't meant for the legally blind. The legally blind that want text-to-speech won't be getting a Sony and it has nothing to do with the touch screen.

If vision is so bad you can't see the screen, I can't imagine enjoying text-to-speech via a synthesized voice on a regular basis. Why not just get audiobooks instead and stick them on a cheap MP3 player? Why pay for an ereader where most of the cost is due to the screen *that you can't see*?

-Marcy

[Kevin2960]

Originally Posted by Marcy

No, I do understand. The Sony is fine for someone visually impaired, but who sees well enough to read on the larger font sizes. It isn't enough for someone who can't read the book titles.

And since the Sony doesn't do text-to-speech at all, that is a non-issue for this device. It isn't meant for the legally blind. The legally blind that want text-to-speech won't be getting a Sony and it has nothing to do with the touch screen.

If vision is so bad you can't see the screen, I can't imagine enjoying text-to-speech via a synthesized voice on a regular basis. Why not just get audiobooks instead and stick them on a cheap MP3 player? Why pay for an ereader where most of the cost is due to the screen *that you can't see*?

-Marcy

Marcy is correct about eReaders and not being the solution for the legally blind,

I am slowly (I hope) but surely going blind, At the moment both my Sony PRS-600 and especially my K3 are beautifully fit for purpose, I read on very large fonts and eventually won't be able too,

As Marcy pointed out certain tasks on eReaders don't allow large font and cause difficulties for those with visual impairments, Audio books may be a better choice,

Look at some eReaders in the "Flesh" see if they work for you,

Good Luck,

[boxcorner]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

... you can increase the fonts so much that even some people who are legally blind can read them ...

Just for the record, on my Sony PRS-650, upper case letters in XXL font size are about 6.5mm high.

Originally Posted by NickBuzz

You can not talk about touchscreen when you are talking about a ebook reader ...

I can and I do. My Sony PRS-650 reads ebooks, therefore it is an ebook reader. IMHO, the fact that it happens to have a touch-screen does not preclude it from being called an ebook reader.

Originally Posted by NickBuzz

... The true ereader ... you need one button for next page and one for previous page ...

My Sony has those too, plus a touch-screen.

Originally Posted by NickBuzz

... Do you like to smear your screen everytime you turn a page?

You missed my earlier post?

Originally Posted by Penforhire

I highly recommend you guys go play with a Sony 650 ...

I concur. Touch-screens may not suit everyone, but the reality of Sony's touch-screen bears little resemblance to what some people seem to imagine it to be like. I think they would be pleasantly surprised, if they took the trouble to actually experience it for themselves.

[Marcy]

Originally Posted by NickBuzz

You can not talk about touchscreen when you are talking about a ebook reader. The true ereader, like Kindle, is focused on giving the best experience for reading and for this you need one button for next page and one for previous page.

Do you like to smear your screen everytime you turn a page?

Well, to repeat ad nauseum, the new Sony's have matte screens that do not pick up fingerprints easily and their IR touchscreen system doesn't even require that you actually touch the screen, just get close enough to break the beam. They are not like an iPad screen where you have to use your fingertip. Anything touching the screen will active it. I use my fingernails. If I'm eating something messy I use a toothpick, because I don't want to get the screen, buttons or stylus greasy.

As for the "true" ereader, it's whatever works for you. I can argue that the Kindle isn't a "true" ereader because it has the distracting keyboard at the bottom, making it bigger than it needs to be and having a distraction in my visual field. I love my Sonys and my PB360 because they are all almost all screen, my definition of a "true" ereader. But that's *my* definition. Everyone has different preferences which is why there are so many different readers to choose from. Get over thinking yours is the only right way.

-Marcy

[NickBuzz]

Guess I have to get my hands on one of those and see for myself.

[Eastlondonboy]

Wow. This is quite a long debate! I never realised touch screen was such a contentious issue.

[=The Messiah of Green Street=]