Poll: Touchscreen or Buttons (E-ink)

[shanghaichica]

Paws off my display.

I'd hate finger prints all over my screen and I wouldnt want to put a protective screen over it for fear of loosing clarity. Plus with a touch screen it is far too easy to press the wrong thing, even when you were not intending to press anything. I have an iPhone and occasionally read on there. As I said I am always highlighting things when all I wanted to do was turn the page etc. I love the touch screen for a mobile phone but not for my e-reader.

[paola]

I don't like the idea of fingers on the screen, either, but my reader's touchscreen is stylus operated (swipe left and right to change page, up and down to change font size, etc) - so I voted for the middle option, but this may be misleading - I think it would have been nice to have options distinguishing between "finger touch" and "stylus touch" in the poll.

[Sweetpea]

I like touchscreens, but hate capacitive screens where you can only use your finger. And I hate having to page with the touchscreen, so buttons are mandatory.

[Ea]

I've tried both and definitely prefer buttons for a dedicated reading device with e-ink display. Easier and more comfortable to turn pages with a button press rather than a swipe. For a smartphone or tablet, touch is nicer. So paws off my e-ink display!

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by Ea

I've tried both and definitely prefer buttons for a dedicated reading device with e-ink display. Easier and more comfortable to turn pages with a button press rather than a swipe. For a smartphone or tablet, touch is nicer. So paws off my e-ink display!

Why is a touchscreen always associated with page turning? You can use it for much more than just that... I (almost) never use it for turning pages, but always for highlighting. On the Kindle (which does support the hightlighting, but without the touchscreen), it's a lot of hassle to do that...

[astra]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

How many people here who voted hands-off have actually seen an x0 Sony in use and seen how fingerprints effect the screen?

I'm guessing that a lot of you are basing your opinion on what you've seen on devices like the iPad where you do really see fingerprints.

Fingerprints don't really effect the Pearl screen. Sure you can eventually see fingerprints. But you see them more when the screen is off and at that time, you can clean the screen with a simple wipe.

You hit the nail on the head.

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

Why is a touchscreen always associated with page turning? You can use it for much more than just that... I (almost) never use it for turning pages, but always for highlighting. On the Kindle (which does support the hightlighting, but without the touchscreen), it's a lot of hassle to do that...

I ask the same question. Why page turning nly?
I guess I use it 50/50 for page turning.

However, dictionary! double click and you are there! It is fantastic!
Navigating between different menus.
Highlighting or making a note.



As JSWolf has said. You don't see fingerprints on new Sonys. Don't ask me why or how they achieved it. I expected to see and hate them. Not a chance.

[DiapDealer]

Fingerprints don't really effect the Pearl screen. Sure you can eventually see fingerprints. But you see them more when the screen is off and at that time, you can clean the screen with a simple wipe.

I see fingerprints, dust and smudges on my non-touch eink screen that drive me nuts as it is. Are you telling that won't get worse on a screen I'm supposed to be touching?

[JSWolf]

The 650 comes with a Stylus. Heck, you can even use a Q-tip to use the IR touch. My screen is not dripping in fingerprints. I clean the screen more to clean it then because of fingerprints.

Try the following.. pretend your current reader has a touch screen. Now swipe the screen 20 times and tell us how the fingerprints look.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I see fingerprints, dust and smudges on my non-touch eink screen that drive me nuts as it is. Are you telling that won't get worse on a screen I'm supposed to be touching?

Nope, it won't get worse and in fact, you see the fingerprints more when the screen is off then when it's on.

[Rainmaker]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I think it has a lot to do with what type of user you are. If you like to keep your entire library on your reader and constantly fiddle with the folders/collections/tags (whatever your device uses) to perfect your organizational master-plan--and are constantly doing dictionary lookups, or lots of highlighting/note taking, or occasionally using the browser to check your email... then sure, you're probably going to see an advantage for touch menu-navigation.

But if you are a "buy book, read book, buy another book, read another book" kind of user--who never has more than a handful of books on their device at any time--then that touch-screen navigation starts to look less like an advantage and more like over-kill... one more thing that could go wrong.

Throw in the fact that many have been raised to believe that touching a screen of any kind with anything other than a soft, non-abrasive cleaning cloth is an offense against God and Nature... and you have battle-lines. These taboos are harder to get over than you might think.

So I think the issue boils down to the difference between those who just want to read--plain and simple; and those who want to read and play a little. I'm sure the former group is small enough that they can be safely ignored in the evolution (or extinction) of the dedicated ereader... and that's kind of sad.

I think this has a lot to do with the preferences.
Another important topic is how computers have always been conceived (hardware - software: link); it's impossible to replace the mouse function with a touch screen.
Why?
Because a mouse allows you move over things while not selecting them, while most touchscreen's hardware and software interpret the "touching" of the screen as a selective action (analogy to the double click of a mouse).
There isn't also a "hold function" (as holding left click with a mouse) nor a difference as "Left click" (selection) and "Right click" (options of selected object).

I'm not saying that touch screen isn't going to be the next predominant technology (I believe it will be in most situations), but there are many things (image and video editing as an example) it can't do better than a regular keyboard and mouse.

[elizilla]

I think it has to do with the touch screen. I have two Sonys, a Nook Classic, and a tablet. All three have touch screens.

The Nook has touch only on that little LCD screen at the bottom. It's a terrible touch screen, drives me nuckin' futz. You can turn pages with swipes, but they have to be grand, dramatic swipes, with a good solid press of the finger. Fingerprints aren't a big deal since the touch screen strip isn't something I look at any more than I have to. But I still end up using the buttons to turn pages, much of the time. And even that isn't very satisfactory - those buttons need a harder push then they should.

The Viewsonic gTablet has a touch screen that is far more responsive. And the Aldiko reader I installed is nice, I like how you just tap to turn the pages, instead of swiping. It's comfortable to use. But it shows fingerprints like mad, which is annoying.

The Sonys have a much easier touch screen to use. Very responsive to the lightest touch. And since I have dry skin, and the screen has a matte texture, I don't have trouble with fingerprints. About the only thing I can imagine that would improve the experience, would be to have a tap turn the page, instead of a swipe. But since the swipe can be minimal, it's not hard to do and I quickly got used to it. If I am eating, and my hands are messy, I sometimes push the button with my knuckle to turn pages, but mostly I do use the touch screen.

So my position on this, is that a *good* touch screen is preferable to buttons, but buttons beat a bad touch screen.

[OtterBooks]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Nope, it won't get worse and in fact, you see the fingerprints more when the screen is off then when it's on.

I find that assertion rather curious, since e-ink screens don't have an "off" or "on." iirc.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I see fingerprints, dust and smudges on my non-touch eink screen that drive me nuts as it is. Are you telling that won't get worse on a screen I'm supposed to be touching?

Yes. I see more fingerprints on my BeBook Mini than on my Sony 650. The quality of the surface is completely different. A matte finish will make a screen less prone to fingersmudges. Which is also why I always put an anti-glare screen protector on all my LCD devices (that and the fact that you won't get scratches on your screen )

Originally Posted by elizilla

About the only thing I can imagine that would improve the experience, would be to have a tap turn the page, instead of a swipe.

That would probably interfere with the tab to select or the double click to open the dictionary. The old Mobipocket Reader has a "tap to turn" option. Which is highly annoying as I would always select when I wanted to page, or page when I wanted to select...

Originally Posted by elizilla

So my position on this, is that a *good* touch screen is preferable to buttons, but buttons beat a bad touch screen.

I don't see a touch screen as a complete replacement for buttons. A touchscreen can replace some types of buttons where those buttons won't be missed (that "joystick" thingie on the Kindle, for example, is completely unnecessary on the Sony), but for me, a device without buttons would be useless.

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

I find that assertion rather curious, since e-ink screens don't have an "off" or "on." iirc.

On is when there is lettering on the screen, off is when there isn't. When you have a completely empty screen, you'll notice any spots faster than when there is lettering to distract your eyes.

[OtterBooks]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

On is when there is lettering on the screen, off is when there isn't. When you have a completely empty screen, you'll notice any spots faster than when there is lettering to distract your eyes.

Makes sense. So the visibility of prints in 'blank' (negative charged) space remains the same. I think some people are better able to zone out marks on the periphery. Some will fixate on it, being bothered by its presence even if it's not over text.

[CWatkinsNash]

My reasoning for not wanting a touch screen isn't about fingerprints, per se, it's broader than that. I am fastidious when it comes to keeping my Kindle clean. I cannot stand to have a single speck or (nearly microscopic) hair on the screen. I have a special brush (a super-soft child's toothbrush, actually) for getting little bits of dust and stuff from the corners and around the keys. I have a bottle of non-alcohol screen cleaner, a special applicator and a microfiber cloth. Putting my fingers on the screen on purpose seems so wrong to me.

Yes, I realize that most people don't share my obsession with keeping my ereader clean, but that is my reason for not wanting a touch screen.