Hi Boudewijn,
Boudewijn said:
Op Mon, 01 Mar 2010 04:44:29 +0100 schreef D Yuniskis
When it is painful.
Wow, I never considered that possibility. :-/
Perhaps a lot of positive scientific papers about it.
For doing what? Pointing something out on a screen, inputting text
and/or context-sensitive instructions, digging a ditch, positioning
concrete slabs, removing a kidney and piloting an aircraft would usually
benefit from different interface properties (haptic or not).
I disagree. I am sure there are attributes of a haptic interface
(or any other interface, for that matter) that make them better
or worse than other implementations in their class.
What is the difference from the previous question?
Why does an interface have top be part of an electronic device?
E.g., I would nominate a traditional "squashed sphere" doorknob
as the best haptic interface. It's shape ("feel") is
reasonably comfortable (not painful nor intimidating -- hence
the qualification of the "squashed sphere" variety and not some
of the more exotic artsy-fartsy door handles), it doesn't
"prefer" a particular size hand, it is intuitive in operation,
can be operated without benefit of any of the other senses,
etc.
Contrast this with something like a "child proof" pill bottle...
the size of the cap varies and, as such, causes it to favor a
particular hand size/strength (arthritic senior citizens vs men
with "manly" hands vs teenagers and, of course, young children);
the childproofing usually makes the actions required to "unlock"
it counterintuitive (on purpose), etc.
Note the criteria used in these explanations identify the
sorts of things that I perceive as "important" (to *me* -- the
purpose of the question was to identify criteria that others
might consider important).
I, for example, consider most of Apple's (electronic) offerings
to have crappy interfaces. You *need* your eyes to use them
(even on things like setting the volume on an iPod), they
require more attention than should be necessary (again, the
iPod example comes to mind -- changing volume should be the
sort of thing you can do without thinking about what you
are doing -- instead of requiring you to track your finger
in a particular circular orbit on the face of the device -- note
that things like the Shuttle were much easier to operate
in this regard); they aren't particularly intuitive (contrast
with the doorknob which even a toddler can "operate"), etc.
Refering to your "For doing what?" question, could you
consider this sort of iPod interface BETTER in *any*
application than some other haptic interface -- ignoring
trivial cases? (this is a genuine question, not a statement
of my beliefs)