Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Desktops with touch are stupid. My monitor is up in front of my face, and a good distance back on my desk, not down on the front of my desk where my hands are. I'm not sitting at my computer to give my shoulders a workout. Besides which, any idiot who gets fingerprints all over my nice monitor deserves a slapping, even if its me.

Having touch sized buttons on the screen makes the mouse and keyboard experience worse - everything has to be bigger, with giant borders and separation because your finger is ~100px or more across, and my mouse pointer has a single-pixel click area.

Te problem with the hybrid approach is simply that I, or any anyone like me, can't or won't use touch for our desktop use, so why should a touch oriented UI forcibly impinge upon our experience? They didn't keep the desktop as it was - they removed the start button and a bunch of context menus and hid them in those ridiculous 'charms' pop-outs. The start screen is an enormous waste of time. If they were optional, or the defaults changed based on whether a touch screen was present it might be different, but they are not optional, or even configurable without third party software.

I'm not saying they can't or shouldn't change things. I think the start menu could have been re-drawn as something visually like a charm menu, fading in from the left edge of the screen, so long as it doesn't take you away from what you are doing it would have been fine.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: