![\"http:\/\/students.iitk.ac.in\/projects\/eclub_evomouse\"](\"http:\/\/historyoftech.mcclurken.org\/mouse\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/04\/Mouse-to-mouseless-.jpg\")
<\/a>\u201cMouseless.\u201d Digital Image. Projects. June, 2013. March 16, 2017. http:\/\/students.iitk.ac.in\/projects\/eclub_evomouse<\/p><\/div>\n
This war over efficiency and accuracy of manipulating a computer display is one that began in the 1960\u2019s, comparing the mouse to its competitors the lightpen, and the joystick [1]. When asked to select icons on a screen using these various devices, being measured on factors such as speed and accuracy, scientists conducting the trials concluded\u00a0that \u201cfor the more experienced subjects the mouse was both faster and more accurate than any other device\u2014including the light pen\u201d [2]. On the other hand, individuals who were not accustomed to using these devices were found to \u201cperform better with both the light pen and the knee control\u201d [3]. The reason for this ease is due to the \u201cpsychological \u201cnaturalness\u201d of operation\u201d that comes with directly pointing the light pen at an item to be selected. Yet, the fact that the pen had to be \u201cheld in the air\u201d was a major disadvantage that the mouse did not face [4]. As tech has progressed and our screens are no longer strictly vertical, positioned upright on desks, the naturalness of directly touching the screen has re-emerged and given validity once again to the lightpen\u2019s initial purpose, yet minus the extra pen-shaped hardware.<\/p>\n
<\/a>Russell, Patrick. \u201cTouchscreen Desktops: Yay or nay?\u201d Digital Image. Usability Geek. December, 2013. March 16, 2017. http:\/\/usabilitygeek.com\/touchscreen-desktops-yay-nay\/<\/p><\/div>\n
As touch screens have become an increasingly important part of our daily devices, we\u00a0might wonder if this spells the end for the computer mouse. Another study, this time by the Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories in 2007, judged the touchscreen and mouse based on \u201cefficiency and accuracy\u201d, just as the study before had in 1967 [5]. However, the two competing devices were different. When asking participants to drag a green shape to a designated \u201cdock\u201d, the study found that participants were \u201cabout twice as likely to commit a selection error using the touch-table (8.5%) than using the mouse\u201d (4.1%) [6]. Regardless of this fact, \u201cselection was faster for touch-table input\u2026even with these multiple attempts at selection\u201d [7]. Another test that participants were asked to take was to click opposing corners of a target and then drag it to the intended dock as before [8]. In this situation, the results completely flipped. That is, \u201ctwo mouse input [where participants used one mouse per hand to click and drag objects] resulted in significantly lower performance compared with two-finger input on the touch-table\u2026[especially] much higher selection-times for the two-mouse input condition\u201d [9]. Based on the findings of both experiments performed about the touchscreen and mouse, it is certain that both devices have their strengths and therefore prove to be worthy opponents of one another.<\/p>\n
Considering the touchscreen revolution, computer makers such as Microsoft and Apple are beginning to create devices that appeal to this current tech-obsession. For Microsoft, this involves a touchscreen digital creativity hub called the \u201cSurface Studio\u201d and for Apple, it means a \u201ctouch bar\u201d that puts tools for applications such as Photoshop on a little touch display, above the keyboard, that replaces manual navigation towards that tool via the trackpad [10]. Apple has strongly refused creating a touchscreen for their MacBook Pro, which is starting to draw computer buyers away from them and to begin investing in Windows machines [11]. This is because there is something organic and exciting about being able to select images and icons with one\u2019s own finger, especially on a digital medium. It makes our experience with technology feel more comfortable and accessible. Still, not everyone is convinced that this is the way to go.<\/p>\n
While it remains uncertain if touch screens will eventually make computer mice an artifact of digital history, what we do know is that both technologies have advantages over the other, and it is up to the consumers to decide which qualities, accuracy or efficiency, are more important to them in the long run. As for now, the mouse and touchscreen remain coexisting technologies.<\/p>\n
Footnotes:<\/p>\n
- \n
- William K. English, Douglas C, Englebart, and Melvyn L. Berman. \u201cDisplay-Selection Techniques for Text Manipulation.\u201d IEEE Transaction on Human Factors in Electronics<\/em> 8, no. 1 (March 1967): 5-15.<\/li>\n
- Ibid.<\/li>\n
- Ibid.<\/li>\n
- Ibid.<\/li>\n
- Clifton Forlines, Daniel Wigdor, Chia Shen, and Ravin Balakrishnan. \u201cDirect-Touch vs. Mouse Input for Tabletop Displays.\u201d Paper presented in SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI \u201907. New York, NY, 2007.<\/li>\n
- Ibid.<\/li>\n
- Ibid.<\/li>\n
- Ibid.<\/li>\n
- Ibid.<\/li>\n
- Tom Warren. \u201cThe new Mac vs. PC war is all about touch.\u201d The Verge, Oct 27, 2016. http:\/\/www.theverge.com\/2016\/10\/27\/13443914\/the-new-mac-vs-pc-war-is-all-about-touch<\/a><\/li>\n
- Ibid.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
As with all tech, developers are constantly pushing the envelope and searching for new and exciting ways to revamp our devices. Ever since the invention of the mouse in the late 1960\u2019s by Douglas Engelbart, computer companies have sought out ways to find an even more efficient method of interacting with the Graphical User Interface on personal computers. This has led to the more recent development of the antecedent\u00a0(in terms<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-125","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-future"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/historyoftech.mcclurken.org\/mouse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/125","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/historyoftech.mcclurken.org\/mouse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/historyoftech.mcclurken.org\/mouse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/historyoftech.mcclurken.org\/mouse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/historyoftech.mcclurken.org\/mouse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=125"}],"version-history":[{"count":16,"href":"https:\/\/historyoftech.mcclurken.org\/mouse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/125\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":315,"href":"https:\/\/historyoftech.mcclurken.org\/mouse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/125\/revisions\/315"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/historyoftech.mcclurken.org\/mouse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=125"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/historyoftech.mcclurken.org\/mouse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=125"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/historyoftech.mcclurken.org\/mouse\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=125"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}