My High Tech Blog
Everyone has a Blog it appears. OK this is mine. My professional Blog. In fact I have two others on another site, and no I am not going to tell you where. Those are anon and will stay that way thank you very much. Not sure what I am going to write here. I'll just go with the flow.
Sunday 10 June 2007, 5:04 PM
Sticky Fingers
Am I the only one who thinks the iPhone concept has a small but vital flaw?
I know it's not even for sale yet, but the moment I saw this latest Apple must have gadget, I thought, 'no, this is not going to work.'
I refer to the touch sensitive screen.
We've had gadgets with touch screens for years, but for a few exceptions, they have all been provided with a stylus. The main reason is usually stated as allowing the user to press icons smaller than their finger. Also, as the devices, and so the screens get smaller, this has become even more necessary. Perhaps evolution will solve the problem and in a million years or so, the human index finger will cone down to a fine point. But until that happens we are stuck with the industry standard fat finger.
So how come this is a problem for the iPhone? I agree if you look at the pictures, the icons are an ideal size for tapping with a finger. Well the size of finger is not an issue. What I am thinking about is the removal of the need for a stylus. Yes you now have to touch the screen. Have you ever noticed what happens to the screen when you do that? It gets greasy. The human skin secretes a substance known as sebum. A clever oily liquid designed in the labs of Mother Nature, the purpose of which is to help keep the skin supple and waterproof. This is in addition to the natural bodily function of sweating.
All this is perfectly normal and nothing to be ashamed of. But the fact remains, no matter how many times you wash you hands before using your new iPhone or HTC Touch, the screen will get greasy and it will attract dirt. A fact Apple will probably not want mentioned too often.
I know it's not even for sale yet, but the moment I saw this latest Apple must have gadget, I thought, 'no, this is not going to work.'
I refer to the touch sensitive screen.
We've had gadgets with touch screens for years, but for a few exceptions, they have all been provided with a stylus. The main reason is usually stated as allowing the user to press icons smaller than their finger. Also, as the devices, and so the screens get smaller, this has become even more necessary. Perhaps evolution will solve the problem and in a million years or so, the human index finger will cone down to a fine point. But until that happens we are stuck with the industry standard fat finger.
So how come this is a problem for the iPhone? I agree if you look at the pictures, the icons are an ideal size for tapping with a finger. Well the size of finger is not an issue. What I am thinking about is the removal of the need for a stylus. Yes you now have to touch the screen. Have you ever noticed what happens to the screen when you do that? It gets greasy. The human skin secretes a substance known as sebum. A clever oily liquid designed in the labs of Mother Nature, the purpose of which is to help keep the skin supple and waterproof. This is in addition to the natural bodily function of sweating.
All this is perfectly normal and nothing to be ashamed of. But the fact remains, no matter how many times you wash you hands before using your new iPhone or HTC Touch, the screen will get greasy and it will attract dirt. A fact Apple will probably not want mentioned too often.
Tuesday 5 June 2007, 12:43 AM
I heard that, Pardon?
Dialogue Box. Come on guys, is this a joke?
Now I am not going to make any naughty comments about two techno geeks going on about anorak subjects. After all, I fully admit to be a techno geek myself.
I want you to forget for a moment about my last posting to this blog, where I went on about advertisements, I note that this little ZDNet gem of an item is sponsored by Intel. Not the poorest of IT companies and for whatever they donated, gave them a 15 second silent advert at the start of the playout.
So what did Intel provide? The sandwiches? because I can't see any money being spent on this little production. If any money has been spent. Then you were ripped off. Bad cutting between cameras, jump cuts from wide shot to wide shot, missed opportunities for a close up. Presenters talking to the wrong cameras. a boring blank wall for a set, bland lighting, a demonstration bench half obscuring your display board. A display table made of glass. and really really really bad sound. You call it Dialogue Box, but a lot of time I can't hear the dialogue.
I say half the time, Rupert your voice is OK, Charles, I'm struggling to hear you, your voice does not carry as well as Rupert's, but that is not your fault and shouldn't have to be a problem. You are being let down by the sound coverage.
It's is a number one hanging offence of a TV sound engineer for the viewers not to hear what someone is saying. Normally on real TV, this offence is committed by playing music too loud, but on Dialogue Box, there isn't any music.
So what is wrong with the sound? Well, where do I start? Poor microphone placement, bad EQ on the voices (in easy TV speak that means tone control or treble and bass), poor balancing of levels between the presenters, poor balancing of levels between items. There was one point I was sure one mic wasn't even on. The first presenter to speak was all distant, then the other joined in and we were thrown back in our seats.
So if you are going to do this, please do it properly. The content can only carry the programme so far (and I'm not even going to start on that). spending 15 to 20 minutes watching a programme of poor technical quality will start to become very tiring and you will lose viewers.
So come on, this is not amateur night. It is not class 3B making their own little news programme with the school video camera. Put some of that Intel sponsorship money into the programme and make something both worth watching and watch-able.
By the way, if you wonder why I am so critical about the sound, take a look at my profile, and you might understand.
Now I am not going to make any naughty comments about two techno geeks going on about anorak subjects. After all, I fully admit to be a techno geek myself.
I want you to forget for a moment about my last posting to this blog, where I went on about advertisements, I note that this little ZDNet gem of an item is sponsored by Intel. Not the poorest of IT companies and for whatever they donated, gave them a 15 second silent advert at the start of the playout.
So what did Intel provide? The sandwiches? because I can't see any money being spent on this little production. If any money has been spent. Then you were ripped off. Bad cutting between cameras, jump cuts from wide shot to wide shot, missed opportunities for a close up. Presenters talking to the wrong cameras. a boring blank wall for a set, bland lighting, a demonstration bench half obscuring your display board. A display table made of glass. and really really really bad sound. You call it Dialogue Box, but a lot of time I can't hear the dialogue.
I say half the time, Rupert your voice is OK, Charles, I'm struggling to hear you, your voice does not carry as well as Rupert's, but that is not your fault and shouldn't have to be a problem. You are being let down by the sound coverage.
It's is a number one hanging offence of a TV sound engineer for the viewers not to hear what someone is saying. Normally on real TV, this offence is committed by playing music too loud, but on Dialogue Box, there isn't any music.
So what is wrong with the sound? Well, where do I start? Poor microphone placement, bad EQ on the voices (in easy TV speak that means tone control or treble and bass), poor balancing of levels between the presenters, poor balancing of levels between items. There was one point I was sure one mic wasn't even on. The first presenter to speak was all distant, then the other joined in and we were thrown back in our seats.
So if you are going to do this, please do it properly. The content can only carry the programme so far (and I'm not even going to start on that). spending 15 to 20 minutes watching a programme of poor technical quality will start to become very tiring and you will lose viewers.
So come on, this is not amateur night. It is not class 3B making their own little news programme with the school video camera. Put some of that Intel sponsorship money into the programme and make something both worth watching and watch-able.
By the way, if you wonder why I am so critical about the sound, take a look at my profile, and you might understand.
