|
I have no use for one. It's (much) easier for me to use a mouse to click than tap on the screen. Same for Ctrl/Mousewheel vs. pinch to zoom.
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
Keyboard shortcuts seem to be used more often than a touchscreen.
TOMZ_KV
|
|
|
|
|
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
 I had a touchscreen for development back in the late '80s. 
 What took y'all so long? 
|
|
|
|
|
MacSpudster wrote: I had a touchscreen for development back in the late '80s.
Must be very expensive then.
TOMZ_KV
|
|
|
|
|
$400 for a 9" touchscreen for the then Mac Classic/Classic II.
$815 in today's dollars ~ CPI Inflation Calculator[^]
The first person that replies to this comment gets $200.
(Well, actually, anyone can get "$200" via copy/paste...  )
|
|
|
|
|
That is the cost of an iPad today with a similar screen size. Not as expensive as I thought. 
TOMZ_KV
|
|
|
|
|
Tomz_KV wrote: Are there any good reasons that developers need a touch screen dev box?
Absolutely yes. I've been developing touch-screen apps since 2000, which obviously predates smartphones. I've used far too many phone apps that fail basic touch usability metrics:
- Touch targets are too small
- Targets are placed too closely together
- Icons that indicate a target don't accurately delineate the target area
- Text used as a touch target (finger obscures needed information, plus text is weak for positioning cues)
- Target layout without regard to tasks
I attribute a lot of this to the use of emulators and the mouse in place of testing on real devices with real fingers. I know a lot of app developers can't afford to buy several devices for testing purposes, but they could at least test on a representative of each class of device: small screen smartphone, large screen smartphone, small tablet (7"), large tablet (10"), laptop.
For example: one of the apps I use on my phone every day requires that I rotate my index finger 90° in order to hit one target at the edge of the screen. A normal finger press does not work. A mouse is a high-precision pointing device. A finger is not.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
 Thanks for sharing your experience!
TOMZ_KV
|
|
|
|
|
You're welcome.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
Gary Wheeler wrote: I attribute a lot of this to the use of emulators and the mouse in place of testing on real devices with real fingers. I know a lot of app developers can't afford to buy several devices for testing purposes, but they could at least test on a representative of each class of device: small screen smartphone, large screen smartphone, small tablet (7"), large tablet (10"), laptop.
I haven't done nywhere close to as much touch work as you have, but I fully agree.
And lest any bean counters freak out, you don't need to buy one of each of the 5 classes of test device for every developer and tester; just enough that there's at least 1 per person working on it a time and at least 1 full set available to be shared around as needed so the testers can try all form factors and the devs can have access to a problematic form factor as needed to fix things.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
I think it is not necessary Developers only need good laptop/pc. Touch screen is suitable for designer
|
|
|
|
|
Only if they are human.
Have you haver used a computer with a touch screen? Really used, not tried.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm using touch. I developed an App based on XNA and touchscreen on Win7 few years ago. Because it was commercial one so I never really update it to some latest tech. Now, sometimes I need to change the graphics elements inside and have to test it.
|
|
|
|
|
Nope most devs don't need them. Well Iv'e gotten by so far with not needing one, even when working on TS based projects.
However... Most Devs DO NEED them, or at least the stake holders and project managers need devs to have them...
Well at least if the amount of Stake Holders/Clients and Business folk that stab their fingers on my monitor when trying to "show me stuff" are anything to go by anyway 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do not need notepads either since they can dictate code.
TOMZ_KV
|
|
|
|
|
Testing code preproduction, you really should execute it on any platform that it is expected to launched from. Emulators are good getting close, but if you're attempting to validate the code against the platform you need to be running from the platform.
As far as developing with a touch screen, I've not tried that (probably because I have no laptop or desktop with a touch screen). But, I would really like to do some coding on my iPad Pro. I've not found the tools to do this however, so I don't.
|
|
|
|
|
To me it has very little to do with how they would test their application but rather how they work. Developers are expensive resources and if a touch screen will allow a given developer to work faster or even just make them happier then it is worth it.
Now with that said I would say it depends on whether they are working with a desktop or a laptop. I am always surprised when a developer uses a desktop but I know it still happens. To me on a desktop it is irrelevant but on a laptop it is useful.
That is my 2 cents!
|
|
|
|
|
you developing something for a desktop with touch interface?
If just developing for mobile devices, maybe touch screen not needed and emulation enough.
|
|
|
|
|
maze3 wrote: you developing something for a desktop with touch interface?
No. But I can see your point. If yes, a touchscreen is necessary.
TOMZ_KV
|
|
|
|
|
I cannot say for developers in general, but I do use my touch screen (laptop screen) during development occasionally.
When I develop using Xamarin.Forms, I make sure I develop for handsets (iPhone, Android) and tablets (iPad, Android, and Windows/UWP). Even with emulators, I like to test the "look and feel" of my screens. At least then I can catch and fix the more obvious issues before finally getting on to testing with actual devices.
If you need a touch screen, use it.
If you don't need a touch screen now, but may likely need it in the future, at least have it.
If you don't need a touch screen now or ever, don't get one.
|
|
|
|
|
And most emulators are slow...
"(I) am amazed to see myself here rather than there ... now rather than then".
― Blaise Pascal
|
|
|
|
|
ABSOLUTELY. Intentional caps. Things that are trivial with a mouse "touching" an emulator fall down badly when trying to use a finger. Of course, my code runs from 3.5" to 15" touchscreens, so I have a few t-shirts about learning the hard way...
Charlie Gilley
<italic>Stuck in a dysfunctional matrix from which I must escape...
"Where liberty dwells, there is my country." B. Franklin, 1783
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
|
|
|
|
|
If you are developing a touch-centric application, it sure helps to have a touchscreen. In one project I developed a BI dashboard for a wall-mounted 1080p touchscreen monitor. It supported 10-point multi-touch using Google Chrome in kiosk mode. Having a touchscreen directly connected for debugging and js object/event review was critical.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
![Elephant | [mastadon]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/elephant.gif)
ing insane to reach up and swipe their laptop screen instead of using a mouse/touchpad; but a significant fraction of your userbase does do just that. Or at least a significant fraction of people who would be part of your userbase (and helping to pay your salary) if the crap you wrote wasn't borderline unusable on their touch enabled system. 
