>hey let's remove all these pesky physical buttons with their tactile feedback and reliability!>yeah and let's replace them with virtual non-buttons that are hypersensitive as fuck and constantly move around and behave in unpredictable ways!>what a great way to use an object that you interact with for hours every daywhy did we all agree to accept this?
>>109033538What are you talking about?
>>109035272I'm guessing he's talking about touchscreens and smartphonesSausage fingers will have trouble
>>109033538very annoying in automobiles
>>109033538You're too young to remember the dumbphone era.
>>109033538I miss my BlackBerry, I could type so fast and accurate with it's little keysTouch screens suck>>109035272Newfag
I pushed for touchscreens in my company because I wanted to cause friction for people.
>>109035663i don't really like touchscreens in products besides computers either, right now i am working on a product where the interface is still tactile and i find it very satisfying because we can get away with just writing C on a crappy 16 bit proc instead of breaking out the embedded linux for shit that doesn't need it
>>109035814this is incredibly based too though
>>109033538i searched about haptics that focus on 'virtual ridges' and realized it requires highly localized ultrasonic vibration or something like thatdesu consumer haptics are in the stone-age era
If you can't figure it out you're retarded.
>>109035838Consumer haptics are nothing but a small motor with an unbalanced weight on the axel
>>109035881that is the stupidest onesmost phones nowadays use a weight with a coil attached to it to make it like a speakerunironically the most advanced consumer haptics is sony dualsense by having a closed loop force feedback like a racing wheel for its triggers on top of having those linear motors for vibrations which imo is kinda funny
