The Chinese Solar Machine Layer by Layer Fire in the Library The Mystery Behind Anesthesia
Touchy-feely: A new type of touch-screen display also has physical buttons. An air pump can manipulate a latex layer that covers the screen. When the pump is off, the screen is flat.
Chris Harrison, Scott Hudson
Future touch screens may need to supply tactile feedback.
Touch-screen technology has become wildly popular, thanks to smart phones designed for nimble fingers. But most touch screens have a major drawback: you need to keep a close eye on the screen as you tap, to make sure that you hit the right virtual buttons. As touch screens become more popular in other contexts, such as in-car navigation and entertainment systems, this lack of sensory feedback could become a dangerous distraction.
Now researchers at Carnegie Mellon University have developed buttons that pop out from a touch-screen surface. The design retains the dynamic display capabilities of a normal touch screen but can also produce tactile buttons for certain functions.
Graduate student Chris Harrison and computer-science professor Scott Hudson have built a handful of proof-of-concept displays with the morphing buttons. The screens are covered in semitransparent latex, which sits on top of an acrylic plate with shaped holes and an air chamber connected to a pump. When the pump is off, the screen is flat; when it's switched on, the latex forms concave or convex features around the cutouts, depending on negative or positive pressure.
To illuminate the screens and give them multitouch capabilities, the researchers use projectors, infrared light, and cameras positioned below the surface. The projectors cast images onto the screens while the cameras sense infrared light scattered by fingers at the surface.
The idea of physically dynamic interfaces isn't new, and in recent years, researchers have explored using screens made from polymers that can alter their shape when exposed to heat, light, and changes in a magnetic field. However, these materials are still experimental and relatively expensive to make.
Simpler systems, such as those that use a flexible material like latex and a pneumatic pump, have also been explored by researchers in the past. However, these systems haven't had all the capabilities of the Carnegie Mellon project, Harrison says. He explains that the display is the first to combine moving parts (the pop-up buttons), display dynamic information, and be touch sensitive. Other projects and products usually achieve two of these three criteria, he says.
"Microsoft Surface does graphics, and you can touch it, but it's totally fixed," Harrison says. "Buttons on a dashboard have great tactile input, but there's no display. And it's not like you can just deform an LCD screen and . . . make it electrically conductive at the same time."
This is not scalable or practical. The article seems to suggest that it's not even transparent; rather, they're projecting the information onto the surface features. Lastly, this isn't even an original idea, Nokia has done a MUCH better implementation of this principal using microfluidics. Here is a link:
http://www.mydigitallife.info/2007/11/07/nokia-introduces-haptikos-touch-feedback-technology/
Clearly, having a tactile touchscreen would be a huge improvement to touch screens, this particular approach will little to no usefulness.
To use someting similar a PIN ART (See http://www.gadgetshop.com/media/gadgetshop/products/ProductGalleryImage1/276402.jpg), but no such complicated is the better way by me. The linear muvenent of pins could be limited of 4 - 10 steps, and they could be made of glass, or other optical coductive material, covered with transparent silicon diaphragm. The link pixel - pin could be realize trough fiber optics. As the result i see one huge, low ressolution, but tactile display
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
National Instruments has gathered customer information and data regarding some of the cost differences between building a custom solution versus using NI off-the-shelf tools. Using this data, we built the Graphical System Design ‘Build vs. Buy’ Calculator. The calculator can help show the financial differences between building a custom solution versus buying an off-the-shelf system. This paper discusses the benefits and drawbacks of both a traditional custom design approach and off-the-shelf embedded tools.
View full PDF >
ESS_BILBAO
14 Comments
Iphone is going old faster than I thought. Really cool.
http://esns.blogspot.com/
http://twitter.com/ESS_BILBAO
Reply