Talk:Hardware

Older talk

More discussion can be found in Talk:Hardware_specification, as Hardware was derived from Hardware specification.

Against the integrated pad (XO-3) industrial design

The original industrial design (of the XO-1) was splendid. I am curious how field experience has validated this opinion or not. How often were the different physical configurations used, and for how long? How quickly/often did the articulation mechanics break down from wear or abuse, especially in challenging environments? Was repair practical? Did software issues discourage use of the e-book configuration?

When one has a screen that needs protection, a basic clamshell design is needed. In principle, one could use a rigid detachable faceplate or case. But even adults might lose these, to say nothing of small children!

Because the XO-2 design kept the clamshell, including weight asymmetry which enabled a secure vertical landscape-AR screen ("laptop mode"), I could see some merit in it. What I didn't like was the idea of combining a display surface with one the user touches. Why? Keeping a touched screen clean without regular cleaning remains an UNSOLVED problem! See IPad Side Effect: Greasy Fingerprints. This challenge seems ESPECIALLY problematic when one projects use in areas with lots of dust, which provides abrasive grit to scratch the AR coating of the screen, if not the screen glass itself, as a side effect of frequently degreasing the screen of fingerprints with a cleaning rag. See Ask Slashdot: Rugged Laptop/Tablet Suggestions, 2010 Version?

If it REALLY was of great advantage to provide a large-area touch surface, then one should have made each of the two XO-2 sections provide either the display function, OR the touch function, but NOT both. Specialization would have also reduced cost and improved optimal design of the selected function.

And I also challenge the idea that a large touch area is usually worth the real estate. Long ago, we learned we could lift our mouse to make do with little surface area, not to mention software tricks like de/acceleration. And even if we allow that haptic feedback could provide keyboard finger guidance as good as passive (semi-)rigid surface sculpturing, the latter requires no energy or transducers.

Even if dirtying the screen were not an issue, there are problems with directly touching the screen. Vertical viewing surfaces reduce neck strain. But if that then means one has to hold one's arm out to touch the screen, one has traded neck strain for arm fatigue. I also notice that my hands sadly lack transparency. There are times when one wants to point at the screen and see all of it at the same time, which displacing the touch and viewing surfaces enables. One should also note that virtual hands and fingers on a screen can vary in size, unlike real hands and fingers, assisting delicate interaction. While software lets us do this whether we touch the viewing surface or another one, clearly having a "natural-sized" hand on the screen itself offers no advantage. Nature's way is not always best.

As you can imagine, if I view the move from the XO-1 to the XO-2 industrial design as a step backward, then I truly dislike the proposed XO-3 design of a tablet whose display integrates a touchscreen! Absent a case (which can easily be lost), there is no screen protection in transit and storage. The screen will need to be regularly swabbed clean of finger grease, which will offer lots of opportunities for dust to scratch it.

Surely if I have no tree or rock against which to prop up my tablet as I lie prone on the ground, then I can lay it on the ground or repose myself in a number of ways while I hold it in my hands like an old-fashioned codex - not too bad. But should I have a table and chair, it is a pity that the tablet cannot stand vertically on its own, leaving my hands free for work, or maybe just swatting flies.

And one day making the screen out of plastic, instead of glass, would make things EVEN WORSE. Glass is much more resistant to scratching than (soft) plastic (the potential AR coating issue aside). Talking about how, unlike a glass screen, a plastic screen is "unbreakable," only makes sense if one totally ignores the ease with which the latter will be slowly but surely destroyed by abrasive cleanings.

Is the current proposed OLPC design being driven by fickle consumer fashion in the United States, rather than by thoughtful ergonomic and maintenance issues, which was the case with the original design? Perhaps I am missing something and I can be educated. I will admit to doing little reflection prior to making these remarks.

- Docdtv 18:44, 3 June 2010 (UTC)