Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 12th Jul 2004 08:45 UTC
Permalink for comment
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Apparently I wasn't clear enough in my first post.
Trackballs are *demonstrably* inefficient in comparison to mice. This means hard empirical evidence. The constants in fitt's law are higher given a trackball than with a mouse. It takes longer to point accurately using a trackball. Period. Science has put its foot down on this question. Trackballs are only out there to satisfy the few nutjobs who have got it in their brains that they are somehow superior.
Granted, mice aren't perfect, but given the technology we have, they are the best indicators.
One day we will have monitors that display horizontally and diagonally, and on that day we'll use a pen for input and it will be much faster and more accurate than a mouse could hope for. Until then, there is no question.
cf http://www.asktog.com/readerMail/2001-03ReaderMail.html
"Many people like trackballs, too, although you can easily prove, objectively, that the trackball is far less productive than the mouse." -Bruce Tognazzini, designer of the macintosh interface