Talk:Tablet computer/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Tablet personal computer requested move

As an FYI, there is a move discussion currently taking place relating to Tablet personal computer at Talk:Tablet_personal_computer#Requested_move. --Labattblueboy (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

History of tablet PCs

How is it not a reliable source the article by Frank Spillers, about the usability problems of first Tablet PCs? Frank Spillers has been "recognized by the U.S. Dept. of Labor as a subject matter expert" [1], which makes him an an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. [2] I think his explanation about problems of the original tablets hurting market adoption gives valuable insight, and should be restored. Diego Moya (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this. Take it to WP:RSN or see what we get with WP:THIRD. I see no independent sources verifying he's any expert of any kind. --Ronz (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I didn't find anything relevant to UX in a quick Google News search mentioning Frank Spiller. Without seeing something that suggests otherwise, I'd say he hasn't been published by reliable third-party publications. --Pnm (talk) 01:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

His work appears here(chapter 14) and is cited here, so yes he's been published by reliable third-party publications. It didn't take more than five minutes to find. Diego Moya (talk) 09:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but that doesn't make him an expert. Please take it to RSN if you feel otherwise. --Ronz (talk) 17:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

RSN discussion here --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I think we've got as much from RSN as we can expect. How shall we continue? --Ronz (talk) 20:30, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said elsewhere, the Frank Spillers' article is not the only source for the paragraph. We can use the Ars Technica article as the basis for verifiability. Since it's a bit imprecise, we can still take care using the Spillers article and include his opinions as a refinement to the points where both articles agree.

Allow me to say that I don't think this attention to the Wikipedia bureaucracy will help to improve the article in this case; giving more weight to Peter Bright's (a C++ and C# developer) opinions over Spillers' (a usability consultant) only because you seem to like Ars Technica better than Lawrence Erlbaum, doesn't make it the better source IMO. But given that you don't seem willing to follow the rule to wp:Ignore all rules in order to use the best information available, lets dive into the tiresome due process to distill the information bits that are actually supported by policy.

• Ars Technica, the undeniably reliable source, states that "Tablet PCs, on the other hand, have had all the size and weight of conventional laptops" and lack the iPad's benefits like "the light weight, impressive battery life, and purpose-built software." Spillers, the published-in-the-usability-field professional, mentions that "The weight of most tablet PC's is enough to break your wrist after an hour" and "Battery and heat is enough to melt your arm, hand or legs after a few hours of leaning time".
• Ars: "...with all the software of regular laptops, but without the human interface devices to make them useful". Spillers: "Hardware and software are not integrated and while both deliver the functionality-- they are so uncoordinated they make tablet long term adoption untenable. "
• Ars: "Taskbar buttons and Start menu entries are big enough, but they're exceptional." Spillers: "The exception is the virtual keyboard located near the Start menu button. More of these shortcuts and "embedded" features will be need to trigger user adoption." "Users are left to hunt and peck for tiny icons to activate ink."
• Ars: "the operating system does try to help with some of them—for example, opening a Jump list with a flick instead of a right click gives the items wider spacing so that they're easier to hit with a fingertip, and Explorer can optionally show a checkbox next to each item to allow selections to be made by clicking" Sp: "You can get a glimpse of the tablet context-sensing potential with the Microsoft Experience Pack add-On software that offers a Snipping Tool"
• Ars: "To make Windows a touch operating system requires every single aspect of its user interface to be overhauled." Sp: "To achieve this goal, focusing on the total tablet user experience will be crucial. Hardware and software, tablet and regular computing interfaces will have to dance around each other"

As you see, the basic points included in the disputed paragraph are supported by both sources; it's just that they are better summarized and organized in the Spillers' article. I really can't understand your insistence in this case to drop that reference, given that all details used from it have an already established verifiability through the Ars Technica article. Diego Moya (talk) 23:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the usability problems associated with the (old) Windows based tablets, and how the integrated software of the iPad dramatically changed the concept of a "tablet computer", is almost the most relevant point that can be made at this times about tablet computers, so I support adding Frank Spillers findings to this article. Mahjongg (talk) 23:49, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

If we're only discussing the organization of material sourced from the Ars article, then Spillers isn't needed at all. --Ronz (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

No, we're not only discussing the organization of material. We're discussing the specific assertions made by Spillers that are not included in the Ars article but which are in line with it and therefore have established verifiability. Those would be useful additions to the article. What irks me is that so far you haven't pronounced the least about the Spillers' article contents which at this point should be the main point of decision. The whole discussion has been a Bizantine exercise to revise the Wikipedia law about the source, not the content. What do you have to say about the specific claims by Spillers, not him as a person? (Besides, the organization of material in the linked articles is also important for people following the link to expand their knowledge about the subject, so don't dismiss it so lightly).Diego Moya (talk) 07:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Because Spillers is no expert, his blog is not a reliable source and should not be used. Maybe Spillers analysis is insightful, maybe not. We create WP:OR and WP:NPOV problems if we try to decide ourselves. --Ronz (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

It is your opinion that this would create WP:OR problems even when the article satisfies wp:sps to the letter; many other editors have supported using it or at least keep debating its inclusion based on the articles' merits (something you really should address to keep in line with the majority), and you're the only one who directly opposes using it. I have shown how the basic facts are supported by other reliable sources and thus can't be judged as original research. (Now mentioning WP:NPOV is excessive, there are not "opposing views", "opinions stated as facts", "judgmental language" nor anything that would take the section away from neutrality. Are you sure you've understood the five pillars? Your's seem a weird interpretation).

But I'm tired of your immobility and of me being the only one to bring constructive steps up, so let's reverse the roles. I'll ask you to explain what is the next editing step you suggest, and how exactly do you think it would improve the article in its current form. At least this way we'll get you to address the article's content and not just Wikipedia policies and external considerations. Diego Moya (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Spiller is not an expert, so we shouldn't use information from his blog.

With regard to NPOV, I was thinking specifically of WP:UNDUE and SPS's, "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

I've gone ahead and made a quick attempt to remove the Spiller source. --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

After my edit was partially reverted, I've tagged the information not verified by reliable sources and once again removed Spiller as a source. --Ronz (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It is your opinion that this would create WP:OR problems even when the article satisfies wp:sps to the letter; many other editors have supported using it or at least keep debating its inclusion based on the articles' merits (something you really should address to keep in line with the majority), and you're the only one who directly opposes using it. I have shown how the basic facts are supported by other reliable sources and thus can't be judged as original research. (Now mentioning WP:NPOV is excessive, there are not "opposing views", "opinions stated as facts", "judgmental language" nor anything that would take the section away from neutrality. Are you sure you've understood the five pillars? Yours seems a weird interpretation).

But I'm tired of your immobility and of me being the only one to bring constructive steps up, so let's reverse the roles. I'll ask you to explain what is the next editing step you suggest, and how exactly do you think it would improve the article in its current form. At least this way we'll get you to address the article's content and not just Wikipedia policies and external considerations. Diego Moya (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Spiller is not an expert, so we shouldn't use information from his blog.

With regard to NPOV, I was thinking specifically of WP:UNDUE and SPS's, "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so."

I've gone ahead and made a quick attempt to remove the Spiller source. --Ronz (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

After my edit was partially reverted, I've tagged the information not verified by reliable sources and once again removed Spiller as a source. --Ronz (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I was writing a justification for my revert. Since you didn't give enough time for me to discuss my point, I've reverted your last removal until you have time to ponder and respond to the arguments presented below.

1) UNDUE is for minority views occupying a large space; the fact that many consider the iPad showing the first good tablet experience is not minority, and the total information removed is 11 words at the end of the paragraph supported by ARS; that's not undue "depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements". UNDUE weight would be given if Spillers were the only one supporting that MS Tablets had a badly adapted interface, which is simply not the case.

2) The information has been reported by others; the Ars article mentions features for tablets not being used everywhere they should ("though the operating system does try to help with some of them - it doesn't solve every problem. It doesn't even try"), Spillers just fills in the details - how is complementing that information a bad thing? Also your (first) edit left the last sentence without a verb.

3) I'm not convinced that your removal of relevant information improves the article, even in the case that SPS would not support it (which is still disputed) it should be included anyway: there are many sites explaining how the iPad offered a superior experience, but few describing the other side of the coin - the exact how and where of the well-established view that the MS tablets were worse. This is what makes the detailed information in Spillers' valuable and which would merit ignoring your extreme interpretation of SPS. Remember that Spillers *is* an expert under the to-the-letter interpretation that requires published sources in the relevant field. Diego Moya (talk) 20:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Can we at least agree that there is no consensus that Spillers is an expert? --Ronz (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

That's what I said. Now do you have any opinions at all about the ideas expressed, and not only about the applicable policy? Diego Moya (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Then it should be removed as a source and rewrite from the Ars Technica reference. --Ronz (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You're still discussing how policy applies to the text. So we can agree that you don't have ANYTHING to say about the ideas themselves? (including both the ideas at Ars and those at Spillers' article). Diego Moya (talk) 06:32, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Are we talking past each other? Sorry if we are.

I believe we've established Spiller's blog is not a reliable source, since we do not agree that he's an expert.

I don't see anything but problems from continuing to try to incorporate anything from Spiller into the article or discussions. --Ronz (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Whether we focus on the expressions voiced by Frank Spillers or not, the case is that what he has said is just what other people also thought, and "expressed by their feet", by not buying windows based tablet. What he said is just the compression of the reasons of why windows based tablets suck. Whether you like these facts or not, its why such tablets will continue to fail, and why a completely new synergy of available technologies doesn't suck but is a success. Whether ostrich methods are used or not to suppress these truths or not doesn't matter in the long run. I'm Sorry to be so blunt, it's just (not so) my humble opinion.. Mahjongg (talk) 22:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

That's original research. --Ronz (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of reliable sources representing these views, as it should. If you are only open to really wanting to know why it is that all the previous slates utterly failed. One only has to look for some of these sources, and they are not at all from Spiller, seems he is just a red herring. Here is just one I found under three seconds [3] here is another [4]. Mahjongg (talk) 00:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ars Technica article

I've removed the disputed material. Any problem with just expanding slightly based only on the Ars Technica article?

I'm travelling abroad, I'll answer in about 10 days. Diego Moya (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. There's no rush. --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

So what would you add from the Ars article? I've added a need consensus tag to show that yes, there's a problem with just expanding with the Ars Technica article and that there was no consensus for the removal. What was wrong with leaving the content tagged with until consensus was achieved? Diego Moya (talk) 15:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If anyone wants to expand upon the information, the Ars Technica article is all we have to work with at this time, and does contain detailed information that I don't believe would be problematic to add.

For reference, the RSN discussion has been archived here. --Ronz (talk) 16:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

History needs to mention "pod" devices

It's fairly clear that iPad is much closer related to iPod than to iMac. Yet the history section doesn't mention this. Similarly, Android pads have their heritage from Android phones. Ketil (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Should note Windows CE devices as early tablet precursors

More emphasis could be made on the Windows CE devices eg, CE 1.0 started earlier, in 1996 The HP Jornada 300LX is not mentioned, even though it is much older than the 820 The concept of the touch screen, the tablet-like operating system, and the capability of network communication make these devices as valid pre-cursors to the modern tablet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.9.185.216 (talk) 23:57, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Non slate WinCE devices are only marginally relevant but there were a number of slate WinCE devices too - e.g. the Fujitsu PenCentras which were released in 2002, touch screens, ran WinCE, an undoubtably mobile OS (although that 'requirement' for a PostPC tablet is stupid - the UI is the important thing, not the OS) but very little before the ipad even gets an honourable mention here.

In particular, this is nonsense:

"Since mid-2010, new tablet computers with mobile operating systems forgo the Wintel paradigm,[15] have a different interface instead of the traditional desktop OS and have created a new type of computing device."

The 'new computing device' talk scattered throughout the article is more reminiscent of apples advertising ('this changes everything') than an encyclopedia that takes the long view. A much more encyclopedic approach is to acknowledge the amazing effect the iPad has had on the market, but to trace its very obvious roots in PDAs, MIDs, WebPads and PMPs. The improvements on the past were large in many dimension (responsiveness, simplicity of UI, battery life, screen resolution, turn on time), but it was essentially an evolutionary merging of the well established Full-PC style tablets and the well established (but dying) PDA style devices. Microsoft in particular has had an obsession with tablets for an extremely long time to little effect. 94.31.32.54 (talk)

Expansion of Tablet computer#History

Should the sentence: "Tablet PCs failed to gain popularity in the consumer space because of unresolved problems" in Tablet computer#History be expanded? Is there value in explaining which unresolved problems were there in early tablets, or is that clarification unneeded to have an encyclopedic article? What can we do to improve the description of the topic?

What content can be added from the available sources? Can you find another source giving a description of the main problems in early tablets, and in particular a detailed account of the existing usability problems?

I've created a request for comment at the content noticeboard with these questions. I'm asking you to focus on the content available since it has not been discussed in detail yet; to discuss the reliability of the available sources please create a new section. Diego Moya (talk) 15:54, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the statement should be clarified if at all possible. In its current form it offers almost no informative benefit. A complete list of faults isn't necessary, but a list of 2-4 of the most significant ones would suffice. That being said, the sentence is not in any way represented in the Ars Technica source provided and should be resourced or removed. TechnoSymbiosis (talk) 06:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The Ars Technica article is not the only one available. The following links has been proposed or used as sources for the proposal:

• Ballmer (and Microsoft) still doesn't get the iPad, Ars Technica, 2010
• Making Things Easier with Tablet computing?, Frank Spillers
• Tablets, Slates Have Been Tried and Failed Before--Why Is Now Different?, eWeek.com
• 5 Reasons Tablets Suck And You Won't Buy One, Tom's Hardware

For the record, this is the proposed addition that was reverted:

Some of the problems adduced are that the existing devices were too heavy to be held with one hand on extended periods; they had legacy applications created for desktop interfaces which made them not well adapted to the slate format; and the specific software features designed to support usage as a tablet, such as virtual keyboards, digital ink and pie menus were not present in all contexts.

Diego Moya (talk) 08:26, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

I still support adding this addition, as I think it is important in a historical context to understand why earlier attempts to popularize tablet personal computers failed so miserably, while the iPad succeeded. Mahjongg (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Post-PC Tablets

This section contains five sentences may give a false impression, depending on how you read it.

1.) Many tablets do not use a traditional desktop OS or use the Wintel paradigm,[11] nor are x86 based. 2.) Most often their OS is a Unix-like OS, such as Darwin, Linux or QNX.

My interpretation is that no Tablet computers use Wintel, if they do, they are Tablet personal computers. There are of course borderline cases (installing Debian on a Galaxy Tab, say), but with some judgement, I think this separation is sensible and fairly clean. Ketil (talk) 08:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

3.) The first was the iPad with iOS, and others continue the common trend towards multi-touch and other natural user interface features, as well as flash memory solid-state storage drives, and 2-second warm-boot times. 4.) Some use ARM for longer battery life versus battery weight. 5.) Some have 3G mobile telephony capabilities.[12]

This paragraph should be rewritten to be clearer. My main confusion stems from sentence 3, which claims the subject (iPad) was "the first" to implement (A) multi-touch and other (B) natural user interface features....

cite needed, IMO. Ketil (talk) 08:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Given there is an article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-touch that cites multitouch devices (none of them tablets) and the article at http://www.linuxfordevices.com/c/a/Linux-For-Devices-Articles/FreePad-Norways-alternative-to-Swedens-Screen-Phone/ showing a Linux-based tablet with natural user interface, this claim should be amended.

Perhaps "The iPad was the first tablet to use the combination of multi-touch, a natural user interface features, and flash memory solid-state storage drives. Tablets come in a variety of hardware configurations. Tablets may employ such operating system such as Darwin, Linux or QNX. Some tablets use ARM processors to achieve longer battery life relative to battery weight. 3G mobile telephony is an option on various tablets."

Not sure that multi-touch is that significant, nor the 2-second warm-boot time, to define the tablet architecture, but certainly there is public demand for it and other tablet manufacturers have followed this feature set. Sean729 (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Who thinks "Post-PC" is a good description, and why? I tried to change this, but User:Jeffnailen reverted it with no comment. I don't think the term is commonly used, and it gives the wrong implications (that iPad etc are somehow replacing the PC or tablet PCs). Moreover, both tablet PCs and tablets are post-PC in that they are predated by the IBM PC. Ketil (talk) 06:14, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

People keep changing this back, I'm going to undo those changes until some rationale or discussion is provided. Ketil (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Form factors and tablets?

My impression is that "tablet" refers to a "slate" type of device. I'm not sure the term is commonly used for e.g. a wall-mounted touch screen or a Palm Pilot PDA. Thus, I think the form factor section should go, and be replaced by links to these other kinds of devices: tablet PC, PDA, mobile phones, etc. Ketil (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest removing the subheadings in this section, and starting with stating that the tablet usually is the slate form factor, and then discussing alternative form factors, linking to examples. Any objections? Ketil (talk) 08:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think removing the subheadings is a good idea. The term tablet has been used in the past to describe all the elements in that section (booklets, convertibles, detachable keyboards). It's OK to say that the slate is the most common (preferably with a reference) and adding links to other articles, but having the subheadings shown in the TOC is useful. Diego Moya (talk) 08:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Tablet computers and tablet PCs

Is the tablet PC definition still relevant? The Tablet computers and tablet PCs section begins with a dated "as of 2010..." to describe the existence of two kinds of tablets. But all analysts in 2011 coincide in that the iPad has been a turning point in the market for tablets (which is what they refer to when they call it "Post-PC"), and that the "general computer without a keyboard" that Microsoft attempted to create is obsolete nowadays. So, shouldn't we relegate the tablet PC description to the History section? Diego Moya (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Handwriting recognition

It says in the article that handwriting recognition is important for Chinese, Japanese and Korean. Very true for Chinese, partly true for Japanese, as it uses Chinese characters, but untrue for Korean, which is alphabetic. Koreans are quite accustomed to ordinary keyboards. With regard to Chinese, it is only true in China, whereas in Taiwan keyboard input methods based on zhuyin are preferred both with computers and portable devices including tablets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.14.125.57 (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)