Mouse 2.0: Multi-touch Meets the Mouse

Comments:
Nate Brown

Summary:
The article focused on six different types of mice, all of which employing MT(multi-touch) sensors. These new forms of the standard computer mice attempt to retain the basic function of a mouse, 3d movement along a table and clicking, while adding the elements of a multi-touch environment. Their designs ranged from mice with a standard appearance that allowed multi touch sensing at the edges of the mouse, to a dome with touch sensors along the entire dome, to a mouse held under the palm that would sense touch on the actual table, to a mouse with two arms attached for manipulation by the pointer finger and the thumb. The paper explains the process and the responses they were given when the devices were presented to test subjects.




Discussion:
This paper is significant in that it is an earnest attempt to apply multi touch technology to a device that has more or less stayed the same for the past 20 years. While there have been ergonomic improvements, more buttons and wheels added, the computer mice has generally retained its standard look and feel. With the new technologies available it only makes sense to take a fresh look at what is most likely the most commonly used desktop peripheral. By adding the multi-touch technologies, the users interactions with the mice can become much more efficient and user friendly allowing us to do so much more with the standard mouse than we can today.

Most of the faults in the paper arise from the mouse designs themselves. For exaple the FTIR and Orb mouse, while interesting, are subject to ambient lighting situations due to their internal cameras. These problems can be addressed however by using the capacitive sensing grid as used on the cap mouse. The biggest problems that arose however were how the users attempted to interact with the devices. Due to the fact that these were for the most part very new different users would attempt different actions to achieve the same goals. This lack of standard would cause problems in the future for anyone attempting to develop the mouse.

This paper had direct implications for the future. Repeatedly the paper mentions how much the users enjoyed using the ARTY mouse. This device which would be very easy to implement, would not surprise me if I were to see it on the shelf at a local electronics store in the next year or so. Due to the design the ambiguity of its use is greatly minimized allowing the device to be a stepping stone for future multi- touch mice.