|WikiProject Computing / Hardware||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|This article has been mentioned or used by a media organization. The reference is in:|
Possible Marketing Hype?
Is some of this information not tablet manufacturers hype?
I've used both Autocad and Adobe Photoshop and tablet use in both is highly frowned upon.
In Autocad you can't get the accuracy needed for precise measurements and Adobe Photoshop really requires a good monitor and mouse.
No need of commercials
I don't think it's necessary to cite "Twinbridge Software" and "Wacom Cintiq" in the body of the text. I suggest:
- "and companies such as Twinbridge Software, among others," may become "and several comanies",
- "who uses a Wacom Cintiq" may be replace by "who uses a screen which is also a tablet",
- and actually, "including Hawk of AppleGeeks" shall probably be replaced with the beginning of a list, because it's not so fine to have only one example.
who gives? how is that commercial? its totally fine and goes into detail.
I have reorganized the article and removed some questionable material (see the diff). Thoughts on this first iteration? -Yipdw 10:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Inkscape and pressure/tilt sensitivity
The technical information in this article appears confused and misleading. All the graphics tablets I've seen, even the cheap ones, are solid surfaces with an embedded sensor which tracks the pen via a field effect. I have never seen a graphics tablet which uses a 'squishy' physical sensing surface. As far as I know, this technology is only used on touch screens (PDAs, etc) where, as is explained at the end of the article, any stylus-like object can be used rather than a dedicated electronics-containing stylus. Additionally, I have never heard of any technology which uses both a physical sensing surface and a field-based position sensor, especially one which doesn't require any specific electronics in the stylus to work. Cammy 01:13, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- Looking back in the history, it appears that in the rework of 24 Aug 2005, the explanations of several different types of tablet were condensed into a single paragraph, which is worded as if all the different technologies are used at once. Cammy 01:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I've changed a lot of the information so it is hopefully more accurate. I've also re-separated and elaborated on the two pre-existing tablet technology descriptions, though I've never heard of a tablet using the resisance type. Minrice2099 02:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
The clause "and furthermore, it means that the devices used with the tablet never need batteries" is incorrect. Wacom tablets are battery-free, but many others (e.g. Kurta/Mutoh/Finepoint and UC-Logic) do require the use of a battery in the pen.
- I'm tempted to delete much/all of that section until a better one can be written... most of it is simply wrong. I'll give it some thought tonight, and either attempt to clean it up, or just delete the bits that are most incorrect. Bushytails 22:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
- Ok, I deleted everything that seemed dubious, especially brand name examples, and removed a lot of advertising-type name dropping... also removed the repeated sections and other useless text. Bushytails 04:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
... And someone added a lot of it back in. So I'll discuss it here before removing it again.
Firstly, the section on resistive touch screens isn't relevant here, as it is never used for graphics tablets, already has a section in this article under similar devices, already has its own article, and is significantly inaccurate.
Secondly, the second on whiteboards is even less relevant (it's not even a technology), again already has a section elsewhere in the article, and already has its own article.
Thirdly, the manufacturers list is essentially linkspam, adds little to the article, and falls foul of both WP:MOS and WP:NOT.
Unless someone objects on this talk page, I'll go ahead and do the above... Bushytails 18:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Even better, I re-wrote a fair portion of the article, and added a lot more information. I'll take some photos of a regular stylus and mouse, but I don't have an airbrush or art pen, so if someone has one and could take some pictures... Bushytails 05:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Just as a note to the OP(original poster), some tablet-pc's (HP tx2000, as one example) today do have both the 'squishy' type touch screen and and the field effect pen technology (wacom passive type). The when using the stylus for the field effect tablet, you get pressure sensitivity and position data, while if you just use the 'squishy' touchscreen theres just position data.Oh also when you being the stylus near the screen the 'squshy' touchscreen is disabled. --220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Tablet technology again: Optical Tablet?
I have never heard of "Optical tablets" and the definition strictly corresponds to a digital pen on a digital paper. The actual definition doesn't deal with optical tablet but optical pen. The pointed Anoto WP article doesn't use the known terms "digital pen/paper" either. But Anoto web site doesn't use the words "optical tablet" a single time! And prefers "digital pen" and "digital paper". Going further, "optical tablet" doesn't give a lot of result on a Google search, and the very few articles seem to talk about the use of "optical tablet" with light pen. I definitively think that the actual given "Optical tablets" definition is totally confused and wrong. And do a digital paper got to be listed as a tablet? I don't think so. Lacrymocéphale 17:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
The LiveScribe pen uses this optical matching technology. Not sure if it falls into the tablet category, but it might be worth mentioning as a widely successful version of the technology type. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Should electronic notepads be included as a sub topic here, or as a separate article (I've found no existing references to this device on WP)? I propose a separate article (User:HonoluluMan/Electronic notepad) as these tablets are defined as computer input devices, whereas an electronic notepad is a mobile computing/storage device and is not used for pointing purposes. HonoluluMan (talk) 06:15, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Aren't these two tablet technologies the same. They both talk about the use of electromagnets in them. Maybe combine the electromagnet section with the passive one since the passive section has more info. Then change the title to Electromagnet/Passive. I was going to do it myself but wanted to make sure I was right about it being the same thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Photoguy2801 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Prove Active Tablets are Bad
The line about them being bulkier due to batteries reminds me of Wacom promotional materials, back when they competed with Calcomp. But it was untrue then, and it's untrue now. Can we get a citation for this, else remove it as marketing-speak or opinion? 22.214.171.124 (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
early tablet technology
The early history has conflated the Rand tablet, which did have x and y wire grids, but which used electrostatic coupling to the pen, with the Computek tablet, which had current loops and used electromagnetic coupling to a coil in the pen tip. The electrostatic coupling from the more distant grid on the Rand tablet was iffy, and the grid did not scale well beyond 10 bits (1024 wires). Computek was able to reach 12 bit resolution, and made larger tablets. You do not mention the Computek device, but it was by far the more successful. The Computek tablet was used by the leading CAD companies, such as Computervision and Applicon, in their products in the late 60's and early 70's. I do not know where to get a reference about it for you, but there must be some. Maybe you can find a discussion of the technology by looking through Michael Dertouzos's patents.
There is another tablet from this period not mentioned, the Sylvania tablet. As I remember it used x and y waves on the tablet surface. The unusual thing about it at the time was that the tablet surface was transparent, so it could be placed over a display. This was not so great in practice because the tablet was flat and most CRT surfaces were not; this mismatch introduced a problematic amount of parallax error. The requirement that the wave front be straight was easily violated if the driver circuitry along the edge broke; when this happened straight lines drawn on the tablet appeared curved to the computer. The later resistive tablets have a similar symptom if one of the diodes along the edge opens.
This article could benefit from some editing for tone and NPOV. It currently reads a little bit too positive in places, talking up adoption and extolling the virtues of graphics tablets rather than being strictly encyclopaedic and objective. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)