Touchscreens are not necessarily the best input device for any one task, but they are the second best input device for pretty much all tasks. They are very versatile - you don't need to define all your inputs up front, instead you can add new controls dynamically as needed (such as a keyboard that only shows up when you're inputting text, and even adapts to the type of text you're working with). When working with a desktop, you have a range of specialist input devices, from mice, keyboards (which themselves are a combination of different input devices for different tasks), drawing pads, trackballs, etc. A touchscreen will never be as good as any of these devices, but it can do the job of all of them, and switch between them as necessary.
Obviously there are limits to how useful this versatility is. A touchscreen in a car, for example, can control a lot of different aspects of that car from one place, but it makes finding those controls more complicated. So controls that need to be accessed regularly or quickly still need their own separate physical buttons. It's why volume buttons tend to still be physical on most phones. But you'd equally not want to control your car with a keyboard and a bunch of different shortcuts - understanding the tool that's best for the job is key.
And the point here is that the touchscreen is the best tool if you want something versatile.
I also think there's a big advantage to the vertical form factor for many applications - just look at how we've settled on a vertical format for almost all reading material. Again, it has its disadvantages as well, but most phones can switch between vertical and horizontal modes as necessary. Vertical screens also tend to have the largest accessible space if used in one hand - look at how far your thumb can move side-to-side vs top-to-bottom when operating a phone in one hand.
Smartphones are the form and size that they are because it works well: it is largely accessible, it's convenient, and people find it convenient to use. And it's not like it's just the first thing that we tried that stuck - there are a myriad of failed smartphone concepts that have been tried out but just aren't as convenient.
That's not to say that you have to find the smartphone concept convenient yourself, but it's valuable understanding why they work so well for so many people.
On a touchscreen, every use case is equally painful compared to more precise input methods. That's only an advantage if your users spend a significant fraction of time in unexpected input situations.
Personally, while I am able to do most everything I do on my computer on my smartphone, I almost never enjoy doing so – one big exception being content consumption. And even then, not being able to quickly make a note or comment on what I'm reading feels constraining.
> I also think there's a big advantage to the vertical form factor for many applications - just look at how we've settled on a vertical format for almost all reading material.
One seems to be strictly a consequence of the other.
> most phones can switch between vertical and horizontal modes as necessary.
Horizontal mode is usually horrible, both in terms of being able to hold the phone with one hand, and in terms of UI. On iOS for example, Safari's UI becomes extremely wasteful in horizontal mode.
> And it's not like it's just the first thing that we tried that stuck - there are a myriad of failed smartphone concepts that have been tried out but just aren't as convenient.
I think it has at least as much to do with industry momentum. Even if I'd personally prefer another form factor, I won't have many apps optimized for it if it's not in line with mainstream phone usage.
> On a touchscreen, every use case is equally painful compared to more precise input methods.
Touchscreen input could actually be quite precise if it was based on specialized gestures such as swiping and pie menus. Extensions of Fitt's law (that mouse-based interfaces are heavily based upon) have been developed that are applicable to swiping tasks, viz. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steering_law
I'm curious about alternative inputs like swiping and pie menus, or two-finger inputs, or inputs relying on corners and edges. Do you know any apps that use specialized gestures?
Either PocketBook or FBReader for Android used pie menus in at least some versions.
I'd used it on an old Android 5 device where the pie menus were present for some functions. They don't appear on my e-ink Android 10 device. Not sure if that's the device / Android version or an app update.
> They are very versatile - you don't need to define all your inputs up front, instead you can add new controls dynamically as needed
That's pretty much the last thing I want. I really like the turn page buttons on my Kobo. My previous kindle did not have them and it was a pain. Somethings like iPod wheel can replace a lot of current touch screen interactions (it's technically touch, but could be a dial) in small screen.
> I also think there's a big advantage to the vertical form factor for many applications - just look at how we've settled on a vertical format for almost all reading material
My non scientific answer is that it tiring to read a long line. A smaller width gave us more visual landmarks to rest our eyes on. And yes, a vertical form is easier to hold in one hand, but with how big phones are getting, most interactions is two handed.
> it is largely accessible, it's convenient, and people find it convenient to use.
And that's their only strong point: convenience. Ergonomics for a particular task does not translate well to others. If you only have to do one task, a smartphone is always the worst choice. A smartphone is more accidental usage than planned usage. If I know I'm going to take a lot of photos in an event, I want a camera, not a smartphone. If I'm going to write all day, I'm bringing a laptop, not a smartphone...
Touchscreens are not necessarily the best input device for any one task, but they are the second best input device for pretty much all tasks. They are very versatile - you don't need to define all your inputs up front, instead you can add new controls dynamically as needed (such as a keyboard that only shows up when you're inputting text, and even adapts to the type of text you're working with). When working with a desktop, you have a range of specialist input devices, from mice, keyboards (which themselves are a combination of different input devices for different tasks), drawing pads, trackballs, etc. A touchscreen will never be as good as any of these devices, but it can do the job of all of them, and switch between them as necessary.
Obviously there are limits to how useful this versatility is. A touchscreen in a car, for example, can control a lot of different aspects of that car from one place, but it makes finding those controls more complicated. So controls that need to be accessed regularly or quickly still need their own separate physical buttons. It's why volume buttons tend to still be physical on most phones. But you'd equally not want to control your car with a keyboard and a bunch of different shortcuts - understanding the tool that's best for the job is key.
And the point here is that the touchscreen is the best tool if you want something versatile.
I also think there's a big advantage to the vertical form factor for many applications - just look at how we've settled on a vertical format for almost all reading material. Again, it has its disadvantages as well, but most phones can switch between vertical and horizontal modes as necessary. Vertical screens also tend to have the largest accessible space if used in one hand - look at how far your thumb can move side-to-side vs top-to-bottom when operating a phone in one hand.
Smartphones are the form and size that they are because it works well: it is largely accessible, it's convenient, and people find it convenient to use. And it's not like it's just the first thing that we tried that stuck - there are a myriad of failed smartphone concepts that have been tried out but just aren't as convenient.
That's not to say that you have to find the smartphone concept convenient yourself, but it's valuable understanding why they work so well for so many people.