I think this is a step-backwards. It's a terribly flawed concept for two reasons:
1) the screen is already an infinitely customisable graphical touch UI
2) you need to set your portable device down on a flat surface to use it
Without it you can easily page back-and-forth through multiple control screens each with a custom UI. You can still have a different screen for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
Without it you can carry the device to a table and enter the data in situ. You can hold it in one hand and operate the device with the other.
This bypasses a mobile touch device's two main assets: its portability and its touch screen!
Comments
I think this is a step-backwards. It's a terribly flawed concept for two reasons:
1) the screen is already an infinitely customisable graphical touch UI
2) you need to set your portable device down on a flat surface to use it
Without it you can easily page back-and-forth through multiple control screens each with a custom UI. You can still have a different screen for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
Without it you can carry the device to a table and enter the data in situ. You can hold it in one hand and operate the device with the other.
This bypasses a mobile touch device's two main assets: its portability and its touch screen!
Yeah, that. The Nintendo DS does the "display plus touch-area separation" right by having a second screen. And you can use that in your lap.
imho, the DS is mostly held back by a resistive touchscreen and Nintendo's inability to think big-picture.
This blade thing stinks of being a solution looking for a problem.
Huge step backwards from the courier concept, which could encompass all of the touch covers on the second screen..