Talk:Multi-touch

SEO

Hi all!

It's looking like user:Alexanderaelberts trys to promote links of his own webside (www.multitouch-software.com) with section Omnitapps... . I am new on Wiki and don't know how I can deleted this changes from user:Alexanderaelberts.

Thanks (YahooBot (talk) 13:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)).

Removing Products

I've been editing the page the past few days, and while I'm interested in the many multitouch interfaces out there, it seems all the products and examples should be in their own list, similar to the List of Multi-Touch Computers and Monitors, with mentions of seminal technologies like the iPhone in the history and overview sections of the article. I have a template here, but could use help filling it out or starting the actual page. Also, I've been slowly but surely trying to fill out the history of multitouch section too if anyone wants to tackle that with me.

Thanks! Rosieate (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Wacom Bamboo (Pen and) Touch

Someone please add this when you have a chance: http://www.wacom.com/bamboo/bamboo_touch.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.36.58 (talk) 05:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Promethean Multi-input

Interactive Whiteboard and classroom technology company Promethean has been previewing its multitouch interface - I added an overview and some links - Uses EM pen based technology so you can trace and lean on surface... so is another development direction in the space - and hopefully one that will be in the hands of several million kids in a few months. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.85.39 (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"Multi-Touch" in Minority Report

The "Multi-Touch" in Minority Report has *nothing* to do with Hans FTIR-Multitouch. As you can plainly see, the user has to wear a tracking device on its hands (with some visible-light LEDs) and doesn't even touch the screen but gestures around a lot (like pointing to a snippet in the far side of the screen and moving the index finger to the center in order to make it move there).

And gesture tracking is nothing new, the movie represented just the technical reality -- at the time of its making! todays trackers for example work without the special device and recognize plain hands.

apart from this, multi-touch is not hans invention (though multi-touch with FTIR is. and of course those nice apps), microsoft research for example has built "touch light" 1-2y earlier and invented the scaling technique Han uses for moving/scaling/rotating images with one motion (but it's very easy to make up by yourself as soon as you know what you want). and there are some non-transparent approaches, also (plus apps, but not as cool).

So maybe the article should lay off its "fanboyish" attitude to multitouch and list up the facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.129.243.120 (talk) 20:15, 17 January 2007

____ I agree. I removed the ref to Minority Report once, and pop, it is back again. I have no interest in bouncing it back off and on. But there is simply no reason for it here. If you want a real Minority Report type interface, then go back to 1983 and references to Myron Krueger and Videoplace. Minority report was not even the first movie to demonstrate that kind of gestural interaction. But that's not the point. It is a trivial reference, contributes nothing, and adding material about the 25 year history of multi-touch would be a far more useful way to spend time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasbuxton (talk • contribs)

Grammar

At present, part of the article looks like this: "FingerWorks has since been purchased by Apple, who has incorporated the technology into its iPhone. The firm Tactex Controls is one supplier of multi-touch pads."

I fixed this once, and someone (perhaps the over-sensitive original author of the article) has changed it: for anyone vaguely interested, look at the history:

Apple, who have incorporated the technology into their iPhone...

Anyway. I suggest that the latter is better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.152.82.198 (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

You only think it sounds better because you're thinking in British grammar. Many English speakers don't think of companies as human-like entities, nor in the plural. Brits say, "The government have," whereas Americans say, "The government has." It seems that the same is happening here, and it just doesn't sound correct to YOU.

Oho! So British grammar is 'incorrect', is it? -- pokepal101 (Just expressing my point of view)

It was reverted by Justanother with the edit summary "2nd time on this one. Grammar lesson: Companies and corporations are collective nouns. Collective nouns take singular verbs when referring to the collective nature of the group." -- intgr 19:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

multi-touch keyboard?

FingerWorks produced a line of keyboards that incorporated multi-touch gestures.

I'm having a hard time imagining how a multi-touch keyboard would work. Can anyone provide an example or a link where I can read up on it? -Pan Sola 15:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Check out chordic keyboards Pan Sola. Some of the first computer keyboards made, the BAT which was a part of Engelbert's original augmentation system, where chordic. --Rektide 16:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I think they just have a multitouch pad as part of the keyboard, kinda like a laptop Fry-kun (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the entire keyboard surface is multi-touch, and you can switch between tapping the flat keyboard and dragging your fingers across it to switch between typing and using mouse or 'keypad' features. See the fingerworks article for a link to the (now defunct) company site, with details. +sj + 13:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

External Links

I suggest replacement of most of the links, to meet with the Wikipedia policies, by this page:

An overview with demo videoclips related to touchscreens. A page about Jeff Han, TED conference, Microsoft Surface and lots of other touchscreen related stuff. -- KumpelBert 13:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. There was an excellent interview with Bill Gates regardin Microsoft Surface on the NBC Today Show today (Saturday, 2 June 2007). /Blaxthos 14:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the links, but how is this interview related to the problem of external links? -- intgr ^#%@! 14:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not... it was just an aside/comment I placed there for convenience. /Blaxthos 15:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Missing Information

This article does not mention the two major patents purchased by Apple, originally filed by Fingerworks, as part of the Fingerworks buyout, which give Apple major amounts of control over how typing can occur on a touch screen, notably their exclusive rights to chording: [1] [2]. While the Wikipedia article governing touchscreens describes the touchscreen market as nearly patent free, these two patents create an IP minefield for those attempting to compete with Apple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.6.197 (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

This article seems to not enough information about Apple's implementation of multi-touch with the iPhone and iPod Touch. It mainly describes the history of multi-touch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Destin (talk • contribs) 13:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

This is because, in an encyclopedia, references to products that use a given technology is not necessary. For example, if you look up "plastic", you don't see a list of products that are made of plastic. Just because Product-X mentions using Technology-Y, that doesn't mean Technology-Y's article must also mention Product-X. Logically, multi-touch may become a commonplace among electronic devices, so it is assumed that the list will become quite lengthy in about a year or so. Therefore, we shouldn't be mentioning specific products today, and then a year from now put a stop to it or place some sort of rule on what products should be kept in and left out. Groink 00:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

How about the german company Balda who is making the multituch to Apple —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.226.71.112 (talk) 20:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The article dosn't contain about HP's TouchSmart Desktop & Notebook PCs. HP TouchSmart Desktop Page SRChiP (talk) 03:46, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I came to this page in search of information on Apple's patents on multitouch. It is reported that the Motorola Droid will not have multitouch in the USA. It is speculated that this is the result of patent encumberance on the multitouch technology (by Apple). I think a section regarding patent would be appropriate. I don't care who owns the patents, only information about whatever patents are encumbering this technology. 24.193.42.103 (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe Droid has multi-touch, so you don't have to worry :) -Lester 06:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Dell Latitude XT

I did an extensive addition of this section, then after reading the above comment, I considered removing both my addition and reference to various other commercial computers as I really agree with the above point. However, in the meantime, another editor (Talk) drastically shortened my addition. Unfortunately, the revision was factually inaccurate. I corrected the inaccuracies and added references for all the defects alleged in the revised revised section. Tbonge (talk) 14:01, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

MacBooks and MacBook Pros

The MacBook Pros already have MultiTouch (before the MacBook Air), but i'm not sure if the standard MacBooks have MultiTouch. Could someone verify this for me? Chris 02:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, until today they didn't precisely have multi touch as I understand it...it could just tell a small touch from a big touch. My friend and I messed around with his and we got it to the the two finger scrolling with our knuckle. With the latest updates the two do have real multitouch though. Bassg☢☢nist T C 14:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

need disambiguation for IBM multitouch screens

If I understand correctly, some IBM tablets have "MultiTouch" screens - but in their case, it means you can either use a wacom pen or a finger. Nowhere do they boast multi-finger recognition (so it's a different technology) Fry-kun (talk) 01:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - this needs clarification. Both WACOM and N-TRIG are marketing devices as multi-touch which are becoming popular in a number of 'convertible' laptop/tablet PC's. I had thought that in these cases the term multitouch referred to multiple touch input methods rather than the ability of the hardware to recognise multiple simultaneous points of contact, but there's a video here http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GeWN2p6jYaA showing a VP from N-TRIG demoing true multitouch and claiming that it's the same technology used in current OEM applications. I suspect the limiting factor here is not the hardware but the operating systems. Perhaps we'll see a Vista patch and updated driver that'll integrate some of the Microsoft Surface OS features in the not too distant future... (Sircompo (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2008 (UTC))

N-Trig's digitizer is capable of differentiating and reporting multiple simultaneous finger touches. Wacom digitizers today support only one finger. However that doesn't stop the marketeers from claiming 'dual-touch' or 'multi-touch' if a stylus and one touch are detected. Perhaps that should be noted. 209.184.7.130 (talk) 19:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

HTC Touch Diamond(TouchFLO 3D) multi-touch or single point touch?

Is HTC Touch Diamond(TouchFLO 3D) multi-touch tech or single point touch tech? TouchFLO is single point touch. There is nothing about multi-touch or single-touch in TouchFLO 3D . --CCFS (talk) 04:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Missing Paper References

The article talks about the first paper about multi-touch but there is no information about that paper given. I added a "Citation needed" as I did not find the paper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.66.237.56 (talk) 12:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I added a Bell Labs reference, which as described was about touch screens, multi-touch in particular. --NealMcB (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

== Why Android is not launching Multi touch feature, even though it got a lopt of hardware support?

Bad sections

Multi-touch Displays vs. Multi-touch Controllers seems quite a bad distinctions, also the controllers section does not feature any real controllers, mostly laptops with multi-touch. If the multi-touch products should be grouped, how about products which are available to end users and those which are not (concept stage, limited release like Surface). --84.178.124.30 (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

including, but not limited to

"Including, but not limited to" is lawyer-speak and is unnecessary since "including" implies additional items already. --Unimath (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

N-Trig

It seems that N-Trig is the only maker of multi-touch displays for notebooks. Maybe there should be a section on that in the article. I guess there are few other businesses capable of producing any kind of multi-touch device, we could make a list. --84.178.97.215 (talk) 08:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

N-Trig produce solution for "normal" flat display to.

Technology is ITO + 4 touch.

vbr. Gennadi Gblindmann (talk) 20:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Nintendo DS/Windows 7

Heh and I thought that products like the Apple I Phone/Pod and Nintendo DS had only finger touch technologies. But guess I was wrong. This seems more interesting. Like you can get work more done more quicker etc... Zeta Nova 23:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sharp Mebius

This seems more like a demo to me. They made a publicity stunt half a year ago, but there is still no word on when this product might be available. There are a lot of companies which could do an impressive tech demo, but this does not mean these should be included on Wikipedia. If there is no more information on this, is should be deleted, because it is a mix of advertisement and speculation. Also it is not a full touch screen, just a little screen which serves as touch pad, so I'm moving it into the relevant section. --84.178.61.194 (talk) 11:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Too many products. Delete them!

The article is full of non-notable product listings. It reads like an advertisement for these products. They should not be there at all, unless they made some notable contribution to the development of multi-touch technology. Otherwise, all the rest must be deleted. Besides, it's usually the operating system, and the company that manufactured the screen, that is responsible.--Lester 06:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Apple

The ipod touch has been released before the iphone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.45.63.107 (talk) 22:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Low Resolution Trend?

I removed this from the article:

"As of the beginning of November 2009, there are no touch-enabled laptops with resolutions equal to or higher than (W)SXGA+ (1680x1050).

The highest-resolution touch-enabled laptops which approach WSXGA+ are the Lenovo T400S (1440x900 or (W)XGA+/(W)SXGA), and the Dell Studio 17 (1600x900; however a 1920x1050 resolution and 8-core processor version exists for the non-touchscreen model, and those options are "in the works"<ref>http://en.community.dell.com/blogs/direct2dell/archive/2009/11/20/multi-touch-comes-to-dell-s-studio-17.aspx</ref> to be added to the touch model).

As of the beginning of November 2009, all other laptops are at most (W)XGA (1366x768). There have only ever been a handful of tablet PCs with high resolution (e.g. Toshiba m200 with 1400x900, circa 2004), which are all no longer produced."

It seems like this statement is wrong- most laptops have resolutions no higher than WSXGA+ (1680x1050). The fact that the Dell Studio 17 doesn't have a 1920x1050 multi-touch option is not exactly a trend. Furthermore, many all-in-ones such as the Sony Vaio L-series have 1080p screens. Thecurran⁹¹ (talk) 22:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Apple's dubious trademark

The intro paragraph used to say that the "Multi-touch" belongs to Apple. That's not backed up by facts. The facts are:

• Apple list it on their trademarks page
• Apple make no claim that the items in that list are recognised by any trademarks office as belonging to Apple
• It wasn't on that list on November 11th 2007[3]

So there's nothing to confirm the validity of their claim, and a lot to doubt. The article should be careful not to overstate Apple's claim. Gronky (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Article Lacks a Definition or Usefulness

This article fails to do its job since it never actually defines "Multi-touch" at all. Instead, it rambles on and on about the history of Multi-touch technology, how it physically operates, etc. I would think that most people would come here to find out what the heck it even MEANS, and how it's different from using the single-touch touchpad. I mean, in what circumstance would I want to send to separate commands to the computer with two fingers? I can't think of a single instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.126.226.142 (talk) 17:19, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, suggest how the article can be improved or change it as per WP:BOLD, and first example that springs to mind is Ipods use of two fingers for zooming in on a map for example, normally done with index finger and a thumb. Cheers ^Khukri 18:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Apple & "invention"

"Apple falsely stating they 'invented multi touch' as part of the iPhone announcement"

Hmm, I'm not seeing that. If you watch the video, he actually says they "invented a new technology called Multi-Touch" (note capitalization -- it appears on screen as he says it). He then lists "Multi-finger gestures" as one feature of it, and also compares it to other touch screens, listing some features unique to their implementation. It sounds to me like "Multi-Touch" is the name for Apple's implementation of it, but not that he's claiming to have invented multi-touch itself.

The issue is confused by two things. First, Apple tends to use English words as product names, which often match exactly the generic product categories that other companies also use. Off the top of my head: "System {version number}", "CD" and "TV", "Scanner", "USB Mouse", "USB Modem", "Keyboard" and "Adjustable Keyboard", and "Network Server". Second, if you look at other Apple product announcements he does tend to say "invented" where other people might say "implemented". For example, he also said they "invented" the App Store -- again, note the capitalization, which indicates an Apple implementation, not the concept itself. I don't think anyone assumed he meant that Apple invented the idea of selling Apps in a Store (ha!), nor do I think that Apple intended that, but simply that Apple had built their own and that "App Store" was their name for it.

I'm not sure what the purpose of this half of the sentence is -- it sounds unnecessarily argumentative, anyway. Should we go into all the Apple product articles on wikipedia and add "Apple false claimed to have 'invented {noun}'"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.163.72.2 (talk) 18:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If it can be verified using reliable sources then yes. With respect to touch screens, Apple patented technologies that have been around or in development for some 20 years, now nothing wrong with that more fool those who didn't patent it, but to then claim they invented it is incorrect. I don't think it's a question of semantics or interpretation of the English language, they say it quite a few places explicitly that they invented multi-touch or multi-touch capacitance sensing which is incorrect. Cheers ^Khukri 07:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Multi-touch did not begin in 1982

Hi, I removed the erroneous statement that multi-touch began in 1982 as a number of references in the article show this is not the case, and the edit in the summary that multi touch isn't mutual capacitance, is also incorrect. Multi-touch, has appeared through a number of research institutes and programs prior to 1982, this can already be seen in the article through work done independently by CERN and others. Capacitance screens can take a number of inputs and do fit the criteria for multi-touch even when the inputs were on the same x or y plane as the original button press and was only limited by the sensitivity of the electronics on the grid for how many changes in capacitance it could register, as the electronics became finer more and more x/y captors/grids were added and the eventual system was used in a multi-touch configuration. ^Khukri 15:12, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You may disagree for a lot of reasons, but the 1982 Toronto prototype is generally credited as the first multitouch system. Notably, it is credited as the first multitouch system by Bill Buxton, an authority in the field ([4]). A quick Google search (discounting mirrors to Wikipedia) reveals no sources that credit of CERN for multitouch but there are many credits for the University of Toronto prototype, including reliable sources like Microsoft and The Daily Telegraph.[5][6][7] Wikipedia has a policy of No original research, so it is not up to you or I or anyone else to dig up some old papers and claim they qualify as multitouch. (Moreover, the 1977 paper doesn't mention multitouch. And while mutual capacitance is one of many technologies that can be used to make a multitouch system, the two concepts are not equal.) Robinsw (talk) 08:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'll not re-revert for now as that gets us no-where, but first of all you have a misunderstanding of how original research works with respect to your edit summary "It is original research to simply find an older paper and claim it contradicts a well-sourced fact". If I find an older paper that is reliably sourced, verifiable and is relevant to the subject matter, that does not constitute original research, as it's verified and is certainly the opposite of what WP:OR states. From WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". Secondly, the "well sourced fact", Buxton himself states "The first multi-touch system that I am aware of designed for human input to a computer system.", was he aware of the CERN / Neselco systems? Next the article has it's definition for multi-touch and Buxton has refined that and has his own definition; we can discuss the difference between multi-touch and multi-point till the cows come home, but for the definition of this article, mutual capacitance systems for many years prior to the Toronto system have met the criteria of being able to take more than three input points. You yourself have acknowledged that mutual-capacitance can be used to make a multi-touch system, though the concepts are not equal the end result is the same, a multi-touch system. It seems to me you are arguing over a noun, were cows called cows before the English language evolved? It would be folly to think cows are only as old as the English language, and though the CERN paper and many others don't use the wording multi-touch they are still referring to a system capable of taking multiple simultaneous inputs. Is this a question of semantics of Buxton's definitions as opposed to the articles definitions?

It should also be noted that in the Buxton article, the 1984 system he called the capacitance system overlaid onto a CRT (which is exactly the same as the CERN system developed 12 - 7 years previously) as Multi-touch

1984: Multi-Touch Screen (Bob Boie, Bell Labs, Murray Hill NJ)

• A multi-touch touch screen, not tablet.
• The first muti-touch screen that I am aware of.
• Used a transparent capacitive array of touch sensors overlaid on a CRT.

So if Buxton calls this type of system multi-touch, then the CERN system pre-dates the Toronto one, making it not the first.

Cheers ^Khukri 12:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As there has been nothing to dispute that the CERN x/y mutual capacitance touch panel, which is identical to other systems that have been given the label multi-touch using the same technology i.e. Bell Labs multi-touch, IPod etc, I will remove the statement that Toronto had the first multi-touch system in 1982 as incorrect. I have shown that the CERN system pre-dates the Toronto system, and this is verifiable (1, 2, 3, 4) with the links in the article. Regarding the question of Buxton saying it is the first, it is given that he is an expert in MMIs and his thoughts have been used as a reference by subsequent news paper articles etc, but there is no indication he was aware of the CERN system, and would seem only natural he attributes the first multi-touch system he was aware of coming from Toronto as he was directly involved with the University of Toronto in later developments, and was certainly more in his immediate focus than European developments. Cheers ^Khukri 08:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are the one who has misunderstood the meaning of original research. There is no question that the 1977 CERN paper you posted is older than 1982 and is a reliable source. But that is totally separate from the real issue here, which is the total lack of reliable source crediting CERN's prototype as the first multitouch system. From WP:ORIGINAL: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be a synthesis of published material to advance a new position, which is original research."

You have established (A) the fact that CERN made a prototype in 1977. That is not disputed. You then make the claim (B) that by your own reasoning it is "similar" to other systems that qualify as multitouch. This claim not verified and not explicitly stated by any reliable source. Then you jumped ahead and combined (A) with (B) to deduct that (C) it must have been the first multitouch system, something that is not stated in any of the sources at all. Meanwhile, there are at least three authoritative sources, from a pioneer of multitouch technology, a major tech company and a reputed British newspaper, all explicitly stating that the technology began in 1982. That is the real issue here.

As with any advanced technology, there are certainly predecessors that came before true multitouch technology, and the CERN paper may very well represent one of those predecessors. You seem to have a preference for the CERN paper for some reason and you may have your own definition of what qualifies as multitouch and what doesn't. That's fine. But the fact remains that the 1982 system is acknowledged as the first multitouch system, and personal opinions don't matter. That's why I'm restoring the info you deleted while keeping your mention of CERN as one of the many equally important touchscreen technologies that came before multitouch. That should be a fair compromise. Robinsw (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC).

Wellner and Multi-finger Gestures

Wellner undoubtedly did this, and it is specifically referenced on page 29 of his PhD Thesis: P D Wellner "Interacting with Paper on the DigitalDesk", PhD Thesis, University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory, October 1993. It appears that this should be the cited reference, because the youtube video currently referenced was not published until 2008 (it may well have been made in 1991, but it does not appear to have been published then - that is, it does not appear to be verifiable in the sense required by wikipedia). Although there are earlier papers on DigitalDesk, none of them appear to mention multi-finger gestures.

Separately, there is the issue of whether DigitalDesk should be appearing here at all, since it was primarily a camera based system, not relying on touch (though it did use vibration to pick up taps). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urilabob (talk • contribs) 02:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

What do the standard multi-touch gestures do?

It would be really useful, in the table in the "Multi-touch gestures" section, to add a column listing what typical functions each gesture performs. At least it would be useful to us fogies who haven't got a smartphone yet.--Chetvorno^TALK 19:09, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

In the section "Multi-touch gestures" it says: "Multi-touch gestures are standardized motions used to interact with multitouch devices."

But at least to my knowledge there are no standards regarding multi-touch gestures. All gestures used are at best quasi-standards.

Chetvorno describes it best: there are "typical functions each gesture performs"

--Kaosrok (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://rwservices.no-ip.info:81/biblio.html

  Triggered by \bno-ip\. on the global blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 18:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Time-Sensitive Information

• Now that 2012 has passed, this statement needs to be rephrased. Also, additional data points would strengthen the point being made.

  Small-scale touch devices are rapidly becoming commonplace, with the number of touch screen telephones expected to increase from 200,000 shipped in 2006 to 21 million in 2012.[24]

• Is the following still true, or does the verb tense need to be changed?

  A few companies are focusing on large-scale surface computing rather than personal electronics, either large multi-touch tables or wall surfaces. These systems are generally used by government organizations, museums, and companies as a means of information or exhibit display.

• And this?

  In the past few years, several companies have released products that use multi-touch.

  This last item has no citation, and the statement is vague, making it difficult to ascertain the intended meaning, let alone the time frame. This sentence currently appears under the heading "Implementations," and it is followed by a brief statement about DIY touchscreens, so perhaps it refers to availability of multi-touch screens as components rather than popular consumer products (mobile phones, tablets, laptops computers)? Or perhaps it is out of place? Clarification would be welcome.

George9eg (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

pinch technology doesn't relate to Multi-touch

When I was searching to find pages that related to "Pinch Technology", I was directed into page "Multi-touch". This two pages have no connection together. Please correct it and relate "Pinch Technology" to page "Pinch analysis". thanks.Shahriar70 (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

touch hardware interface

This article covers such a vast subject that it leaves out too many details, with no clue about where to find the missing info... What are the most common current standard touch/multitouch hardware interfaces, for external monitors etc? USB? Serial port? What else? What article does/should cover this?-71.174.184.36 (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Multi-touch. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080828122424/http://cnmat.berkeley.edu/system/files/attachments/p41-wessel.pdf to http://cnmat.berkeley.edu/system/files/attachments/p41-wessel.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091122035752/http://multi-touchscreen.com/ to http://multi-touchscreen.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)