I have voiced my opinions about the touch screens many times before, but since this thread was specifically started to talk about the touch screens, I am going to put in my $.02.

It is true that touch screens are used in many different applications - photo copiers, bank machines, etc. So are the screwdrivers. Yet very few of us need to use a screwdriver in our gigs. That is the case because the screwdriver is a tool, and a very useful one for an appropriate job. The same is true of the touch screens. They are flexible, have no moving parts, and easy to program (as well as cheaper than the systems using a screen AND buttons). Yet, you will have a hard time using a flat screwdriver on a Phillips screw. I believe that using a touch screen as the ONLY means of navigation of an instrument are equally inappropriate.

My company (where I have my day job) manufactures control systems for industrial plants, and were probably the first ones to use touch screens in large-scale applications. I have spent years as a software engineer leading development of user interfaces using such touch screens. So I base my opinion on experience and feedback of thousands of users, and not only my own interpretation.

Despite the advantages that the touch screens have (we all realize what they are), they have a number of shortcomings, which make them detrimental to the use in live, time-critical situations.

One problem with the touch screens is one does not know where to touch it until the screen is repainted. If you have to select a particular sound by pressing a button for bank and a button for individual selection, you know exactly the position of the button to press for each, and can anticipate where to position your fingers for the second press even before the first button is pressed. This is not the case selecting on a touch screen – you have to press the bank button, wait for the screen to display the list of individual selections, and only then position your finger to make the individual sound selection.

The second problem is that a screen does not provide a tactile feedback to you. After making a selection on a touch screen, the ONLY way you would know that you have indeed touched the correct “virtual button” is if you look on the screen. This is not so with the buttons – you can feel that the button has been pressed without looking. Even Roland recognizes this problem, which is why they have now included the click for screen actions (though it is useless if you are using headphones, or are on stage with enough sound around you).

Some touch screens are better than other in their implementation (sensitivity, response, and layout of touch targets). Korg is an example of a design with the targets that are too small for many users' fingers, while Roland works better for folks with large fingers. However, the hand-eye coordination issues are not solved, but aggravated by making the size of the touch screen larger.

The screen is inherently a “serial” device – you can only select things one step at a time, and after each selection you wait for the screen to redraw before making the next part of your selection. You also need to lift your finger to complete the initial selection action, before proceeding. That is why most users end up using a single finger to select things on screen. Those of you who had a Roland E70/86 or the i-series Korgs will scoff at that – we were able to press the selection buttons almost like playing the keyboard, using several fingers at almost the same time. Even if you say that today’s arranger has way too many functions to not use a screen, the hard physical buttons are a better approach than the touch screen. This is why Roland had fitted their “professional” board – Fantom – with the large screen controlled by the buttons compactly arranged in a row below. Why did they not use the same system for their arranger? I don’t think they consider arrangers as “professional” instruments, but intend them for home (or studio) use. This often comes across in their promotional literature (the RUG “magazine” will never mention a performer using an arranger in the act, but a number of past articles had detailed how musicians used them in the studios). That’s just too bad.

I am not arguing that the touch screens have no place in the keyboards – they can be useful for things which are not time-critical, such as setting MIDI modes, color of the wallpaper, etc. But the reason that many of us who perform live have our gigs is because we can (or supposed to be able to) better spontaneity and variability than the canned tunes played by a DJ or a karaoke machine. It is important that the users be able to quickly make changes, and the physical buttons are much superior for that than the touch screen.

When you first used Microsoft Word, you went to the Edit Menu to find and use Copy and Paste function. However, all of the proficient users with even a little bit of experience with Windows will routinely use Ctl-C /Ctl-V key combinations for these same functions. We do this because the needs of the proficient users are different from those of a novice user – the first one needs to access functions quickly, while the novice must be able to find the function (without looking in the manual). The touch screens (or most any screen based OSes) make it easy to find functions for novice users, but not to access them efficiently – for that you need dedicated buttons. All of today’s keyboards fall into either one extreme (easy to find, but not very fast – Ketron, Roland), or quick to get to if you know where it is (Ketron). I believe that Yamaha is the only one that makes an effort to address both groups of users.

The bottom line is that for quick access you need buttons, and a touch screen is not a substitute.

Regards,