Fundamentals of Touch Technologies and Applications Geoff Walker Principal Analyst IMS Research S4: Fundamentals of Touch Technologies and Applications

Short Course S-4: Fundamentals of Touch Technologies and Applications Geoff Walker Principal Analyst IMS Research S4: Fundamentals of Touch Technologies and Applications

Geoff Walker Principal Analyst IMS Research May 15, 2011

File Download: www.walkermobile.com/SID_2011_Short_Course_S4.pdf

 Admin [3]  Introduction [7]  Multi-Touch [9]  Mainstream Touch Technologies  Analog Resistive [7]  Projected Capacitive (Pro-Cap) [14]  Surface Capacitive [6]  Surface Acoustic Wave (SAW) [7]  Traditional Infrared (IR) [7]  Significant Emerging Touch Technologies  Embedded (In-Cell, On-Cell & Out-Cell) [19]  Camera-Based Optical [6]  Multi-Touch Resistive [9] [ ] = Number of content slides in each section

3 Agenda: Part 2

 Other Emerging Technologies  Acoustic Pulse Recognition (APR by Elo) [5]  Dispersive Signal Technology (DST by 3M) [4]  Waveguide Infrared (by RPO) [5]  Vision-Based [5]  Force-Sensing [4]  Electromagnetic Resonance (EMR) Pen Digitizer [4]  Comparing Touch Technologies [4]  Conclusions [3]

[Total = 128]

4 About IMS Research

 IMS Research  A leading independent supplier of market research and consulting to the global electronics industry Automotive & Transport Financial & ID Technologies Communications & Wireless Lighting & LEDs Computer & Office Equipment Medical (InMedica) Consumer Electronics Power & Energy Convergence Security & Fire Displays & Touch Semiconductor Factory Automation  Offices in UK (HQ), USA, China, Taiwan, Korea & Japan  >100 analysts worldwide  Clients in >50 countries  Publishes >200 market-research reports per year  Known for detailed, in-depth, highly analytical reports

5 Key Customers

 9 of the top 10 semiconductor companies  8 of the top 10 automotive-electronics suppliers  8 of the top 10 telecomm-equipment providers  7 of the top 10 power-supply companies  All of the top 10 industrial-automation companies  7 of the top 10 set-top-box manufacturers  All of the top 10 video-surveillance companies

6 Introduction

Source: Elo TouchSystems

 Opaque touch  Dominated by the controller chip suppliers ● Atmel, Cypress, Synaptics, etc. ● One technology (projected capacitive) ● Sensor is typically developed by the device OEM  Notebook touchpads are the highest-revenue application ● Synaptics ~60% share; Alps ~30% share; Elan ~10% share ● Sensors are all two-layer projected capacitive  There is no further discussion of opaque touch in this course  Transparent touch on top of a display  Dominated by the touch module manufacturers (100+ worldwide)  13 technologies

8 2010 Touchscreen Market by Size and Type of Technology 2010 Small-Med (<10”) Large-Ar e a (>10”) TOTAL Technology Revenue Units Revenue Units Revenue Units Resistive $646M 229M $263M 7.1M $908M 236M Projected Capacitive $2,853M 273M $287M 6.2M $3,140M 279M Surface Capacitive $0M 0M $162M 1.3M $162M 1.3M Acoustic (SAW & BW) $0M 0M $159M 2.6M $159M 2.6M Infrared $0M 0M $9.9M 0.3M $9.9M 0.3M Mainstream $3,499M 502M $881M 18M $4,379M 519M Emerging $63M 0.1M $259M 1.8M $321M 1.8M TOTAL $3,562M 502M $1,140M 20M $4,700M 521M

Revenue Units Revenue Units Small-Medium 76% 96% Mainstream 93% 99% Large-Area 24% 4% Emerging 7% 1% TOTAL 100% 100% TOTAL 100% 100%

Market size estimates are based on DisplaySearch’s “Touch-Panel Market Analysis 2010 4Q Update Report” (January 2011)

9 2010 Touchscreen Market by Technology

2010 2010 2010 2010 Technology Revenue Share Units Share Projected Capacitive $3,140M 67% 279M 52% Analog Resistive (all forms) $908M 19% 236M 44% Optical (all forms, including vision-based) $228M 4.9% 1.0M 0.2% Surface Capacitive $162M 3.5% 1.5M 0.3% Acoustic (SAW, APR & DST) $159M 3.4% 2.6M 0.5% LCD In-Cell & On-Cell (all forms) $61M 1.3% 14M 2.6% Digitizer $33M 0.7% 0.5M 0.1% Infrared (all forms) $10M 0.2% 0.4M 0.1% Others $0M 0% 0M 0% TOTAL $4,701M 100% 535M 100% Market size estimates are based on DisplaySearch’s “Touch-Panel Market Analysis 2010 4Q Update Report” (January 2011)

10 Touch Market Forecast 2010-2016

DisplaySearch 2010 Touch Market Analysis $16 Millions $14

$12 In-Cell Others $10 On-Cell Infrared Digitizer $8 Optical Imaging Acoustic Revenue ($B) Revenue $6 Surface Capacitive Projected Capacitive $4 Resistive

$0 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Forecast is from DisplaySearch’s “Touch-Panel Market Analysis 2010 Annual Report” (June 2010)

11 Touch Technologies by Size & Application

30”) 30”) Format

- 17”) – – – ”

7 Touch Technology Mobile (2” Stationary Enterprise (10” Stationary Consumer (1 Large >30”) ( Analog Resistive M M L Analog Multi-Touch Resistive (AMR) E E Surface Acoustic Wave (SAW) M E L Traditional Infrared (IR) M E M Waveguide Infrared (from RPO) E Surface Capacitive M Projected Capacitive (P-Cap) (ITO) M E E Projected Capacitive (P-Cap) (wires on film) L L Camera-Based Optical M M Acoustic Pulse Recognition (APR from Elo) E L L Dispersive Signal Technology (DST from 3M) L Embedded (in-cell & on-cell) E Vision-Based (like Microsoft Surface) E Force Sensing E

M = Mainstream L = Low-volume E = Emerging

12 Touch Technologies by Materials & Process Touch Technology Transparent No Transparent Conductor (ITO) Conductor

Continuous Patterned Edge Conductors No Edge Conductors Analog resistive Acoustic Pulse Surface capacitive Recognition (APR) Dispersive Signal Low High Technology (DST) Resolution Resolution Traditional infrared (IR) Analog Projected Waveguide infrared multi-touch capacitive Surface acoustic wave (SAW) resistive Embedded (AMR) Optical (In-cell & Force sensing = Mainstream on-cell) = Emerging Vision-based

13 Touch Is An Indirect Measurement

One Reason Why There Are So Many Technologies… Touch Technology What’s Being Measured Resistive (all forms) & Voltage Embedded (voltage-sensing) Surface capacitive Current Surface acoustic wave Time delay Projected capacitive, Change in capacitance Embedded (charge-sensing) Optical & Infrared (all forms), Absence of light Embedded (light-sensing) in high ambient Embedded (light-sensing) in low ambient Presence of light Vision-based Image Acoustic Pulse Recognition (APR) & Bending waves Dispersive Signal Technology (DST) Force sensing Force The ideal method of detecting touch has yet to be invented!

14 Multi-Touch

Sources: Engadget, Do Device and Good Times & Happy Days

 Multi-touch is defined as the ability to recognize two or more simultaneous touch points  Multi-touch was invented in 1982 at the University of Toronto (not by Apple in 2007!)  “Pinching” gestures were first defined in 1983 (not by Apple in 2007!)  Windows 7 (released 10/22/09) supports multi-touch throughout the OS and is structured to support an “unlimited” number (~100) of simultaneous touch points  Android, iOS and Linux currently support 4-5 touches

16 Multi-Touch Architecture

Capable of decoding multiple Application streams of moving points and taking actions in response

Capable of forwarding multiple Operating System streams of moving points (and acting on a defined subset of them)

Touchscreen Capable of delivering sets of Controller & Driver simultaneous points to the OS

Capable of sensing multiple Touchscreen Sensor simultaneous points

17 Multi-Touch Technologies

Multi-Touch Win-7 Logo Commercial MT Touch Technology Capable? (#) Capable? Product Example Projected Capacitive Yes (unlimited*) Yes Apple iPhone; Dell Latitude XT Analog Multi-Touch Yes (unlimited*) Yes Gateway ZX6910 Resistive (AMR) AiO PC LCD In/On-Cell (all forms) Yes (unlimited*) Yes Samsung Camera Vision-Based Yes (unlimited*) Yes Microsoft Surface Optical Yes (2+) Yes HP TouchSmart Surface Acoustic Wave Yes (2) Yes Lenovo A700 (Elo TouchSystems) AiO PC Waveguide Infrared Yes (2) Yes LG Display 13.3” (RPO) Notebook (SID) Traditional Infrared Yes (2) Yes Nexio 42” Monitor Acoustic Pulse Recognition Future (2) Maybe Technology under (APR - Elo) development Bending Wave Future (2) Maybe Technology under (DST – 3M) development Analog Resistive No No -- Surface Capacitive No No -- Force-Sensing No No -- * Controller-dependent, not sensor-dependent

18 Windows-7 Logo

 A set of touch performance standards designed to ensure a high-quality user experience  Test 1: Sampling Rate  Test 2: Single-Touch Taps in 4 Corners  Test 2: Single-Touch Taps in 5 Other Locations  Test 3: Single-Touch Press-and-Hold  Test 4: Double Taps  Test 5: Multi-Touch Points  Test 6: Press and Tap  Test 7: Straight-Line Accuracy  Test 8: Maximum Touch Lines  Test 9: Multi-Touch Straight Lines  Test 10: Line Accuracy Velocity  Test 11: Single-Touch Arcs  Test 12: Pivot  Test 13: Multi-Touch Arcs  Test 14: Ghost Point Test

19 Some Reasons Why Multi-Touch Has Become So Important  Apple  Apple established multi-touch as a “must-have” for coolness. The result is that people of all ages expect every display they see to be touchable with multiple fingers  Gaming  Gaming is a natural for multi-touch. Try playing air hockey without multi-touch…  Multi-user collaboration  When two people want to collaborate on a large screen (e.g., a student and teacher on an interactive whiteboard display), multi-touch is essential. Identifying which touch belongs to which user is still an unsolved problem, however.

20 More Reasons Why Multi-Touch Has Become So Important  Unintended touches  One of the major values of multi-touch is to allow the system to ignore unintended touches (palm rejection, grip suppression, etc.). As desktop screens become more horizontal (recline) this will become even more important.

21 How Many Touches Are Enough?

 Why multi-touch will expand beyond two touches  Most research on multi-touch is being done with vision-based hardware because it’s easy to develop the hardware yourself ● Vision-based touch supports an unlimited number of touches ● All other multi-touch-capable technologies are difficult to build & buy  Projected capacitive (which will shortly be the #2 touch technology) also supports an unlimited number of touches  Number of touches is one way for a touch technology vendor to differentiate themselves  Recognizing and ignoring more than two touches is a very useful capability  ISVs are creative; they’ll find ways to use more touches (games) (“If you build it, they will come”)

22 An Anomaly: Multi-Touch Gestures on Non-Multi-Touch Screens  Elo TouchSystems: “Resistive Gestures”  Capable of sensing two-finger gestures on standard analog resistive touch-screens  Fingers must be moving to sense two points; two static touches don’t work

 3M: “Multi-Touch Gestures on DST” Source: Elo TouchSystems  Same capability & restriction as above on Dispersive Signal Technology (DST) touch-screens  It’s not true multi-touch, but is it good enough?  Gestures are HOT, so device manufacturers want them  Today, multi-touch is mostly used to enable two-finger gestures  For mobile devices, pro-cap is ~3X the cost of analog resistive, so enabling gestures on analog resistive is attractive

23 #1 Reference On Multi-Touch

 “Multi-Touch Systems that I Have Known and Loved”  www.billbuxton.com/multitouchOverview.html

“If you can only manipulate one point … you are restricted to the gestural vocabulary of a fruit fly. We were given multiple limbs for a reason. It is nice to be able to take advantage of them.” Bill Buxton, 2008 Principal Researcher, Microsoft Research

24 Mainstream Touch Technologies  Analog Resistive  Projected Capacitive (Pro-Cap)  Surface Capacitive  Surface Acoustic Wave (SAW)  Traditional Infrared (IR)

Source: Engadget

(ITO)

(PET)

Source: Bergquist

Source: Elo TouchSystems

27 Analog Resistive…2

4-Wire Construction Equivalent circuit X-Axis Voltage Voltage gradient gradient applied applied across across glass coversheet

Voltage Bus measured on bar coversheet Voltage measured on glass Y-Axis

28 Analog Resistive…3

5-Wire Construction Equivalent circuit X-Axis Voltage Voltage gradient gradient applied applied across across glass glass

Contact point Contact point on coversheet is on coversheet is a voltage probe a voltage probe

Linearization pattern Y-Axis 29 Analog Resistive…4

 Types  4-wire (low cost, short life) is common in mobile devices  5-wire (higher cost, long life) is common in stationary devices  Constructions  Film (PET) + glass (previous illustration) is the most common  Film + film (used in some cellphones) can be made flexible  Glass + glass is the most durable; automotive is the primary use  Film + film + glass, others…  Options  Surface treatments (AG, AR, AS, AP, AM), rugged substrate, dual-force touch, high-transmissivity, surface armoring,

many others… (50-uM glass) Source: Schott

30 Analog Resistive…5

 Size range  1” to ~24” (>20” is rare)  Controllers  Many sources  Single chip, embedded in chipset/CPU, or “universal” controller board  Advantages Source: Liyitec  Works with finger, stylus or any non-sharp object  Lowest-cost touch technology  Widely available (it’s a commodity)  Easily sealable to IP65 or NEMA-4  Resistant to screen contaminants  Low power consumption Source: Hampshire

31 Analog Resistive…6

 Disadvantages  Not durable (PET top surface is easily damaged)  Poor optical quality (10%-20% light loss)  No multi-touch  Applications  Mobile devices  Point of sale (POS) terminals  Wherever cost is #1

 Market share 2010 Revenue 19% Volume 44% 1st time < 50%

32 Analog Resistive…7

 Suppliers  Nissha, Young Fast, J-Touch, Gunze, Truly Semi, Fujitsu, EELY, Elo TouchSystems, SMK, Swenc/TPO, eTurboTouch…  60+ suppliers  Market trends  Analog resistive has lost the #1 revenue position to projected capacitive ● First time in ~40 years!  Analog resistive is still important in mobile phones in Asia ● It supports a stylus; projected capacitive doesn’t (yet!)

33 Projected Capacitive

Source: Apple

 Types  Self capacitance ● Controller measures capacitance of single electrode to ground  Mutual capacitance ● Controller measures capacitance between two electrodes

Self capacitance Mutual capacitance

35 Projected Capacitive…2

Self Capacitance Mutual Capacitance Older technology, but still used Newer technology Limited to 1 or 2 touches with ghosting Two or more unambiguous touches Lower immunity to LCD noise Higher immunity to LCD noise Lower touch accuracy Higher touch accuracy Sensor is usually diamond pattern Allows more flexibility in pattern design Harder to maximize SNR Easier to maximize SNR Simpler, lower cost controller More complex, higher-cost controller Usually a single-layer sensor Always a two-layer sensor (may change)

36 Projected Capacitive…3

Self-capacitance notebook touchpad (before Apple iPhone)

MAX  X-axis and X-Scan then Y-axis electrodes are scanned sequentially, Finger MAX looking for point of maximum capacitance ITO transparent conductors to ground

 Ghost points are a problem with 2 touches Y-Scan

37 Projected Capacitive…4

Mutual capacitance touchscreen (Apple iPhone)

 Output is an array of capacitance values for each X-Y intersection

38 Projected Capacitive…5

Raw data including noise Filtered data Gradient data

Touch region coordinates and gradient data Touch regions “10 fingers, 2 palms and 3 others” Source: Apple Patent Application #2006/0097991

39 Projected Capacitive…6

Why “Projected”? Finger

 A finger “steals charge” from the X-electrode, changing the capacitance between the electrodes  Electric-field lines are “projected” beyond the touch surface when a finger is present

40 Projected Capacitive…7

 Constructions & locations  Bottom side of cover glass (“lens”) ● Not common yet, but industry is heading this way (“one glass”) ● Good place for sensor with largest sensing area  Discrete glass or film substrate(s) between cover glass & LCD ● Industry standard ● Many different layer arrangements & configurations ● Sometimes requires a shield layer  On top side of color filter (CF) glass ● This is “on cell”  allows integration with display ● Requires two-sided CF processing, which reduces yield  Fully embedded in display ● This is “in-cell”  most difficult integration ● This isn’t actually projected capacitive

41 Projected Capacitive…8

 Options (ITO-based )  Top surface treatment (AR, AG, AF, AC, AB…)  Degree of indexing matching on ITO (invisibility)  Number of electrodes per inch (resolution)  Electrode patterns

 One more variation: Wires vs. ITO  Wires (10 microns): Visible, acceptable for intermittent use  ITO: Invisible, needed for continuous use  Wire-based uses slightly different concept (IP)  ITO-based pro-cap directly measures a change in capacitance  Wire-based pro-cap measures a change in RF signal frequency caused by a change in capacitance

42 Projected Capacitive…9

 Size range  2” to 100”+ ● ITO up to 32”; wires up to 100”+  Controllers  Key variable is number of electrodes (matrix size) ● Larger screens generally require multiple (ganged) controller chips  High signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) is a key characteristic  enables stylus use  Lots of innovation still happening, such as synchronization with LCD timing LG-Prada mobile phone with Synaptics’ projected-capacitive touch-screen; ● Three years from now pro-cap controllers launched 3 months before iPhone will be a commodity mostly supplied from Asia

43 Projected Capacitive…10

 Advantages  Very durable (protected sensor)  High optical quality (ITO)  Unlimited multi-touch  Unaffected by debris or contamination  Enables “zero-bezel” industrial design  Works with curved substrates (on PET)  Disadvantages  Finger or tethered pen only (changing now!)  High cost (dropping as usage increases)  Challenging to integrate due to noise sensitivity

44 Projected Capacitive…11

 Applications  Consumer devices ● Mobile phones ● Tablets, netbooks, notebooks, AiOs ● Almost any consumer device  Vertical-market devices

● Signature-capture & other POS terminals Source: Mildex ● “Through-glass” interactive retail signage

 Market share

2010 Demy Revenue 67% Digital Volume 52% Recipe Reader (CES 2010)

Source: Verifone

45 Projected Capacitive…12

 Business models  Sensor company buys controller, sells module ● Example = TPK  Controller company buys sensor, sells module ● Example = Synaptics  Module company buys sensor and controller, sells module ● Example = ?  Display manufacturer builds sensor into display, buys controller, and sells touch-display ● Example = AUO

46 Projected Capacitive…13

 Suppliers  Sensors (only) ● Cando (part of AUO Group), Sintek Photronics, other former color-filter manufacturers, former STN LCD manufacturers (total number = ?)  Controllers (only) ● Atmel, Cypress, Maxim, Avago, Pixcir, Sitronix, EETI, SIS, Melfas, Broadcom, Texas Instruments, and >5 more…  Modules ● TPK (biggest), Wintek, Synaptics, Nissha, Panjit, Digitech, CMI, Young Fast, Touch International, and >20 more  Supplier countries  Taiwan, USA, China, Japan, Korea, UK, Israel, New Zealand…

47 Projected Capacitive…14

 Market trends  Device OEMs’ desire for multi-touch is a key driving force, along with durability and high optical performance  Extremely rapid sales growth worldwide  Rapidly increasing number of suppliers  Rapidly dropping prices  Massive capacity expansion (Apple is using 60% today)  TPK’s amazing growth may change structure of industry  Applications broadening beyond consumer electronics (verticals)  Starting to see a few small-order suppliers  Pro-cap has overtaken analog resistive, ending a 40-year reign  Continued maturation – name has changed to just “capacitive”

48 Surface Capacitive

Source: 3M

Tail

Scratch-resistant top coat

Hard coat with AG

Electrode pattern

Conductive coating (ATO, ITO or TO) Source: Elo TouchSystems Glass

Optional bottom shield (not shown)

Source: 3M

50 Surface Capacitive…2

 Variations  Rugged substrate  Size range  6.4” to 32”  Controllers  3M, Hampshire, eGalax, Digitech and Billabs (ISI)  Advantages Source: 3M  Excellent drag performance with extremely smooth surface  Much more durable than analog resistive  Resistant to contamination  Highly sensitive

Source: Billabs

51 Surface Capacitive…3

 Disadvantages  Finger-only (or tethered pen)  Calibration drift  Susceptible to EMI (no mobile use)  Moderate optical quality (85% - 90% transmissivity)  Applications  Regulated (casino) gaming  Kiosks  ATMs

 Market share 2010

Revenue 4% Source: 3M Volume <1%

52 Surface Capacitive…4

 Suppliers  3M, DanoTech, Elo TouchSystems, EELY, DigiTech, eTurbo, Optera, Touch International, Higgstec…  16+ suppliers (dominated by 3M)  Market trends  Surface capacitive isn’t growing with the touch market ● No multi-touch capability; other significant disadvantages ● Casinos (major market) are starting to experiment with other touch technologies  Price is dropping due to Taiwanese and Chinese suppliers who entered the market after 3M’s key patent expired

53 A New Spin: Wacom’s RRFC Surface Capacitive Technology  How it works  AC voltage on 2 adjacent corners; DC voltage on the other 2 corners  Creates a linear voltage AND a ramp- shaped electrostatic field on surface  Controller switches signals around all 4 corners, creating 4 ramp fields vs. single flat field in standard capacitive  Current flow is measured in each case  Resulting signal representing touch event is independent of all capacitance effects except those due to finger touch  Source: Wacom Controller does additional digital signal (Trademark = CapPLUS) processing to compensate for factors  RRFC = Reversing Ramped that affect accuracy and drift Field Capacitive

54 Wacom’s RRFC Technology…2

 Advantages  Solves all the problems of traditional surface capacitive ● Works in mobile & stationary devices (10” to 32” now; 46” capable) ● Unaffected by grounding changes, EMI, variations in skin dryness & finger size, temperature, humidity, metal bezels, etc. ● Works through latex or polypropylene gloves ● Allows 4X thicker hardcoat for improved durability ● Screen works outdoors in rain and snow  Uses same ASIC as Wacom’s EMR pen digitizer, so dual-mode input is lower cost & more efficient (e.g., in Tablet PC)  Disadvantages  No multi-touch  Sole-source supplier

55 Surface Acoustic Wave

Source: Kodak

Glass substrate

Source: A-Touch (45°)

Rayleigh wave

Source: Onetouch

57 Surface Acoustic Wave…2

Source: Elo TouchSystems

58 Surface Acoustic Wave…3

 Variations  Ruggedization, dust-proofing, surface treatments, etc.  Size range  6” to 52” (but some integrators won’t use it above 32”)  Controllers  Proprietary  Advantages  Clear substrate (high optical performance)  Very durable  Can be vandal-proofed with tempered or CS glass  Finger, gloved hand & soft-stylus activation

59 Surface Acoustic Wave…4

 Disadvantages  Very sensitive to any surface contamination, including water  Requires “soft” (sound-absorbing) touch object  Can be challenging to seal  Relatively high activation force (80g typical)  Projects slightly above touch surface (1 mm) so can’t be flush  Applications  Kiosks  Gaming  Market share 2010 Revenue 3% Volume <1% Source: Euro Kiosks Network

60 Surface Acoustic Wave…5

 Suppliers  Elo TouchSystems, General Touch, Shenzhen Top-Touch, Leading Touch, Shenzhen KeeTouch…  10+ suppliers  Market trends  Multi-touch SAW is now available from two suppliers  SAW price is dropping due to Taiwanese and Chinese suppliers who entered the market after Elo TouchSystem’s key patent expired  SAW’s growth is matching the market

61 Surface Acoustic Wave…6

 Multi-touch SAW from Elo/Tyco Electronics  Shipping in the 23” Lenovo A700 all-in-one desktop

2-finger vertical lines

2-finger diagonal lines

Source: Lenovo

Source: Photos by author “There is no perfect touch technology” 62 Surface Acoustic Wave…7 7

 How two touches are supported by SAW

Diagonal reflectors for “third axis” data X & Y reflectors Source: US Patent Application 2010/0117993 63 Traditional Infrared

Source: Elo TouchSystems

65 Traditional Infrared…2

 Variations  Bare PCA vs. enclosed frame; frame width & profile height; enhanced sunlight immunity; force-sensing  Size range  8” to 150”  Controllers  Mostly proprietary, except IRTouch  Advantages  Scalable to very large sizes  Multi-touch capable (2 touches, but with “ghost” points)  Can be activated with any IR-opaque object  High durability, optical performance and sealability  Doesn’t require a substrate

66 Traditional Infrared…3

 Multi-touch in traditional infrared  2+ touches  “Ghost” points are the problem, and there’s no good solution

Source: Author

67 Traditional Infrared…4

 Disadvantages  Profile height (IR transceivers project above touch surface)  Bezel must be designed to include IR-transparent window  Sunlight immunity can be a problem in extreme environments  Surface obstruction or hover can cause a false touch  Low resolution  High cost  Applications  POS  Kiosks  Large displays (digital signage)  Market share 2010 Revenue 1% Volume <1%

68 Traditional Infrared…5

 Selected suppliers  Elo TouchSystems, IRTouch, Minato, Nexio…  10+ suppliers  Market trends  Interest in IR is re-awakening as Asian vendors bring down prices, large displays become more common, and digital signage becomes more affordable  IR is growing, but isn’t keeping up with the market

50” plasma display with infrared touch-screen from Netrax

69 Traditional Infrared…6

Elo’s “XYU” multi-touch traditional infrared (two-touch version first shown in 2008; launch expected in 2011)

70 Traditional Infrared…7

 Special Case: Neonode mobile phone implemented with traditional IR touch (2009)  Same battery life as iPhone  Low profile height (~1.7mm)  Finger-only  No multi-touch  Neonode couldn’t Sony e-book compete in the readers (2010) Source: PC World phone market and went bankrupt; the

technology survived Source: Neonode & and is in Sony’s eReader Pen Computing

71 Significant Emerging Touch Technologies

 Embedded (In-Cell, On-Cell & Out-Cell)  Camera-Based Optical  Multi-Touch Resistive

Term Integration Method Fab Method In-Cell Touch sensor is physically inside the LCD cell Addition Touch sensor can be: to TFT • Light-sensing elements (light-sensing) process • Micro-switches (voltage-sensing) • Capacitive electrodes (charge-sensing) On-Cell Touch sensor is an array of ITO conductors Addition to on the top surface of the color filter substrate color filter • Capacitive (charge-sensing) process • Analog resistive (voltage-sensing) Out-Cell Standard touchscreen laminated directly on top of Addition to the LCD during manufacture module • Key difference: An additional piece of glass assembly • Typically only pro-cap or analog resistive process • New term coined by AUO – Some LCD manufacturers still refer to this configuration as “on-cell”

74 Four Different Technologies Used In Embedded Touch  Light-sensing or “optical”  Addition of a photo-sensing element into some or all pixels  Voltage-sensing or “switch-sensing”  Addition of micro-switches for X & Y into some or all pixels  Charge-sensing or “capacitive-sensing”  Addition of electrodes in-cell or on-cell for capacitive sensing  Analog resistive  Uses color filter glass as substrate for standard touch-screen

75 Who’s Working On What (January 2010)

Light- Voltage- Charge-Sensing Hybrid Charge LCD Manufacturer Sensing Sensing (in-cell or on-cell) & Voltage (in-cell) AUO     Chi Mei Innolux  CPT  HannStar  LG Display    NEC  Samsung     Seiko-Epson  Sharp   Sony  TMD 

= Primary = Secondary Bold = Most significant efforts

76 In-Cell Light-Sensing

Source: DisplaySearch  Principle  Photo-sensor in each pixel or group of pixels ● Visible-light sensor sees shadow of finger in bright light or reflection of backlight on finger in dim light ● Infrared-light sensor sees reflection of backlight  Works with finger or light-pen; can work as a scanner  Adding a cover-glass to protect the surface of the LCD reduces touch sensitivity because the finger is further away

77 In-Cell Voltage-Sensing

Source: Samsung

 Principle  Pressing LCD surface closes micro-switches in each pixel ● Similar principle as emerging multi-touch resistive  Requires touching the LCD surface (cannot add a cover glass)  Works with any touch object within damage limits of polarizer

78 In-Cell Charge-Sensing

Source: LG Display  Principle  Pressing the LCD changes the dielectric constant of the liquid crystal, which changes the capacitance between the electrodes  Works with finger or stylus; human body capacitance isn’t a factor  Requires touching the LCD surface (cannot add a cover glass)

79 Hybrid In-Cell Voltage & Charge- Sensing (Samsung hTSP)

VRef Column-  Principle spacer  Pressing the LCD… 2 sets CRef switch X-Y (X&Y) (1) Closes the column- per pixel Bias or group CLC spacer contacts, which of pixels Amplifier activates the circuit

VCom that measures a VOut change in capacitance

(2) Changes the dielectric constant of Blue pixel the liquid crystal, which changes the capacitance between the pixel electrodes

Source: Author Sensor signal line switch (X,Y) Source: Samsung

80 On-Cell Charge-Sensing

Source: Author  Principle  Projected-capacitive X-Y electrode array added on top of the color filter glass, under the top polarizer ● Same function as standard projected-capacitive  Works only with finger; human body capacitance changes mutual capacitance between electrodes  Cover-glass (0.5 mm) can be added on top of polarizer to protect LCD surface

81 On-Cell Analog Resistive

Source: Author  Principle  Analog resistive touch-screen added on top of the color filter glass, under the top polarizer ● Same function as standard analog resistive  Works with any touch object within damage limits of polarizer  Adding cover-glass (0.5 mm) on top of polarizer to protect LCD surface works but reduces touch-screen performance

82 Early Products with Embedded Touch…1  Samsung ST10 camera with 3-inch 480x320 (192 ppi) transflective TFT with hybrid in-cell touch (4/09)  First use of any in-cell touch in a commercial product  Works with finger or stylus, but with visible pooling  Surface hardness = low  Touch-screen includes electrostatic haptic feedback  Camera includes MP3, PMP & text-viewer functions  One sensor per 8 pixels (60x40 sensing matrix)

Source: Samsung

83 Early Products with Embedded Touch…2  Sharp’s PC-NJ70A netbook (5/09)  First use of light-sensing in-cell touch in a commercial product  Optical in-cell touch in 4” CG-silicon 854x480 touchpad LCD (245 dpi) ● 1 sensor per 9 pixels ● LED backlight ● Stylus & 2-finger multi-touch ● Scanning (shape recognition) ● Touch surface = ?? ● Japan-only; $815  Problems ● Need IR from backlight ● S L O W (25% of typical touchpad speed) Source: Sharp ● Short battery life

84 Early Products with Embedded Touch…3  Samsung ST550 camera with 3.5-inch 800x480 (267 ppi) transflective TFT with hybrid in-cell (8/09)

“Do not use other sharp objects, such as pens or pencils, “The touch screen to touch the may not recognize screen. Doing so your touches may damage correctly when: the screen.” ● You touch multiple items at the same time ● You use the camera in high-humidity environments ● You use the camera with an LCD protection “When you touch or drag on the film or another LCD screen, discolorations will occur. It is accessory” not a malfunction but a characteristic of the touch screen. Touch or drag lightly to reduce these annoying effects.”

Source: Samsung (from the User’s Guide)

85 Early Products with Embedded Touch…4  LGD’s 13.3” 1280x800 on-cell charge-sensing LCD (10/09)  Largest on-cell LCD ● 1 sensor per 4x4 pixels ● 10 gF activation force  Win-7 Touch Logo 2/10  Positioning ● High optical quality ● Sunlight readability (AR?) ● Preserving thinness ● Two-touch multi-touch

 Targeted at notebooks Source: LG Displays  Production in 2H-2010 (?)  Added price for touch Prototype of same function = ?? screen at SID 2009

86 Source: Photo by Geoff Walker Early Products with Embedded Touch…5  Samsung S8500 Wave mobile phone with Super OLED on-cell charge-sensing touch (2/10)  3.3-inch 800x480 (283 ppi) AMOLED  “Super OLED” is Samsung’s (weak) branding for on-cell touch  Sunlight readable ● AR coating & no touchscreen overlay

“Window” here refers refers to the cover glass that’s laminated on top of the display

Source: Samsung Source: Samsung booth graphic at 87 Mobile World Congress 2010 Early Products with Embedded Touch…6  Special case: Integrated Digital Technologies, Inc.

Source: IDTI Source: Photo by author  21.5” light-sensing in-cell monitor with IR light-pen  Supports two-touch with two pens  Backplane by Hannstar

88 Embedded Touch Characteristics…1  Advantages (summary)  Integration, size, thickness, weight, ID (touch is “invisible”)  Unlimited multi-touch (controller-dependent)  Conceptually high performance ● Low parallax error (assuming no cover glass) ● Very accurate & linear touch-point data ● Potentially higher resolution than LCD  Lower manufacturing cost

Source: AUO

89 Embedded Touch Characteristics…2  Disadvantages (summary)  Touching a black image doesn’t work in low ambient light (if the design uses only a visible-light sensor)  Can’t reliably detect touch over the full range of ambient  The sensor consumes too much of the pixel aperture  Unstable microswitch contact at the edge of the screen  The amount of processing power required by the touch function results in high power consumption in a mobile device  Liquid-crystal pooling can be visually distracting  Standard LCD polarizer is too soft for normal touch usage  Successful integration can be very difficult due to LCD noise  Lack of stylus support with on-cell limits some applications

90 Embedded Touch Characteristics…3  Size range  3” to 13.3” (current); potentially to mid-20”  Variations  Number of pixels per sensing element  Controller  Proprietary/TBD (potential problem)  Applications Source: Sharp  Mobile (cellphones, tablets, cameras, netbooks, notebooks)  Market share  Just starting  Suppliers  AUO, CMI, CPT, LGD, NEC, Samsung, Sharp, Sony, TMD…

91 Embedded Touch Characteristics…4  Trends  Light-sensing has the most unresolved problems ● No successful end-user products yet  Voltage-sensing isn’t getting any traction ● No successful products of any kind yet (IP restriction?)  Charge-sensing is where all the action is, mostly on-cell ● LGD’s 13.3” notebook LCD (on-cell) ● Samsung’s OLED cellphone (on-cell) ● Samsung’s in-cell hybrid in-cell voltage & charge-sensing cameras  Analog resistive has been shown in demos only so far  It is unlikely that LCD manufacturers will add embedded touch to an entire LCD product line; it will just be in high-volume products with a high demand for touch  Conclusion  It’s still early days – embedded touch has some distance to go

92 Camera- Based Optical

This picture was drawn on a 46" LCD equipped with a NextWindow optical touch-screen by a visitor to the AETI Exhibition in London on January 24, 2006. Source: NextWindow

94 Camera-Based Optical…2

 Variations  OEM  Bezel-integrateable  Strap-on (aftermarket)  Size range  15” to 120”  Controllers  Proprietary

Source: NextWindow

95 Camera-Based Optical…3

 Advantages HP TouchSmart all-in-one computer  Stylus independence Source: HP  Scalability to large sizes  Multi-touch (dependent on # of sensors)  Object size recognition  Low cost  Disadvantages  Profile height (~3 mm on a 19” screen)  The “unintended touch” problem  Screen rigidity requirement  Applications  Consumer touch monitors & AiOs (market leader)  Interactive digital signage & education

96 Camera-Based Optical…4

 Two touches with two cameras (current market focus) has two main limitations

Ghost touches Occlusions The quality of the touch experience depends on the sophistication of the algorithms that handle ghost touches and occlusions

97 Camera-Based Optical…5

 Market share 2010 Revenue 3% Volume <1%

 Suppliers  NextWindow, Quanta, Qisda, Lumio, Xiroku/eIT, Baanto, LGD, IRTouch, Sitronix Dell ST2220T Touch Monitor  Market event  NextWindow shipped more than 1M touchscreens in 2010 to the major PC OEMs ● Asus, Dell, HP, Lenovo, NEC, Samsung, Sony, etc.

98 Camera-Based Optical…6

 Market trends  Touch on the consumer desktop (i.e., in AiOs) has failed to take off due to lack of applications, which has limited the growth of camera-based optical  Camera-based optical touch is ideal for large-format, but… ● The interactive digital-signage market hasn’t emerged yet ● Interactive information on large screens is still a niche market ● The education market (whiteboards) has been slow to adopt optical because of entrenched resistive and electromagnetic technologies

99 Multi-Touch Resistive

Segmented type (for vertical applications) Opaque switch panel (the original purpose of digital resistive)

Multi- Touch Controller

Touch Sensor: Single-Layer (shown) or Two-Layer Matrix

Source: Apex 101 Multi-Touch Resistive…2

All Points Addressable (APA) type (competes with projected capacitive)

Multi-Touch

Source: Wintek 102 Analog Multi-Touch Resistive (AMR)…3  AMR (also called “hybrid analog-digital”)  Suppliers: eTurboTouch, Mildex, Mutto, EETI, ATouch…  Limited IP on concept  Number of touch points is controller-dependent (2-10)  Offered in 3” – 23”, but not actually in production in all sizes  Can’t touch with two fingers on the same square

Source: Author

103 Analog Multi-Touch Resistive (AMR)…4 Gateway ZX6910 AiO with 23” AMR touchscreen from eTurboTouch

Source: Photos by author Drawing parallel lines with two closely held fingers (squares are 13 x 15 mm)

“There is no perfect touch technology”

104 Analog Multi-Touch Resistive (AMR)…5 Actual Product

21.5” analog multi-touch resistive by eTurboTouch

28 x 17 lines = 17 mm x 16 mm squares (90 pins)

23” = 35 x 22 lines 15 mm x 13 mm (114 pins)

105 “Digital” Multi-Touch Resistive (DMR)…6  DMR (also called “digital matrix resistive”)  Stantum (in France) is primary IP holder  Stantum’s strategy is to license controller IP to IC manufacturers ● Sitronix ● ST Micro  Unlimited number of touch points  Aimed at tablets & smartphones  Fine pitch results in much

higher number of connections Source: Author than AMR Intel-Quanta ● 64 x 36 = 100 on 4.3” screen “Redvale” Tablet

Source: Stantum 106 “Digital” Multi-Touch Resistive (DMR)…7

9” slate digital resistive touchscreen by Stantum (SID 2009)

107 Multi-Touch Resistive…8

 Types (review)  Segmented, for vertical-market applications  All points addressable (APA), competes with pro-cap ● Analog (AMR) ● “Digital” (DMR)  Constructions  PET + Glass, PET + PET, etc. (same as analog resistive)  Options  Technically same variety as analog resistive, but less demand  Size range  3” – 25”  Controllers  AD Semi & others for analog type  Stantum (Sitronix & ST Micro) for digital type

108 Multi-Touch Resistive…9

 Advantages  Multi-touch  Simple & familiar resistive technology  Lower cost than pro-cap  Disadvantages (same as resistive)  Poor durability (PET top surface)  Poor optical performance  Non-zero touch force  Applications Multi-touch music  Mobile devices controllers (see US Patent  Market share Application  Just starting 2007-0198926

 Market trends Source: Jazz Mutant  Suppliers are gearing up to compete against pro-cap

109 Other Emerging Touch Technologies  Acoustic Pulse Recognition (APR)  Dispersive Signal Technology (DST)  Waveguide Infrared  Vision-Based  Force-Sensing  Electromagnetic Resonance (EMR) Pen Digitizer

Source: Elo TouchSystems

 Plain glass sensor with 4 piezos on the edges  Table look-up of bending wave samples (“acoustic touch signatures”)

Source: Elo TouchSystems

112 Acoustic Pulse Recognition (APR)…2  Variations  “Stationary APR” from 10” to 52” with controller board  “Mobile APR” from 2.8” to 10” with controller ASIC  Size range 2.8” to 52”  Controllers  Proprietary  Advantages  Works with finger, stylus or any other touch object  Very durable & transparent touch sensor  Resistant to surface contamination; works with scratches  Totally flush top surface (“Zero-Bezel”)  Very simple sensor (plain glass + 4 piezoelectric transducers)

113 Acoustic Pulse Recognition (APR)…3  Disadvantages  No “touch & hold”; no multi-touch (both are under development & may appear eventually)  Requires enough touch-force (tap) to generate sound  Control of mounting method in bezel is critical  Applications  POS, kiosks, gaming, mobile devices  Market share  <1% (first production in Elo monitors was at the end of 2006)  Supplier  Elo TouchSystems (sole source)  Market trends  Elo has begun shipping APR to mobile device OEMs

114 Acoustic Pulse Recognition (APR)…4

Elo’s “Zero-Bezel” APR with capacitive buttons & scroll-wheel in lower-right corner, all on a single sheet of glass (SID 2009)

115 Acoustic Pulse Recognition (APR)…5  APR and Sensitive Object  Elo/Tyco Electronics purchased Sensitive Object (www.sensitive- object.com) on 1/27/10 for $62M (wow!)  Sensitive Object’s technology is so similar to APR that the two companies cross-licensed in July, 2007

But it’s been more than a year and there’s no sign of any results from the acquisition…

Source: Sensitive Object 116 Dispersive Signal Technology (DST)

Source: 3M

 Plain glass sensor with 4 piezos in the corners

 Real-time analysis of bending waves in the glass (“time of flight” calculation)

Source: 3M

118 Dispersive Signal Technology…2

 Variations  None  Size range 32” to 46” (3M may expand into larger sizes)  Controller  Proprietary  Advantages  Very simple sensor (plain glass + 4 piezoelectric transducers)  Works with finger, stylus or any other touch object  Very durable & transparent touch sensor  Operates with static objects or scratches on the touch surface  Fast response; highly repeatable touch accuracy; light touch

119 Dispersive Signal Technology…3

 Disadvantages  No “touch & hold”; no multi-touch  Control of mounting method in bezel is critical  Applications  Interactive digital signage; point-of-information (POI)  Market share  < 1%  Supplier  3M (sole source)  Market trends  DST still has a relatively low market profile due to 3M’s very conservative rollout  3M avoids cannibalizing their surface-capacitive sales (<32”)  3M & Quanta working together on DST for mobile

120 APR vs. DST Technology Comparison Characteristic APR DST Notes Size range 2.8”-52” 32”-46” 3M surface capacitive is 5.7”-32” Methodology Table lookup Real-time Measurement Bending waves Bending waves Multi-touch Under Gestures 3M’s “multi-touch gestures” only development announced work with two moving points Touch & hold Under No development Activation force Moderate Light Controller Chip (mobile) Board (fixed) Board (fixed) Mounting Critical Critical Availability In monitors; In monitors Neither technology has reached components for the “drop-in touch-screen” mobile devices component state yet Others Similar Similar Performance, materials, surface treatment, interface, etc.

121 Waveguide Infrared

Source: RPO

Principle

Traditional Infrared

Source: RPO

123 Waveguide Infrared…2

RPO’s actual construction Substrate (3.5” screen) Parabolic reflector IR LED Light path (white)

Waveguides

Line-scan optical sensor Light path (uses TIR

Photo source: RPO; in substrate) annotation by author

124 Waveguide Infrared…3

 Variations  None  Size range  3” to 14”  Controller  Proprietary  Advantages  Much lower cost than traditional IR Source: RPO  Very low profile height (0.5 mm)  Higher resolution (depending on waveguide channel width)  Much less pre-touch (IR is only 200µ above substrate)  Works with a finger, stylus or any other touch object  Object size recognition  Limited multi-touch

125 Waveguide Infrared…4

 Disadvantages  Can’t be scaled easily to large sizes (border width)  Power consumption  The “fly on the screen” problem (IR is only 200µ above substrate)  Applications  Mobile devices & automotive (maybe)  Market share  None  Suppliers  RPO (Australian startup; sole source)

126 Waveguide Infrared…5

 Market events  RPO… ● Announced IR optical-waveguide touch at SID 2007 ● Showed improved performance at SID 2008 ● Showed larger sizes at SID 2009 ● Appeared in a 13.3” LG Display notebook at SID 2010 ● Went into “voluntary administration” (liquidation) in April 2011  Market trends  RPO’s assets & intellectual property are now for sale

127 Vision- Based

Source: Perceptive Pixel

Principle (simplest version)

Multiple touch points; Image taken without a diffuser (Source: Perceptive Pixel)

Frustrated Total Internal Reflection (FTIR) Source: Perceptive Pixel

129 Vision-Based…2

Microsoft “Surface computing is about integrating the physical and virtual worlds through the use of vision-based touch” Surface (v1) Source: Information Display

Projector resolution 1024x768 ------Touch resolution 1280x960

1 – Screen with diffuser 5 2 – IR LED light source 3 – Four IR cameras 4 – DLP projector Source: Popular Mechanics 5 – Vista desktop

130 Vision-Based…3

 Variations  IR injected into the cover glass; touch points seen via FTIR  IR illuminates underside of cover glass; touch points reflect IR  Size range  As described, 30” and up  Substrates  Glass or acrylic  Advantages  Combination touch-screen and rear-projection screen  Alternative to IR and projected-capacitive for rear projection  Unlimited multi-touch (MS Surface spec is 52 touches max)

131 Vision-Based…4

 Disadvantages  As described, for use with rear-projection only  Finger-only (FTIR) or IR-reflecting object (Surface)  Applications  Interactive “video walls”; digital signage; high-end retail  Market share  << 1%  Suppliers  Microsoft (Surface)  Perceptive Pixel (Jeff Han’s famous videos)  GestureTek & others  “Build Your Own Multi-Touch Surface Computer” – Maximum PC magazine (4/09) www.maximumpc.com/print/5878 Source: NORTD

132 Vision-Based…5

 Market event  The emergence of Microsoft’s Surface v1 product as an actual, for-sale, shipping product rather than just a research platform  The announcement of Microsoft/Samsung’s Surface v2 product ● Shipment expected “by the end of 2011”  Market trends  Because a vision-based touch system can be assembled very easily, it’s the most common platform used for research  Interest in vision-based touch is rapidly increasing ● Google “touch table” for one view of related activity

133 Force Sensing

Source: Vissumo

 Principle  Suspend the touch-screen from force-sensors (strain gauges or piezos) such that movement is constrained to only the z-axis  Variations  IBM “TouchSelect”: Strain gauges Force sensor (4) (early 1990s, unsuccessful) Slot (4) Frame  Vissumo: “Beam-mounted” sensors (ran out of money in 2009)  F-Origin: “Monofilament-mounted” sensors (recovering after shrinking to just one person) Touch area  FloatingTouch: “Flexible adhesive (Vissumo’s design) pad” sensors (just starting up)  Size range  5”-48”

135 Force Sensing…2

Vissumo’s Amazing Demo Box 4 strain gauges supporting one Glass-covered LCD integrated into touch panel touch panel with “soft keys” printed on back of glass Raised, marble Irregularly shaped, touch surface raised, textured, with toggle wooden touch switches surface penetrating touch panel Motor attached to and penetrating touch panel with Multi-page printed speed “book” with control keys and touchable & push-pull control movable lever metal pages “Snap-dome” keys attached to touch panel; removable padded and textured keys; speaker attached with holes through the touch panel.

Source: Photo by author 136 Force Sensing…3

 Advantages  Complete substrate design freedom – no other touch technology can handle three-dimensional substrates with embedded moving objects  Disadvantages  No vibration under 10 Hz; no rapid-fire touches (>200 ms required between touches); no multi-touch (TBD)  Applications  3D architectural applications  Vertical-market applications  Market share  Zero (F-Origin’s undisclosed Source: Vissumodesign)

137 Force Sensing…4

 Market trends  Vissumo’s “architectural” focus (e.g., a 3D elevator control panel made of steel, glass & stone containing an embedded LCD with “soft keys” and a speaker) was strongly differentiated with some unique capabilities  One re-start (F-Origin) and one new startup (FloatingTouch) are tackling this technology again

138 Electromagnetic Resonance (EMR) Pen Digitizer

Source: Wacom

Pressure-sensitive Source: Wacom capacitor (CTip) CSid Cordless pen CMai e Coil (L) without battery L n Side CTi switc p h Pen equivalent circuit Sensor grid schematic Transmitted RF Received RF LCD Sensor grid (10µ copper)

many wires

Serial/USB Controller interface chipset 5-8 wires to host Source: Wacom

140 EMR Pen Digitizer…2

 Variations  Sensor substrate (rigid FR4 vs. flexible 0.3 - 0.6 mm PET)  Pen diameter (3.5 mm “PDA pen” to 14 mm “executive” pen)  Size range 14”  2” to 14”  Controllers 2”  Proprietary Controller for 10.4”  Advantages Source: Wacom  Very high resolution (1,000 dpi)  Pen “hover” (mouseover = move cursor without clicking)  Sensor is behind LCD = high durability & no optical degradation  Batteryless, pressure-sensitive pen Single controller can run both pen digitizer & pro-cap finger touch

141 EMR Pen Digitizer…3

 Disadvantages  Electronic pen = disables product if lost; relatively expensive  Difficult integration requires lots of shielding in mobile computer  Sensor can’t be integrated with some LCDs  Single-source = relatively high cost  Applications  Tablet PCs  Opaque desktop graphics tablets  Integrated tablet (pen) monitors  E-book readers  Smartphones… but zero traction Wacom “Bamboo” Tablet  Market share  100% share in Tablet PCs ● Failed challengers: FinePoint/InPlay, Aiptek, Acecad, KYE, Synaptics, UC-Logic, Wintime  Majority share in graphics tablets & tablet monitors

142 EMR Pen Digitizer…4

 Suppliers  Wacom, Hanvon, Waltop, UC-Logic/Sunrex  Market trends  Microsoft significantly de-emphasized the pen in Windows 7, so Wacom is selling into Tablet PCs against a headwind  Pen in general is undergoing a lessening of importance ● iPhone and many imitators ● Tablet PCs still a niche ● iPad… doesn’t have a pen!  E-book readers are a natural E-Ink 9.7” Prototype fit IF annotation is important… EMR Kit

143 Comparing Touch Technologies

Touch Technologies

)

) )

)

rge

Charge

Cha Voltage Light Resistive Cell (

- Cell ( Cell ( Cell (

- - -

Touch On

ulti LCD LCD In LCD In LCD In Force Sensing DST APR Optical Waveguide IR Traditional IR SAW Projected Capacitive Surface Capacitive M Application Example Analog Resistive Kiosk Point of Info (POI) Museum information O X O X O O X O O O X X X X X Kiosk Commerce Digital photo printing O X O O O X X X O O X X X X X Kiosk Ruggedized Gas pump X X O O O O X X X X O X X X X Point of Sale (POS) Restaurant; lottery O X O O O O X X O X O X X X X Office Automation Office monitor O X O X O X X X X X X X X X X Industrial Control Machine control O O O X O O X X X X O X X X X Medical Equipment Medical devices O X X O O X X X O X X X X X X Healthcare Patient info monitor O X X X O X X X O X X X X X X Military Fixed & Mobile Submarine console O X O X X O X X X X X X X X X Training & Conference Boardroom display O X X X O O X O X O X X X X X Legal Gaming Casino machine X X O X X X X X X X X X X X X Amusement Gaming Bar-top game X X O X O X X X O X X X X X X In-Vehicle GPS navigation O X X O X X O X X X X X X X X ATM Machine ATM machine X X O O O O X X X X X X X X X Mobile Device Smartphone O O X O X X O X O X O O O O O Appliance Refrigerator door O X X O X X X X O X X X X X X Architectural Elevator control X O X X X X X X X X O X X X X Consumer AiO & Monitor HP TouchSmart O X X X O X X O X X X X X X X Music Controller Jazz Mutant O O X O X X X X X X X X X X X Digital Signage Thru-window store X X X O O O X O O O X X X X X

145 13 Usability Characteristics

Touch Technologies

)

There is… )

Charge

Light Voltage ) Charge

Cell ( -

Cell ( Cell ( Cell (

- - -

Touch Resistive On

Desirable Characteristic ulti - Analog Resistive M Surface Capacitive Projected Capacitive SAW Traditional IR Waveguide IR Optical APR DST Force Sensing LCD In LCD In LCD In LCD Usability Touch with any object H H L L M H H H H H H M M M L No unintended touch H H H H H L L L H H H H H H H Multi-touch L H L H M M M M L L L H H H H Touch & hold H H H H H H H H L L H H H H H High durability L L M H H H H H H H H M L L H High sensitivity (light touch) M M H H M H H H M H L H H H H Fast response & drag M M H H M M H H M H L L H M M Stable calibration M H L H H H H H H H H H H H H Very smooth surface L L H M M M M M M M M M L L M No liquid crystal pooling H H H H H H H H H H H H L L H Resistant to contaminants H H M H L M L M H H H L L L H Works in rain, snow & ice H H L H L L L L L L H L L L H Works with scratches L L M H H H H H M H H L L L H

146 13 Performance Characteristics

Touch Technologies

)

) )

) no perfect…

Charge

Charge Voltage Light Resistive

Cell ( - Cell ( Cell ( Cell (

- - - Touch On

ulti LCD LCD In LCD In LCD In Force Sensing DST APR Optical Waveguide IR Traditional IR SAW Projected Capacitive Surface Capacitive M Desirable Characteristic Analog Resistive Performance High optical performance L L M M H H H H H H H H H H M High resolution H M H H M L H H M M L M H L H High linearity H H M M M M H M M M H H H H M High accuracy & repeatability H M M H H M H M M M H H H H H Low power consumption H H L M L L M M H L H H L M M Insensitive to vibration H H H H H H H H H M L H H H H Insensitive to EMI & RFI H H L L H H H H H H H L L L M Insensitive to ambient light H H H H H M H M H H H L H H H Insensitive to UV light L L H H H H H H H H H H M M H Touch-object size recognition L M L H L L H H L L L M H M H Measures Z-axis L L L M M L L L L L H L L L M Handwriting recognition H M L M L L M H L L L M H L M Works with bi-stable reflective H H L H L L M L H L L M L L H

147 13 Integration Characteristics

Touch Technologies

)

) )

touch )

technology!

Charge

(Burma Shave) Light Voltage Charge

Resistive

Cell ( - Cell ( Cell ( Cell (

- - - Touch

- On

ulti

Desirable Characteristic Analog Resistive M Surface Capacitive Projected Capacitive SAW Traditional IR Waveguide IR Optical APR DST Force Sensing LCD In LCD In LCD In LCD Integration Substrate independence M M L H L H H H L L H L L L L Scalable M L M H M M L H H H H L L L L Easy integration H M L L M M M H L L M H H H H Flush surface (low profile) M M M H M L M L H H M H M M H Narrow border width H M M H L L M L H H M H H H H Thin and light H H L H L L M L L L L H H H H Easy to seal H H H H L M M L H H M M L L M Can be vandal-proofed L L M H H M M L H H H L L L L Works on curved surface M M L H L L L L L L H H L L H Can be laminated to LCD H H H H M M H H L L L H H H H HID (Plug & Play) interface L L L L L L L H L H L L L L L Simple controller H M L L L L M M M L H L H M M Controller chip available H H L H H L H L H L H L L L L

148 Conclusions

Source: CG4TV

149 www.imsresearch.com © Copyright 2010 IMS Research There Is No Perfect Touch Technology! Major Technology Advantage Major Flaw Analog (single-touch) Resistive Low cost Low durability Multi-Touch Resistive Multi-touch Low durability Surface Capacitive Touch sensitivity High drift Projected Capacitive Multi-touch Finger-only Surface Acoustic Wave Durability Soft touch object Traditional Infrared Reliability High cost Waveguide Infrared Low cost Contamination Camera-Based Optical Scalability Profile height Acoustic Pulse Recognition Any touch-object No touch & hold Dispersive Signal Technology Any touch-object No touch & hold Force-Sensing 3D substrate Vibration Vision-Based Multi-touch Rear projection LCD In-Cell (Light-Sensing) Integration Sensitivity LCD In-Cell (Voltage-Sensing) Integration Durability LCD In-Cell (Charge-Sensing) Integration Durability LCD On-Cell (Charge-Sensing) Integration Finger-only

150 A Prediction of Which Technologies Will Win in the Next Five Years

Winning Runner-Up Application Technology Technology Automotive Analog Resistive Projected Capacitive Casino Gaming Projected Capacitive Surface Capacitive Consumer AiOs Projected Capacitive Camera-Based and Monitors Optical Consumer Tablets Projected Capacitive Multi-Touch & Notebooks Resistive Interactive Camera-Based Traditional Infrared Digital Signage Optical Kiosks Surface Acoustic Surface Capacitive Wave Mobile Devices Projected Capacitive Analog Resistive POS Terminals Analog Resistive Traditional Infrared

151 Suggested Reading on Touch

http://www.informationdisplay.org/pastissue.cfm

March 2011

March 2010

December 2007

December 2006

152 Thank You! Geoff Walker [email protected] +1 408-945-1221 office +1 408-506-7556 mobile

File Download: www.walkermobile.com/SID_2011_Short_Course_S4.pdf

IMS Research Europe IMS Research USA IMS Research China IMS Research Taiwan IMS Research Korea 3-5 Huxley Close, 3301 Northland Drive, Room 605, Tower B, 6F-1, No.8, Lane 18, Room 350 Wellingborough, Suite 400, Orient Intl. Plaza, Sec.1, Yunghe Rd Gangbyeon Metro Center Northants, Austin, TX 78731 85 Lou Shan Guan Road, YungHe City, 234, Seongjin Bldg. 3F, 593-15 NN8 6AB, England USA Shanghai, 200336, PRC Taipei, Taiwan Guui-3-dong, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul, Korea 143-831 T: +44 1933 402 255 T: +1 512 302 1977 T: +86 21 6270 1823 T: +886 939 842 065 T: +82 70 8661 2035 F: +44 1933 402 266 F: +1 512 302 1844 F: +86 21 6270 1833 F: +82 2 6925 3810