Kodak's P520 digiframe touts Quick Touch Border for off-screen flicking

We can all agree that touchscreens are pretty much the best thing ever, right? Good. Can we also agree that fingerprints on said screens are patently awful? Marvelous. Apparently Kodak is right in tune with us, as its 5-inch P520 digital photo frame enables owners to flick through photos without actually greasing up the LCD. The secret is the "Quick Touch Border," a sensitive side panel that lets viewers slide their finger to move to the next photo. From what we can garner, that's about all this thing really has going for it, but if that's plenty for you, look for it next month at around $79.95.

[PRC. @ Aug 22nd 2008 10:20AM]

You know what also sucks about touchscreens? You have to move your finger in real-space (not a word, but think about "real-time" and you understand). With a mouse, I can move my hand an inch and my cursor will move across an entire 17" screen. With a touchscreen, it either has to have flick capabilities (not always feasible) or I have to move 17 inches...

[beamerboy625 @ Aug 22nd 2008 11:21AM]

No offense, but it sounds like you're really lazy then.

[jupiterthunder @ Aug 22nd 2008 1:44PM]

@beamerboy

That's a lot better gripe that some of the other crap we see posted here, like double tapping vs tap and hold. Both would have merits based on what the individual sees as a better UI, but both are pretty trivial, IMO.

[TIMMAH! @ Aug 22nd 2008 12:44PM]

And of course they make the border white because fingers don't leave dirt marks or anything...

[BK @ Aug 22nd 2008 12:46PM]

I had one of these. The interface is interesting, but the GUI is horrible. Plus even after regular use, you still have the inclination to press on the screen.

[killermojo @ Aug 22nd 2008 12:54PM]

I saw one of these when I was shopping around for a frame two weeks ago. It's a cool concept, reminded me of the iRiver Clix.

[Harry Wagstaff @ Aug 22nd 2008 12:58PM]

Surely the point of a touchscreen is that you press directly on a certain part of the image? Why not just use those archaic features found on old tech - buttons?

[jupiterthunder @ Aug 22nd 2008 1:46PM]

Yep. This is like the anti-touchscreen touchscreen. No point in having a touch screen if you are not going to touch it.

I know, they could put tear-offs on it like NASCAR windshields and visors. Gets to dirty, rip it off. When you run out, put some more on.