Talk:Computer mouse/Archive 3

Problems with Right Click

 * I stripped a strange technical user support Q/A about right mouse buttons from here, but have preserved this question, for now Seblopedia (talk) 11:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC) :

PS: a note to all editors, I had once proposed a "right-click disabling" section for this article, describing how abusive and control-stripping it can be to the casual user, but it was removed on the grounds of, if I recall, being POV vs DRM schemes, or not directly related to the "mouse" article, which seems kinda strange... Can't it be brought back in a watered down version? EpiVictor 10:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps if written in the context of application content-specific mouse behaviour? I think it is a GUI issue, not specifically a mouse issue, but potentially I can see interest in how generally a GUI manages the mouse and it's basic operations, which allow application-specific functions, which in turn allow application content/document specific functionality. If someone could make this comprehensible to grandma (which should be the goal of an article with such broad appeal as this) it could actually be interesting and no doubt answer the questions of many perplexed mousers! I'm not proposing to do this myself. I'm no software engineer! Any interest? Seblopedia (talk) 11:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

laser mouse from Sun
In the article is talked about Sun releasing in 1998 a laser mouse. Is there a source for this information? All sources I found are saying, that the Logitech mouse from 1994 is the first laser mouse. -- 88.72.248.15 12:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I had the "luck" of using older Sun workstations up to 2001, and they were equipped with some sort of primitive LED or laser mouse, which however worked only on a special metallic mousepad with a printed grille pattern, and was completely blind on any other surface. Anyway, the problem is that the distinction between "high power LEDs" and "laser" tends to be somehow blurred, and most consumer-grade laser equipments actually use the former rather than "true" coherent light laser leds. EpiVictor 14:06, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. -- Dishayloo 05:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I was using a Sun optical mouse in 1996 for a Sun Sparcstation. The article's 1998 is incorrect.Dgmartin98 06:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The "primitive LED or laser mouse" came as early as Sun2 (or possible earlier), i.e. the second Sun released in 84 or so, so it for sure was much earlier, but all is WP:OR no matter how correct :-(. OK used google, see UNIX World 1984 Oct not sure if the picture is good enough, can not find anything in the text of the article? But this states optical mouse, i.e. probanly not laser, but LED something. Think the page needs to be cleared up when it comes to difference between laser and LED or just talk about optical mouse, I'm not sure if the 98 'laser' mouse from Sun is any different from the 84 version, and if the LED version only works on the special metallic pad but the 98 version does not, then this should be explained, but I do not know. --Stefan talk 01:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Sun 2 used the Mouse Systems LED mouse designed by Steve Kirsch, with a few exceptions. Dicklyon (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Care
The rundown of types is great fun, and even useful. The game section doesn't feel like it belongs, or at least the details should be in another article. What's missing is advice on keeping your mouse clean. Many home users ask me as an "expert" what they should buy to replace their balky mouse. I teach them how to pull the lint off the chopper wheel. Jim.henderson 09:38, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Fanatec Heäd$h0t
I feel that this odditity needs some worthy mention. It shows how far companies will go to differtiate a product like a mouse that performs such a basic i/o fucntion.

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2024731,00.asp http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/05/fanatec-head-h0t-gaming-mouse-reviewed/ --68.207.206.69 08:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Motion Sensing (XYZ)
Also worth mentioning are Gyration (Brand)gyroscopic mice and other mice that use three Axis (acceleration) sensors to detect position.
 * http://www.gyration.com/en-US/GyroTech.html
 * http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/27/six-axis-controller-constructed-from-three-mice/--68.207.206.69 08:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Performance Statistics
There is no mention of what all those statistics mean on the back of a mouse box except for the DPI. The box also talks about some other stats, and I (and probably a few other people) want to know what they mean and how they affect performance. The other stats are: FP, MOPS, and CMOS size. I don't know what FP means. MOPS apparently means million operations per second, which I guess would determine how fast it realizes there's a change in its position. The CMOS size, if it's the same thing that Wikipedia lists, is just the size of some chip and well...what the hell does that have to do with the performance?!

Yeah, I got a mouse for Christmas. :P68.211.224.34 22:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Who uses imperial in wikipedia? 80 inches/sec? i propose deletion

--70.68.43.50 02:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Going on a cleanup
Hello people! I've decided this article needs a bit of a cleanup, so I'll work on it over the next few days (I'm bored on holiday). If anyone would care to help, I'd be much obliged. To do Mouse Nightshirt 13:43, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Find references for statements and delete any that have no references available.
 * Remove weasel words and ambiguous statements.
 * Fill out the history as per the FAC Peer Review.
 * Cleanup paragraphs and general tidy.
 * Good idea. Here's a link to a paper of mine that you might want to use: PDF. Dicklyon 17:22, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll keep an eye at it and help if I can (I did a cleanup a while ago but it takes really few time for an article to become a mess :-. Could you please list the above issues with a todo template? &mdash; Gennaro Prota &#8226;Talk 18:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Nightshirt, please, try limiting the number of edits (for instance by first working on a subpage of your user page). It becomes pretty much impossible to follow that editing rate. &mdash; Gennaro Prota &#8226;Talk 22:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Merge Proposal
Further to the improvement drive for this article, I propose that Trackball be merged into this article for the following reasons:
 * A Trackball is a reasonably common form of mouse, and should therefore be part of this article
 * Little mention of a trackball mouse has been included in this article

Please indicate your support or opposition to this article below. Thanks. Mouse Nightshirt 22:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Voting

 * Support — For above reasons. Mouse Nightshirt 22:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose — The light pen, joystick, and trackball are pointing devices with histories pre-dating the mouse; they should be treated separately; e.g. see this 1968 book. It would make sense to survey the field in a pointing devices article, though. Dicklyon 22:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose &mdash; Gennaro Prota &#8226;Talk 22:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per above. ffm  yes? 14:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments
A trackball is not a form of a mouse. It has been said, however, that a ball mouse is a form of a trackball, just turned upside down. Dicklyon 22:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose that's fair enough. I was under the impression that they were mice, but I'm wrong. My bad! Mouse Nightshirt 22:34, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I closed this off, removing the merge tags. Dicklyon 00:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Mouse with a stick
IBM made a mouse with a Pointing stick between the two buttons- before Microsoft and Logitech introduced the tilt wheel.

The image labled 4 button mouse is an Apple mouse that does not have four buttons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.136.145.234 (talk) 08:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC).

Microsoft incompatible Mouse Systems Corporation
It seems that for serial mice, incompatibility happened. Mouse Systems Corporation had a popular version/protocol, 5 bytes supporting 3 buttons. Microsoft pushed an incompatible 3-byte 2-button protocol, and the world ended up with mice with mode switches (PC=MSC, MS=MS). But for PS/2 it seems like there was an original protocol, 3-byte 3-button, that was just extended in various compatible ways, with no incompatible Mouse Systems Corporation version. *** Still trying to figure out what this means for mice that can be used as both PS/2 and serial - it seems like PC=MSC mode should therefore not be used when connected as PS/2 -- but then, are the mice somehow smart enough to send all 3 buttons in MS PS/2 mode, even though in MS serial mode they can only send 2 buttons?-69.87.203.252 14:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

page too long
This page is over 50KB long. I think it should be split up into multiple articles that link heavily to each other. Pages this long make it hard to find what you are looking for. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.153.117.118 (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC).


 * 50K bytes is not generally considered so long that a split is needed. But if you think it would help, propose a new organization and we can comment on it. Dicklyon 00:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Portable mouse
Removed this image from the article: There probably should be a section on portable mice, and this image can be used there. --Anss123 09:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed factoids
I took out a bunch of things tagged since Feb.07 with citation needed tags. If you can find support for any of these, feel free to put them back, with references. Dicklyon 16:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Full mechanical do (or did) exist, rendered obsolete by opto-mechanical (the correct designation of all current "ball mice"), still hunting for text or picture of one of these awful devices.... best so far is a VERY thin reference to it having contacts "The z-nix mouse tends to skip -- I have adjusted the contacts inside it more than once" - in fact, I may still have one of those in my junkbox - would a picture of the guts be reference or OR? Ace of Risk (talk) 13:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I see no evidence that referring to opto-mechanical mice as "mechanical" is incorrect; on the contrary, it seems pretty standard. Dicklyon (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps not now, since the only mechanical mice are all opto-mechanical and the better quality replacements are optical or Laser, but in the period before that, when the mouse was first popularized by Windows, the opto-mechanical was the better replacement for the mechanical in the same way that optical is now displacing opto-mechanical. Ace of Risk (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Invert mouse setting
Some games don't have this setting, but many gamers are used to it, so they cannot play such games or end up with a twisted brain :) - there is a solution for windows, a special filter driver for inverting or rotating the axes. This driver is also good for some people with disabilities or for special needs. I would like to see it mentioned in the article, but maybe that's not allowed? Here is the link: http://www.maf-soft.de/mafmouse/ 212.184.95.238 08:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the resource, but I think that link may run into problems. In general, links in question usually need to be stable or recognised as a significant source, something which a personal website might not meet.  For more information, see WP:EL.  --Sigma 7 03:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Invention of the Mouse
The first practical mouse, with simultaneous 2-axis movement, patented and actually commercialized was created by Swedish inventor Haakan Lans.

Houston Instruments released it by the name of Houston Instruments HIpad. He should definitely be mentioned here.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanmejgom (talk • contribs) 18:07, 16 August 2007


 * How about a good reference we could use to write it up? Dicklyon 01:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't bother. What Håkan Lans invented was a graphics tablet. // Liftarn


 * Then he should be mentioned on the graphics tablet page, no? Dicklyon 15:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * If we find a source. What he did was sold as HiPad by Houston Instruments. // Liftarn

Seems as if Xerox was not the first do offer a comercial mouse. See http://www.heise.de/newsticker/Auf-den-Spuren-der-deutschen-Computermaus--/meldung/136901. So Bill English was definitly not the inventor of the ball mouse! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.86.48.189 (talk) 09:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to add a source in english that describes the Telefunken "Rollkugel". http://www.oldmouse.com/mouse/misc/telefunken.shtml describes the ball mouse design and the publication (1968) is earlier than the stated Bill English invention (1972). Also, it was available as a peripherial device to the Telefunken TR 86 workstation prior to the mentioned "The first marketed integrated mouse" from xerox. 129.69.215.20 (talk) 10:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There is an article with some more details about the Telefunken Mouse: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Auf-den-Spuren-der-deutschen-Computermaus-216255.html (German) //bl —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.17.165 (talk) 10:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

There does not seem to be any mention of the "grid mouse", the mouse that used a special mouse pad (square metal plate) that had a grid pattern on it (the mouse not very accurately "read" the grid). I think I still have an example somewhere. 70.95.95.235 (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how this fits in with this article, but BusinessWeek claims James Sachs "holds the patent on the Mac mouse" through his work with IDEO -- http://www.businessweek.com/cgi-bin/ebiz/ebiz_frame.pl?url=/ebiz/9907/em0728.htm -- Mecandes (talk) 05:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * That would be this patent: RE32633. Basically they patented the removable ball, a cheap plastic frame, and the way to use it select commands from menus.  Dicklyon (talk) 05:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Heated Mice and Air Con mice
Companies also make heated computer mice and air con ones, should these be included or would they be considered to much of an advert for the companies since they aren't widely avalible? Million_Moments 20:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Earlier trackball
What about a mention of the trackball used by the Canadian Navy in their DATAR system? This was essentially an upside-down mouse and predates other "first" mice. Matt 02:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * How about a source? Dicklyon 03:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * http://ieee.ca/millennium/fp6000/fp6000_datar.html Here is a thesis mentioning it and it even has a picture Matt 03:49, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent; not a mouse, but a relevant precursor to the ball mouse. Do you know the author John Vardalas?  Maybe he could give us permission to use the picture, here or on trackball (which already mentions DATAR).  Why don't you go ahead and add something about it, with ref? Dicklyon 06:47, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Dreamcast Mice
The Sega Dreamcast should be added as a console with official mouse support. --Super Buick (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Stationary Mouse?
What about the stationary mouse? Needs to be included! 67.129.237.215 (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

REMOVE the image of a mouse next to a blueberry and Ferrero Rocher...
This easily qualifies as one of Wiki's worst images, and whats more it's on a former featured article page. Seriously, whoever made this really didn't put too much time or effort into it, it detracts from the overall quality of the page and article has enough good quality images documenting it already. Can somebody please remove it? It's just plain s**t to be honest, look at it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamer112 (talk • contribs) 10:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:SOFIXIT, next time. Dicklyon (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Splitting article up
At 60k and with a page-long TOC, this article is getting unmanageable. Time to move to WP:SUMMARY format I think. Plenty of sections could have their own articles, such as history of the mouse, optical mouse or mouse in gaming. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's hear a bit more of a proposal before we do this. The guy who just started removed a bunch of stuff, invalidated references, left stuff unsourced, and didn't add a link on the disambig page to allow the removed stuff to be found.  Personally, I think removing the history part from the main article is a bad idea.  I'd rather see esoteric usage details moved out. Dicklyon (talk) 05:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon, I didn't remove the history part, I summarized it. You're right about the &lt;ref name=hawley/&gt; reference in the speed section (I hadn't seen the "ref name" syntax before) and the the disambiguation page, I read the style guidelines but didn't know exactly how to report the change, I thought referring it from the Technology section would suffice (I used the Isaac Newton article as a example).
 * We have different notions about what is the main relevant information about a mouse: you seem to think that it is how it's constructed, I think that what makes mouse important is how it's used in manipulating a user interface (not 'esoteric', but the very reason why mice exist). I agree that the Mice in gaming and Mice in the marketplace could be made less prominent, but not the other Applications of mice content.
 * Show me what I added that is unsourced and didn't exist previously in the article, the only new info I added was in the 'Button techniques' subsection (which you have destroyed in your revert, btw). Please propose what your ideal structure for the article should be, we need to get it balanced with the different aspects - but we can no longer delay splitting its content into other articles. Diego (talk) 09:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's OK that you have a different idea about the ideal organization, but it got to where it is by a long incremental process, so just respect that and bring up any major proposed re-org here before implementing it. I'm not sure what you mean by we can't delay splitting it; we certainly can; there's no urgency or requirement for splitting, but if you want to split it, make a split proposal.  Dicklyon (talk) 21:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * We "can't" delay it in the sense that "this article is 54Kb long, some browsers can have problems editing pages longer than 32Kb". The article is too bulky to edit or read, and has several sections that are not too relevant for a first reading (such as Mechanical or opto-mechanical, Power-saving in optical mice, Connectivity and communication protocols, most of Mouse speed, One, two or three buttons?, or Mice in gaming).
 * I suggest keeping just a brief historic introduction, brief description of the workings of ball and led mice (i.e. just the two major technologies), and a brief explanation of the use of mice as a pointing devices in GUIs. Everything else is too much detail when trying to explain "what a Computer mouse is", and should be relegated to subarticles - to be read only by those interested in that expanded knowledge. A guideline we can use to decide what can stay, could be: "Would a mainstream journalist be interested in reporting this to the non-technical public?".
 * My proposal is to create two such articles - one by all physical and related to mechanical design, the other for everything pertaining to humans - usability, number of buttons, gestures, marketing. Diego (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There's no rule, nor other good reason that I know of, to split articles over 32K. If you want a split, I'd suggest a mouse usage article to split out that content, and the details of the mouse as a device, including its history, together here.  I think your suggested criteria are wrong; this is an encyclopedia, and should be expected to go pretty deep. Dicklyon (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * There are rules for it in the Article_size and Summary_style sections. The main reason is not just a technical one, it's about the validity of the information structure of this article, which in its current form is done extremely poorly IMO. The reason why computer mice where invented is not elaborated until section 7 after more than 4500 words of nitpicking. Note that my criteria are not for which content to remove (since no content would be removed at all) but for which content to emphasize. The guideline explains it better than me:

... information about a topic should not all be contained in a single article since different readers have different needs;
 * many readers need just a quick summary of the topic's most important points (lead section),
 * others need a moderate amount of info on the topic's more important points (a set of multi-paragraph sections), and
 * some readers need a lot of detail on one or more aspects of the topic (links to full-sized separate articles).

The top or survey article should have general summary information and the more detailed summaries of each subtopic should be in daughter articles and in articles on specific subjects.


 * I of course agree that Wikipedia should be expected to go into deep detail, but not me nor style guidelines expect to do it in a single article. For a well balanced introduction of the significance of mice in computing, less stress should be put on the technical details of its manufacturing, and more on the role of this device in the greater scene of computer industry. This can't be done by moving mouse usage to a secondary area, given that mouse usage is why mice are notable at all. Diego (talk) 10:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

P.S.- As a practical showcase of what I intend, I have promoted the Etymology and Applications sections, to display more prominently their relevance that IMHO they should have to comply with the guidelines (about supporting the different needs of readers). Diego (talk) 10:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So, if there's no more commentary, I'm going to proceed and split the article by adding two dependant subarticles - one for technology and one for details of use. Diego (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You since you've gotten no support for the idea, just opposition? Dicklyon (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you didn't give feedback to my last suggestion, and I *do* have support from the people that introduced the split tag in the first place (and from Wikipedia style guidelines). If you are still opposed, I suggest asking for a third opinion. Diego (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Third opinions
Wikipedia is not paper, so if there is enough material (and sources) to create spinoff articles, that effort should not be put in question. I would suggest these editors that want to create spinoff articles, to start a sandbox in their user:Talk namespace, and when ready, present their work to others and reach consensus about moving them to article namespace followed by a summary in the main article, if appropriate. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

To me it seems plausible that --EnOreg (talk) 05:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * the first focus of the article should be the use of the mouse, the mechanical implementations can follow later, and
 * the article is bulky to a point that a split is a good idea while preserving all the information.


 * I agree with EnOreg. I would preserve pretty much all of this info, but split it. The influence of mouses upon the world is fundamentally through their particular nature of conveying information from a human to a computer. Therefore usage is number one, both the fundamentals of it, and the day-to-day of it (which are well covered). A brief history of the mouse certainly adds to that fundamental story and to interest, as would mention of the plethora of mouse types, but there are historically too many types of mouses to relegate all to a single article. The history on this page should mainly relate to how the USAGE has changed, which I would suggest is actually is very little except in scale. Thus the history section of the main article could be quite short. As 99% of mice these days use one of very few (3?) mechanical principals, those could certainly be covered in the main article in detail, but there is probably even enough material to have a separate article on current mouse technologies, which could contain some of the material on buttons, wheels, etc., but I'm not entirely sure about that. The fact that there are such a myriad of other techniques used historically is important, and examples in the main article would be fun and interesting, but a detailed expansion on this could reside elsewhere. My reasoning would prompt a separate section for the history of the mouse that could also contain all of the obsolete mechanisms and many of the fabulous and obscure extinct mouse types. That could mean that a separate page for mouse workings would not be needed. I will personally expand on the Haptic mouse in such a article. The gaming section does not feel quite right to me, but I am undecided if it needs its own section or maybe shortened? Opinions? If it gets its own section I could certainly add to it. (please forgive any wiki-faux pas, I am new to editing, tips welcome!) Seblopedia (talk) 08:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Wireless
As some of you know "wireless mouse" search redirects here. My opinion is that this article need more, more staff about wireless case. Or to do new article with it. Eg. someone wants to buy new wireless one and consult wikipedia about features or something like that. What will get? Of course here I don't think of promoting some models or similar. --Čikić Dragan (talk) 15:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)