That still requires two hands just to make a phone call. I don't know if it's as bad everywhere else, but American drivers are way too likely to attempt this while driving 80mph in traffic and eating a big mac. The main reason I like the fingerprint sensor concept is that it enables one-handed, no-look speed dialing, while keeping some level of security on the contacts list.
<br><br>I'm seriously contemplating getting a Neo at some point and replacing one of the side buttons with a sensor for this purpose. I think it would be a fun project!<br><br>--Steve<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">
On 3/18/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Paul Wouters</b> <<a href="mailto:email@example.com">firstname.lastname@example.org</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Sun, 18 Mar 2007, Steven Milburn wrote:<br><br>> First, if one concedes that the typical sensor can be easily fooled, I still<br>> think fingerprint sensors tend to add security to most phones. That's<br>> because I think most users cannot be bothered to hide data behind a decent
<br>> pass phrase they would have to type on a tiny keyboard. Joe Average is much<br>> more likely to adopt a concept that works something like: Swipe one of your<br>> eight fingers (up, down, left, or right) (thumbs can be dexterally
<br>> difficult) and you are authenticates and one of 32 pre-selected actions<br>> happens (call a speed dial, open email, open calendar, etc).<br><br>It doesnt add more security compared to a "scribbled login pattern". And
<br>it doesnt require a fingerprint reader.<br><br>Paul<br></blockquote></div><br>