I think there's something to what you're saying here. That's often been an argument for the mouse/pointer vs touch screen as well. How is this different from using a touch screen in general? Or are you saying that's problematic as well? Having an additional Touch Bar to effectively increase screen real estate by removing the necessity of dedicating screen space to the slider control seems like a win.

I don't do video editing or anything like that. My experience with a slider is pretty much limited to Netflix and such on my tablet :) Seems to work pretty well there. I can see how it might not work as well for fine-grained work. But that's an argument for touch screens in general, isn't it? Or do you think there's a distinction between Touch Bar and touch screen?

Caveat: On some video sliders, you can move vertically as well to increase/dilate the resolution of the horizontal movement. You won't have the same room with the touch screen. A couple options I can think of: use the track pad or a key press to modify the Touch Bar tracking; or perhaps track the speed of movement on the Touch Bar to modify the resolution, e.g., slower movement, higher resolution.

No, sir. In fact you can still see both the current content on the Macbook screen and the entire timeline on the Touch Bar. On trackpad, you need to actually move the pointer to the content before you can scrub, and it's not really that fast. If you manipulate directly on the screen, isn't it will block the view?

IMHO, as far as I understand it, Touch Bar is a bridge that connects the static nature of the keyboard with the dynamic nature of the screen. It is not intended to replace keyboard nor the screen. It is there to augment and extend them.

Touch bar is perfect for this job, considering:

- You can't beat the fast input from fixed keyboard + muscle memory.

- Touch screen on a laptop is really not ergonomic, your arm will get tired fast.

You have a lot of strong opinions about something you have never used.