I don't draw, yet I believe the reasoning behind asking "in which use cases do we need accuracy?" is flawed. In many cases it's not needed because applications were designed to comply with a lower accuracy, like the zoom to select text in Sailfish (which is way better than the Android system by the way, in Android, accuracy would still be welcome on this point), big UI buttons, gestures, larger screens, and so on. And it works well enough. But still, why would we consider that accuracy is a bad thing and that we're better off now that we parted with it? Browsing TMO on the N900 was great because it was not necessary to zoom in to tap on the next page link. I can't tap on the next page without zooming in now. And since there is no stylus in modern times (capacitive stylus do not improve accuracy, and Wacom digitizers are something very different that will never be included in all screens), I have to guess if the link is still under my finger when my finger obstructs the view.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying resistive screens are great and that everything was better 10 years ago. We have to weigh in what we got from capacitive screens, they are cheaper, usually more scratch resistant, very responsive, and they dominate the market so they exist in a wide variety of technologies (AMOLED for instance) and resolutions. The main problem I have with them is they actually are too responsive. There is no difference between barely touching them involuntarily and actually making an action, while a good quality resistive screen did react differently to both kinds of contacts.

I'm still happy with all the phones I had after my N900 and they had capacitive screens. I'm just saying there is no point in trying to tell one technologies defeats the other one on every aspect. They both have pros and cons, which is why it's a shame that we have no choice anymore. Just like mate and glossy laptop screens.