The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces(uxdesign.cc)
uxdesign.cc
The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces
https://uxdesign.cc/the-forgotten-benefits-of-low-tech-user-interfaces-57fdbb6ac83
408 コメント
I came to write my official paper letters with vi :hardcopy in 70ies RFC typewriter style.
Helps to focus on the content. That's exactly what marketing dreads.
Helps to focus on the content. That's exactly what marketing dreads.
meanwhile found the template: https://darknet.mro.name/pub/brief-dina4.txt
I don't buy it tbh. Most home appliances are sufficiently complex that physical buttons are not intuitive. Ask someone to change the clock on their oven vs on their phone. Most could do it on the phone but not the oven. And there are countless more practical examples of this issue.
My Breville coffee machine only has buttons and knobs, which works fine for the basic flow since everything has a dedicated button. But once you want to do something like run a cleaning cycle you will have to read the manual every time because there is nothing intuitive about holding double shot + single shot and then power for 3 seconds. Or holding program and then power to open temperature adjust then clicking one of the buttons to set a temp which isn't labeled and needs the manual to decipher.
While on the touch screen model, the basic flow might be slightly less nice, but the most complex flows are also reduced to about the same complexity and can be intuitively worked out while using the device. Combining physical buttons for basic flow with a touch screen is the best of both imo. I have used some ovens which use a normal knob like it would on an older oven, but if you want to do something like start a self clean cycle or adjust steaming, its done via the touch screen.
My Breville coffee machine only has buttons and knobs, which works fine for the basic flow since everything has a dedicated button. But once you want to do something like run a cleaning cycle you will have to read the manual every time because there is nothing intuitive about holding double shot + single shot and then power for 3 seconds. Or holding program and then power to open temperature adjust then clicking one of the buttons to set a temp which isn't labeled and needs the manual to decipher.
While on the touch screen model, the basic flow might be slightly less nice, but the most complex flows are also reduced to about the same complexity and can be intuitively worked out while using the device. Combining physical buttons for basic flow with a touch screen is the best of both imo. I have used some ovens which use a normal knob like it would on an older oven, but if you want to do something like start a self clean cycle or adjust steaming, its done via the touch screen.
> Combining physical buttons for basic flow with a touch screen is the best of both imo
This. But if I have to choose, then I'll have physical buttons over a touch screen. Why? Because I use the "basic flow" every damn day. Whereas I only need to set the clock every few months.
This. But if I have to choose, then I'll have physical buttons over a touch screen. Why? Because I use the "basic flow" every damn day. Whereas I only need to set the clock every few months.
> change the clock on their oven
it's really easy. grab the clock. turn the hands to the desired position. optionally wind it up. put back on the oven. the only thing i dont understand why would anybody put his clock on the oven?
it's really easy. grab the clock. turn the hands to the desired position. optionally wind it up. put back on the oven. the only thing i dont understand why would anybody put his clock on the oven?
How else would you know if the clock on the micro is not correct if you don't have the oven to use as reference?
If one is going to go into the effort and cost to put an SoC onboard that can run a touchscreen, one should just have the device communicate with the touchscreen computer in your pocket instead.
Common basic functions: knobs dials switches.
Extended functions: there's an app for that, or suffer through modal button changes like you describe.
Save on BOM costs, less points of failure, and does not require an SoC with display controller and a software stack running a (usually janky and slow and non-standard) UI.
Common basic functions: knobs dials switches.
Extended functions: there's an app for that, or suffer through modal button changes like you describe.
Save on BOM costs, less points of failure, and does not require an SoC with display controller and a software stack running a (usually janky and slow and non-standard) UI.
This does happen on a lot of devices. It’s ok for stuff you expect to last a few years but anything longer and the app stops working before the device does.
I have a bike gps which has some functions as a phone app but the phone app no longer works.
I have a bike gps which has some functions as a phone app but the phone app no longer works.
Yeah, this is a potential downside but also an argument for open protocols and specifications for managing and controlling these kinds of devices.
This is an awful idea in practice. For example, an update to my Anova precision cooker required I logged in with a Facebook account to continue using it.
The absurd part is the one where I have to set the clock on the oven in the first place
> Ask someone to change the clock on their oven vs on their phone. Most could do it on the phone but not the oven.
I'd argue that's not an example of touch screens being better than buttons but rather the button interface in question being poorly laid out, and as for the phone, it's not the lack of physical buttons but rather the on-screen guidance that makes life easier. My grandparents' cooker is a button-free wonder and I couldn't work it out the first time I tried to turn it on.
I'd argue that's not an example of touch screens being better than buttons but rather the button interface in question being poorly laid out, and as for the phone, it's not the lack of physical buttons but rather the on-screen guidance that makes life easier. My grandparents' cooker is a button-free wonder and I couldn't work it out the first time I tried to turn it on.
For the coffee machine, it would be shitty UI if every function had a physical button. You don’t need a dedicated button to run the descale cycle since you do it twice a year, but it’s also a bit crap to have to pull out a manual to work out which order of buttons to press and for how long and what all the blinking lights mean. A touch screen executes this perfectly. It doesn’t have to blink led 2 to tell you of an error, it can just show the error on the screen.
Yeah a hybrid setup can work well although the decision is not necessarily between lights and a touch screen - a non-touch display with navigation buttons is also perfectly reasonable.
Physical car buttons and knobs vs touch screens
Modern cars seem to be moving towards all controls on a touch screen somewhere. I suppose this allows for more frequent updates, but in my experience it just leads to more bugs and more painful factory updates.
Not to mention using a touchscreen to adjust the temperature while driving is incredibly dangerous compared to a dial you can feel for without taking your eyes off the road.
Not to mention using a touchscreen to adjust the temperature while driving is incredibly dangerous compared to a dial you can feel for without taking your eyes off the road.
I have grown to heavily dislike the whole smartify everything.
Haptic feedback is a core part of how humans process the world, and to remove it in favor of more frequent updates seems like a naive decision at best.
Flatness in phones works because we can use our full attention - which is also why car accidents happen when people use it while driving.
Haptic feedback is a core part of how humans process the world, and to remove it in favor of more frequent updates seems like a naive decision at best.
Flatness in phones works because we can use our full attention - which is also why car accidents happen when people use it while driving.
> Flatness in phones works because we can use our full attention
I very much agree with you, and would like to add that flatness in phones is a feature because today phones are pocket computers, and computers should be able to provide any arbitrary UI to function as such. Cars on the other hand are not a computer nor are they intended to function as one.
The fact that modern cars expose part of their on-board computer to the driver is no excuse to treat any capability that may be handled by said computer as something exclusively accessible via a touchscreen UI, especially when its something that is expected to be interacted with while driving (audio playback control, climate control, windscreen wipers, etc.). A touchscreen is fine for features that should not be done while driving and did not exist or were not easily accessible prior to the ubiquity of touchscreens in cars. For all intents and purposes those are computer features. However, subjecting anything that was previously available via mechanical interaction to it is an unacceptable regression.
I very much agree with you, and would like to add that flatness in phones is a feature because today phones are pocket computers, and computers should be able to provide any arbitrary UI to function as such. Cars on the other hand are not a computer nor are they intended to function as one.
The fact that modern cars expose part of their on-board computer to the driver is no excuse to treat any capability that may be handled by said computer as something exclusively accessible via a touchscreen UI, especially when its something that is expected to be interacted with while driving (audio playback control, climate control, windscreen wipers, etc.). A touchscreen is fine for features that should not be done while driving and did not exist or were not easily accessible prior to the ubiquity of touchscreens in cars. For all intents and purposes those are computer features. However, subjecting anything that was previously available via mechanical interaction to it is an unacceptable regression.
I've heard Teslas described as "iPads with Wheels".
[deleted]
I really wonder if the possibility of updates alone can make software worse. Because you don't have to "get it right" on the first try. And the updates always contain something more than bug and security fixes, which often help keeping the quality of the experience low, despite fixed bugs.
All the smart TVs I ever had lasted a long long time physically, but after a couple years they invariably started being noticeable slower than when I bought. The same happened to a guitar effects unit I had: changing patches became somewhat slower after update. And the battery of a wireless guitar transmitter I had now only lasts half the time it used to after the update. I honestly can say I dread updating almost any software today.
All the smart TVs I ever had lasted a long long time physically, but after a couple years they invariably started being noticeable slower than when I bought. The same happened to a guitar effects unit I had: changing patches became somewhat slower after update. And the battery of a wireless guitar transmitter I had now only lasts half the time it used to after the update. I honestly can say I dread updating almost any software today.
Yes. It'll have more bugs to begin with because the software team has no hard deadline to meet. Then it'll accumulate more bugs over time as "features" are added (while existing bugs are ignored). Then after 2-4 years nobody will be working on it any more and within 6-8 years it may no longer function at all or it may have well known never-to-be-patched security holes.
I try to avoid buying tech that can be updated, and tech that can connect to the internet in general.
I try to avoid buying tech that can be updated, and tech that can connect to the internet in general.
Not to mention that corporates have incentives to downgrade the devices the older it gets.
> I really wonder if the possibility of updates alone can make software worse.
Absolutely does. You see this in console video games. As soon as online updates became possible, game-breaking bugs at launch became practically the norm, instead of incredibly rare (minor bugs were common enough before ["I AM ERROR"], sure, but game-breaking ones, while not unheard of, were rare). Charging $60 for a late-alpha-quality product.
Absolutely does. You see this in console video games. As soon as online updates became possible, game-breaking bugs at launch became practically the norm, instead of incredibly rare (minor bugs were common enough before ["I AM ERROR"], sure, but game-breaking ones, while not unheard of, were rare). Charging $60 for a late-alpha-quality product.
"Fail fast" in action, to the detriment of drivers everywhere.
Many modern AAA titles have day-one patches, and with some games pivoting to a 'Live Services' model, additional content is often put on an arbitrary 'roadmap'.
If it was all executed well, it would be fine. The problem is, it isn't.
A public beta used to actually be a mostly-finished product, but is often used now as a 'preorder for early access' period. The last one I participated in was for Elder Scrolls Online, and it was kind of funny with how broken things would be. It wasn't as funny when the game launched with a few of those bugs still in place.
If it was all executed well, it would be fine. The problem is, it isn't.
A public beta used to actually be a mostly-finished product, but is often used now as a 'preorder for early access' period. The last one I participated in was for Elder Scrolls Online, and it was kind of funny with how broken things would be. It wasn't as funny when the game launched with a few of those bugs still in place.
I agree with what you are saying, except that "I AM ERROR" isn't actually a bug. The character is intentionally named that in Zelda II, even in the original Japanese.
I purposely NEVER connect smart TVs to the internet for this reason. I'd like to get a "dumb" TV but the ones in the sizes I'd like are prohibitively expensive.
> patches became somewhat slower after update.
Could this be a form of assisted obsolescence, in which a user who has owned a device for a few years is being subliminally urged to buy a new model?
Could this be a form of assisted obsolescence, in which a user who has owned a device for a few years is being subliminally urged to buy a new model?
In this specific case I think it was just incompetence, but at the same time, one of the selling points of the device was “lasting longer” because it was able to receive updates.
I also imagine this trend is bad from the ergonomics / RSI perspective. For generations, we've been using various kinds of per-appliance controls, with various shapes, sizes and stiffnesses. Since the past 10 years almost all of them have been replaced by a flat piece of glass. People are increasingly doing only a couple of motions with their hands throughout the day without any variety (tap/drag without any tactile feedback).
Agree! The fine sensitive movements of fingers (or better, lack of movement) that are required by touch screens can become very annoying. No possibility to rest your finger on a button. Accidentally touching somewhere else in the UI. Et cetera. These kinds of things are small, but add up pretty quickly in a world getting filled with capacitive touch screens.
I recall a Car Talk episode many years ago where the discussion about BMW’s big knob for multiple functions was filled with negative statements. Tactile feedback and navigation were issues.
I have a 20y old BMW with the idrive knob. I find it excellent. This is because the knob contains a motor to simulate various detent and other virtual stops. So you actually have a really fine tactile feedback. You can navigate menus without looking the screen.
It can act as a spring, a rotary encoder, a joystick, small detent, big detent, etc.
It can act as a spring, a rotary encoder, a joystick, small detent, big detent, etc.
More bugs definitely, but car manufacturers put so much effort into QA for the essential features that they really just short on never are released broken.
Changing the temperature while driving on a good touch interface is trivial and incredibly far from incredibly dangerous. Besides with CC systems nowadays people look at the set temperature just as often. More advanced features like toggling internal air circulation do require a peek, but so do the buttons on most classical cars where you have multiple buttons in a row with unlit icons.
I still prefer buttons for the tactile feel and feedback, but the downsides you listed are pretty much made up.
The great benefit of a touch screen is unlimited update capabilities. It seems absurd to me that there are still cars rolling off the factory line that have unupdatable software in 2022. Your car is basically outdated and replaceable by something better within a year. That’s great for the manufacturers, but not for the customer. Compare that to a 3+ year old Tesla which works almost as good as a brand new one despite big upgrades to their internals, largely thanks to regular updates.
Changing the temperature while driving on a good touch interface is trivial and incredibly far from incredibly dangerous. Besides with CC systems nowadays people look at the set temperature just as often. More advanced features like toggling internal air circulation do require a peek, but so do the buttons on most classical cars where you have multiple buttons in a row with unlit icons.
I still prefer buttons for the tactile feel and feedback, but the downsides you listed are pretty much made up.
The great benefit of a touch screen is unlimited update capabilities. It seems absurd to me that there are still cars rolling off the factory line that have unupdatable software in 2022. Your car is basically outdated and replaceable by something better within a year. That’s great for the manufacturers, but not for the customer. Compare that to a 3+ year old Tesla which works almost as good as a brand new one despite big upgrades to their internals, largely thanks to regular updates.
I still prefer buttons for the tactile feel and feedback, but the downsides you listed are pretty much made up.
Or, maybe your personal experience doesn’t translate to everyone, and touch controls are indeed dangerously distracting for most people. What we need here is evidence (user studies) and not anecdote, but anecdotally I can say operating a touch screen without looking at it directly is not something I’m capable of doing, even for things I use often.
Or, maybe your personal experience doesn’t translate to everyone, and touch controls are indeed dangerously distracting for most people. What we need here is evidence (user studies) and not anecdote, but anecdotally I can say operating a touch screen without looking at it directly is not something I’m capable of doing, even for things I use often.
> Changing the temperature while driving on a good touch interface is trivial and incredibly far from incredibly dangerous
Looking away for even ~3s at motorway speeds is 100m driven without looking at whats in front of you, I'd say that's fairly dangerous
> The great benefit of a touch screen is unlimited update capabilities
It also introduces a single point of failure for any features on it, at least with physical buttons you stand more chance of operating other parts of the car if one breaks.
Looking away for even ~3s at motorway speeds is 100m driven without looking at whats in front of you, I'd say that's fairly dangerous
> The great benefit of a touch screen is unlimited update capabilities
It also introduces a single point of failure for any features on it, at least with physical buttons you stand more chance of operating other parts of the car if one breaks.
Changing the temperature on a touch screen will always suck even the UI is completely modeless (imagine that!) On my car I can just press my hand against the console without looking and feel around for the controls. You can not do this with a touch screen no matter how good the interface is.
I also find that many of these touchscreens are designed with California in mind. Sure, touchscreens are great when it's sunny and 22C. But when it's -25 and the car feels like a freezer, the touchscreen is sluggish and won't accepted gloved inputs, I start swearing and think about selling the car.
A buddy of mine said the touchscreen on his Chevy Cruz (I believe) didn't even work in the winter until the car was warmed up.
A 3+ year old car still working as intended is an extremely low bar for a car.
A car from the 70s, with proper care, would still work today just as well as it did when it was brand new.
In my view, a car should only require software updates in very rare circumstances. It should come with hardware and corresponding software that is fit for purpose and works. Most definitely I do not ever want any over-the-air updates. Requiring updates is a sign that the software was not properly engineered in the first place. I do not want that in my car.
If, for example, we are talking about upgrading the entertainment system, then it should just be made modular, like it used to be. Want to get an improved entertainment system with a better screen / better navigation system etc.? Take the old one out and install a new one. But the old one must keep working as well as on day one 20 years in the future, without any required software updates, even if the manufacturer goes bankrupt.
A car from the 70s, with proper care, would still work today just as well as it did when it was brand new.
In my view, a car should only require software updates in very rare circumstances. It should come with hardware and corresponding software that is fit for purpose and works. Most definitely I do not ever want any over-the-air updates. Requiring updates is a sign that the software was not properly engineered in the first place. I do not want that in my car.
If, for example, we are talking about upgrading the entertainment system, then it should just be made modular, like it used to be. Want to get an improved entertainment system with a better screen / better navigation system etc.? Take the old one out and install a new one. But the old one must keep working as well as on day one 20 years in the future, without any required software updates, even if the manufacturer goes bankrupt.
> The great benefit of a touch screen is unlimited update capabilities
You say this like it's a good thing. It's bad enough when apps get non-optional "updates" that make the experience worse. I don't want my car interface to go to shit because a designed wanted to add more padding to everything.
More realistically though, this means cars will stop getting updates after a few years but the remote access system will still be there providing a juicy attack surface for hackers.
You say this like it's a good thing. It's bad enough when apps get non-optional "updates" that make the experience worse. I don't want my car interface to go to shit because a designed wanted to add more padding to everything.
More realistically though, this means cars will stop getting updates after a few years but the remote access system will still be there providing a juicy attack surface for hackers.
The touch screens are the only thing keeping me on dino juice cars. I want to go electric, but they all have these awful touchscreens! I don’t want to navigate a menu to change the temperature or turn on a seat warmer.
I’m just not buying an EV until there’s one that doesn’t rely on a giant touch screen for everything or I can’t buy an ICE vehicle anymore.
I’m just not buying an EV until there’s one that doesn’t rely on a giant touch screen for everything or I can’t buy an ICE vehicle anymore.
Some korean brand was moving to physical buttons again, but I can't find which.
I think Honda have returned to at least partial physical controls for heating, air, and music for the Honda e. But it still has a lot of screen.
Backup cameras are legally mandated on new us vehicles. The screens are not going anywhere so they're going to get used for other stuff too.
I don’t mind a small screen that isn’t involved in common cabin features.
I have a 2018 Mazda3 and I like the backup camera. But I can control the climate control and temperature with physical buttons. The seat warmers have buttons. I can control the volume with a knob or on the steering wheel.
The radio, unfortunately, is software. Seems like that much is unavoidable. But the small screen that is there is secondary to everything else I want to control while driving and I don’t ever need to use while driving. I’m typically using Apple CarPlay (or previously Android Auto) so if I do need to do something, I can use voice controls and at least keep my eyes on the road.
I don’t mind small screens, as you said, they’re not going away. What I don’t want is a giant screen that controls everything.
I have a 2018 Mazda3 and I like the backup camera. But I can control the climate control and temperature with physical buttons. The seat warmers have buttons. I can control the volume with a knob or on the steering wheel.
The radio, unfortunately, is software. Seems like that much is unavoidable. But the small screen that is there is secondary to everything else I want to control while driving and I don’t ever need to use while driving. I’m typically using Apple CarPlay (or previously Android Auto) so if I do need to do something, I can use voice controls and at least keep my eyes on the road.
I don’t mind small screens, as you said, they’re not going away. What I don’t want is a giant screen that controls everything.
My backup camera screen is embedded in my reear view mirror. You wouldn't know when it's not on. Sure, it's small, but sufficient, considering it's not a replacement for mirrors and area awareness.
I guess it was Mazda, so Japanese instead of Korean
https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1121372_why-mazda-is-pur...
Though I don't know if they followed through
Though I don't know if they followed through
https://www.autoguide.com/manufacturer/mazda/2022-mazda-cx-5...
> Like most modern Mazdas, the CX-5 uses an ultra-wide, non-touchscreen infotainment system.
Buttons and knobs for HVAC
https://www.autoguide.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/20...
> Like most modern Mazdas, the CX-5 uses an ultra-wide, non-touchscreen infotainment system.
Buttons and knobs for HVAC
https://www.autoguide.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/20...
As far as I know they're sticking to it.
Between 2019 and 2022 Mazda improved the truly atrocious latency linked to screen operations. All operations are physical, but you still need menus to find what you want. The latency was quite impressive.
The 2022 has less latency and seemingly different menu trees to go with the ultrawide ( but narrow height) screen.
HVAC is screen-independent. So is volume, thankfully.
HVAC is screen-independent. So is volume, thankfully.
Except MX-30. They use touchscreen for AC for unknown reason. Maybe because the car is designed to be weird on their lineup?
Hyundai/Kia have had some horrible interfaces lately.
https://youtu.be/EREg2XtohTg?t=7m
https://youtu.be/EREg2XtohTg?t=7m
My 2022 Kona EV has an amazing, mostly physical button based interface fwiw.
Luckily the tide seems to be turning: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/23/opinion/touch-screens-car...
> Luckily the tide seems to be turning: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/23/opinion/touch-screens-car...
We can hope, but there's reason to be pessimistic:
> With traffic fatalities spiking over the past few years and with no real plan for how to make screens less distracting, we seem to have entered into the type of brutal acquiescence that’s common in the tech era; car manufacturers will keep putting bigger and more complicated screens in cars without much thought to safety or even functionality, and we, the consumers, will continue to buy them.
> ...
> The incentives of carmakers are pretty clear: Touch screens are cheaper than designing and installing a mechanical panel. And given that most cars today are reliable, come with lengthy warranties and an array of mostly uniform features, a big screen becomes a way for a car brand to distinguish itself from its competitors, especially on the showroom floor before potential buyers have a chance to really immerse themselves in just how annoying the screen will be.
One of the weaknesses of the market is that it doesn't necessarily give consumers what would work best for them, it just lets them pick from what they're given. Barring regulatory action, I don't see device-makers moving away touchscreen maximization.
We can hope, but there's reason to be pessimistic:
> With traffic fatalities spiking over the past few years and with no real plan for how to make screens less distracting, we seem to have entered into the type of brutal acquiescence that’s common in the tech era; car manufacturers will keep putting bigger and more complicated screens in cars without much thought to safety or even functionality, and we, the consumers, will continue to buy them.
> ...
> The incentives of carmakers are pretty clear: Touch screens are cheaper than designing and installing a mechanical panel. And given that most cars today are reliable, come with lengthy warranties and an array of mostly uniform features, a big screen becomes a way for a car brand to distinguish itself from its competitors, especially on the showroom floor before potential buyers have a chance to really immerse themselves in just how annoying the screen will be.
One of the weaknesses of the market is that it doesn't necessarily give consumers what would work best for them, it just lets them pick from what they're given. Barring regulatory action, I don't see device-makers moving away touchscreen maximization.
> we, the consumers, will continue to buy them.
Who's this "we"?
I'm in the pre-buy stage, it looks like my record of non-car-ownership will end at 23 years. (My last car was stolen from a SOMA lot in 1999.)
It does look like I'm buying used and IC, because I will not have a touch screen. I've driven basically every model of car you can rent, and some of them are less offensive than others, but they're all ass. Backup assist is vaguely nice, but I learned to parallel park before they existed, so I don't really care. And everything else about them is actively worse.
The UI is such a weird thing to cheap out on. As far as I'm concerned, keep your butt warmers and solenoid-driven seat adjustment, I want physical knobs I don't have to look at to use.
Who's this "we"?
I'm in the pre-buy stage, it looks like my record of non-car-ownership will end at 23 years. (My last car was stolen from a SOMA lot in 1999.)
It does look like I'm buying used and IC, because I will not have a touch screen. I've driven basically every model of car you can rent, and some of them are less offensive than others, but they're all ass. Backup assist is vaguely nice, but I learned to parallel park before they existed, so I don't really care. And everything else about them is actively worse.
The UI is such a weird thing to cheap out on. As far as I'm concerned, keep your butt warmers and solenoid-driven seat adjustment, I want physical knobs I don't have to look at to use.
' I'm buying used and IC, because I will not have a touch screen'
That's not a solution - you have to look at market of brand new cars, as whateber is avaliable now will replace all the used cars.
That's not a solution - you have to look at market of brand new cars, as whateber is avaliable now will replace all the used cars.
Of course it is a solution. I end up with a car that doesn't have a touch screen.
>> That's not a solution - you have to look at market of brand new cars, as whateber is avaliable now will replace all the used cars.
> Of course it is a solution. I end up with a car that doesn't have a touch screen.
The point is that solution is only a band-aid. Cars wear out. New cars turn into used cars, which turn into "classic cars", which then turn into museum pieces. Especially with the later two steps, supply drops and maintenance becomes harder.
> Of course it is a solution. I end up with a car that doesn't have a touch screen.
The point is that solution is only a band-aid. Cars wear out. New cars turn into used cars, which turn into "classic cars", which then turn into museum pieces. Especially with the later two steps, supply drops and maintenance becomes harder.
And my point is, humans wear out. They stop driving cars and eventually die.
There is a reasonable chance I won't buy another vehicle, so I don't care what the rest of the market does.
There is a reasonable chance I won't buy another vehicle, so I don't care what the rest of the market does.
> There is a reasonable chance I won't buy another vehicle, so I don't care what the rest of the market does.
Good for you, but why do you feel you need to weigh in on the new car market when you have no intention of ever participating?
Good for you, but why do you feel you need to weigh in on the new car market when you have no intention of ever participating?
Why do you feel the need to play conversation-cop?
> Why do you feel the need to play conversation-cop?
Because we're discussing a complaint about modern cars, and "always buy used ones that predate the change, and plan to die before those become unavailable" doesn't really address the complaint. It's a rather idiosyncratic and radical way of avoiding it, and bends the conversation to discussing that personal idiosyncrasy.
Because we're discussing a complaint about modern cars, and "always buy used ones that predate the change, and plan to die before those become unavailable" doesn't really address the complaint. It's a rather idiosyncratic and radical way of avoiding it, and bends the conversation to discussing that personal idiosyncrasy.
> As far as I'm concerned, keep your butt warmers and solenoid-driven seat adjustment
My car has these things, controlled by physical buttons and knobs. They're nice features and they don't require a touchscreen to use.
My car has these things, controlled by physical buttons and knobs. They're nice features and they don't require a touchscreen to use.
This! Was fiddling with a Tesla touch screen to do something basic. During those few seconds, autopilot decided to steer me off the road - with no shoulder - at 80 MPH (it was during a sunset). Fortunately, I caught it in time.
After the panic subsided, I decided to learn the voice commands. It seems that each device, now, has its own language, which we have to learn in order to function. A modern tower of Babel.
After the panic subsided, I decided to learn the voice commands. It seems that each device, now, has its own language, which we have to learn in order to function. A modern tower of Babel.
Speaking of Teslas, the SpaceX spacecraft also use touch screens heavily in the cockpit (maybe it's just something the company prefers) and only have a very small button panel. This is in comparison to the large array of controls normally seen on most aircraft and spacecraft. Obviously they state that the technology is well tested and that the astronauts train a lot with them, but in my mind you simply won't have the muscle memory and response you can get with a tactile interface.
Astronauts are passengers though. There is very little they can do to control their spacecraft during launch, as the flight path is complex and cannot really be flown manually. Rockets have always been this way, it's just that before they had no choice but to put everything on toggle switches.
I think that's true only as long as the only electric cars you have driven are Teslas. The BMW i3 has pretty much resisted this tendency. Ok, it's already a pretty old design at this point and getting phased out, but it has lots of physical buttons (even for the seat warmer!). And I don't think electric cars that are variants of existing petrol cars (which are more and more common) will eliminate the physical controls just because they put an electric engine into the car. Or, otherwise said: if you buy an electric car from a tech company (or somebody trying too hard to emulate them), you get a touchscreen. If you buy an electric car from a car company, you get physical controls...
Made me check that one out, it's actually not an insane price, it competes with most new normal-person petrol cars... I mean I still wouldn't buy one new, and that's still a bit of a dodgy range, but maybe in ten years there will finally be an affordable 2nd hand market and some infra to make it reliable. In the mean time I will continue to run my petrol car into the ground like a good holistic environmentalist.
Would anyone trust a 2nd hand market for an EV when the battery is basically guaranteed to be dead long before more affordable ICE vehicles?
The old EVs used market is dynamic in Norway.
It's a good point, a 2nd hand market assumes the availability of a cost effective battery replacement or serious maintenance scheme... it's not exactly on the same scale as a cam belt change which is the common todo upon acquiring a 2nd hand petrol car.
Also worth acknowledging that the battery makes up a huge chunk of the car both physically and in terms of cost, and yet is a consumable, so I guess this lowers the resale value of EVs significantly? I wonder if it's even worth any of the remaining savings on the rest of the car after fitting a new battery. Maybe the next stage is scaling up lithium-ion recycling to drive down battery replacement and general battery cost to a point that "everyone else" can join in the EV game.
It would be a big step backwards for society if a new wealth gap is created when oil becomes too expensive to continue running cheap ICE cars and only moderately wealthy people can afford cars priced exclusively at "new" values without a 2nd hand market.
Also worth acknowledging that the battery makes up a huge chunk of the car both physically and in terms of cost, and yet is a consumable, so I guess this lowers the resale value of EVs significantly? I wonder if it's even worth any of the remaining savings on the rest of the car after fitting a new battery. Maybe the next stage is scaling up lithium-ion recycling to drive down battery replacement and general battery cost to a point that "everyone else" can join in the EV game.
It would be a big step backwards for society if a new wealth gap is created when oil becomes too expensive to continue running cheap ICE cars and only moderately wealthy people can afford cars priced exclusively at "new" values without a 2nd hand market.
> It would be a big step backwards for society if a new wealth gap is created when oil becomes too expensive to continue running cheap ICE cars and only moderately wealthy people can afford cars priced exclusively at "new" values without a 2nd hand market.
That's coming whether you want to or not.
Once we start pricing in the externalities of climate change into road vehicles (which is beginning to happen, slowly), cars will become increasingly unaffordable to those in the bottom quartiles of income.
That's coming whether you want to or not.
Once we start pricing in the externalities of climate change into road vehicles (which is beginning to happen, slowly), cars will become increasingly unaffordable to those in the bottom quartiles of income.
They are replaceable, are they not?
I regularly drive a variety of electric cars (renault, smart, bmw, ford, VW) and besides the Smart For* series, which is cost-down so much that it doesn't even have a touchscreen, all of the cars have at least one feature available exclusively through the touchscreen. One of the most infuriating is Reanult's ZOË, which has really good physical controls for absolutely everything, except volume. That's the one not-driving-related thing I need to be able to adjust while moving! Even the 2008 Scenic dinosaur-burner that I stupidly bought during the pandemic has better controls than that...
The Tesla Model S has a physical volume control on the steering wheel. I’m not sure about the other Tesla models.
The Model 3 and the Model Y has one two. I would expect the Model X to have one as well. I’m not sure about the old roadster but the lotus interior was not high tech.
The Lotus interior was one of the most glorious interiors of all time. Simple, light and somehow it was so ergonomic, you can road trip in it and not get sore and tired. A true driver-centric design.
Musk created a battery tech company and used it to power giant cellphones on wheels.
I don't want to drive—or negotiate with AI to drive—a giant cellphone on wheels.
I don't want to drive—or negotiate with AI to drive—a giant cellphone on wheels.
> If you buy an electric car from a car company, you get physical controls...
Not sure I agree with that. Even Porsche are doing touch screens, unfortunately.
Not sure I agree with that. Even Porsche are doing touch screens, unfortunately.
I believe Mazda has a policy of no touchscreens in their vehicles.
They have touch screens, but it's minimal, pretty much only usable in the GPS view.
They do have a rotary dial and push button that controls the display, so no touching it. Makes it a lot simpler when your UI designers are restricted to left/right movement and button push. Can't hide things all over the place and under deeply nested menus.
They do have a rotary dial and push button that controls the display, so no touching it. Makes it a lot simpler when your UI designers are restricted to left/right movement and button push. Can't hide things all over the place and under deeply nested menus.
The 3 2021 Mazda models I test drove had no touch screens at all, I believe they included an option between the two for a couple years but have now phased out the touch screen.
The new Mazdas have no touchscreen and in my opinion it's worse.
Apple CarPlay and Android Auto are designed to be touched. Navigating either without a touchscreen is a horrible experience and requires significantly more steps than just touching the item you want on the screen.
Apple CarPlay and Android Auto are designed to be touched. Navigating either without a touchscreen is a horrible experience and requires significantly more steps than just touching the item you want on the screen.
I found no serious issues using Android Auto with my Mazda, what kind of things are you doing during your drive that are so impossible to do with the rotary controller?
The only thing I can remember might be the address entry, but that can easily be done with the keyboard on the phone itself (click "phone" icon in the on-screen Auto keyboard to handoff).
The only thing I can remember might be the address entry, but that can easily be done with the keyboard on the phone itself (click "phone" icon in the on-screen Auto keyboard to handoff).
Funny you say that, because a 2018 Mazda3 is what I currently drive. It has a screen, a small one, and every common cabin control is still a physical button. The only exception is the radio, which is software, but can be controlled with a knob. But I just leave the radio on the same station always so it's not a problem for me.
Nit: oil formed way before dinosaurs from simple marine organisms.
How come we find it underground then?
Is this a sincere question? If so: "underground" was "above ground" (or sea floor in this case) at the time. Additional layers formed and became the new "ground". Tectonic shifts moved places up or down (or on top of eachother), canals were formed or drained, water evaporated or froze, and so on.
What I think is a lot more weird is that archaeology works: i.e. you can dig in old European cities and find the remains of older cities underneath. The short answer is that stuff like dust, decaying plant matter, erosion from nearby mountains and debris from the buildings themselves can effectively create this new layer on top, but it still feels counter-intuitive because we're not used to thinking in these timeframes: https://www.straightdope.com/21341986/how-come-archaeologica...
What I think is a lot more weird is that archaeology works: i.e. you can dig in old European cities and find the remains of older cities underneath. The short answer is that stuff like dust, decaying plant matter, erosion from nearby mountains and debris from the buildings themselves can effectively create this new layer on top, but it still feels counter-intuitive because we're not used to thinking in these timeframes: https://www.straightdope.com/21341986/how-come-archaeologica...
Geography and sea levels have changed over the course of Earth's history. Perhaps you've heard of things like Pangaea, or found fossils while digging in the dirt as a child? Many areas now inhabited were below oceans at points in the past billions of years.
You mean "dino juice" isn't the scientific term?
For a Tesla at least, you can use voice commands for the common functions and keep both hands on the wheel.
That said, people I know have a strange resistance to using voice commands with their cars and phones.
That said, people I know have a strange resistance to using voice commands with their cars and phones.
Two reasons to resist using voice commands
1. Do not want to talk in the loud-clear voice needed for them to work (e.g. someone else in car is on their phone, kids are sleeping).
2. Completely soured on the experience due to things like this[1]
1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMS2VnDveP8
1. Do not want to talk in the loud-clear voice needed for them to work (e.g. someone else in car is on their phone, kids are sleeping).
2. Completely soured on the experience due to things like this[1]
1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMS2VnDveP8
Because voice commands have insane latency, require you to memorize a certain syntax, and hope the computer processing your audio understands you.
Like if I want to tell my alexa to turn the temperature up on the thermastat I have to remember this exact phrase: Alexa, tell the ecobee to turn the temperature [up, down], [ecobee name]. Anything else and alexa tells me "ecobee doesn't support that". And alexa/siri/google are all top of the line, offline processing inside a car's CPU is measurably worse, and syntax is even more esoteric.
Ever try to use voice commands to tell your car to give you GPS directions to the nearest walmart? Basically impossible unless you have the street address memorized, and even then it's a 10 minute ordeal with a lot of stops and starts because the processor wasn't listening as soon as you started speaking to it so it only caught the end of an address, or it misheard a number or street name, etc.
Voice control is far from being an acceptable alternative to physical dials and switches.
Like if I want to tell my alexa to turn the temperature up on the thermastat I have to remember this exact phrase: Alexa, tell the ecobee to turn the temperature [up, down], [ecobee name]. Anything else and alexa tells me "ecobee doesn't support that". And alexa/siri/google are all top of the line, offline processing inside a car's CPU is measurably worse, and syntax is even more esoteric.
Ever try to use voice commands to tell your car to give you GPS directions to the nearest walmart? Basically impossible unless you have the street address memorized, and even then it's a 10 minute ordeal with a lot of stops and starts because the processor wasn't listening as soon as you started speaking to it so it only caught the end of an address, or it misheard a number or street name, etc.
Voice control is far from being an acceptable alternative to physical dials and switches.
Also, what if you have the windows open or the roof down? Or what if you're using your radio the way it was intended to be used?
My chevy bolt is a nice mix I find. It has physical buttons for: climate controls, cruise control, media volume, media channel, lane keep assist, sport mode, gear selection, park brake. There are also voice commands, which I use for selecting navigation destinations.
Touchscreen for other things: android auto, apple car play (which provide maps) and more complicated user settings (such as whether you want the lights to stay on after you turn off the car for a while)
Touchscreen for other things: android auto, apple car play (which provide maps) and more complicated user settings (such as whether you want the lights to stay on after you turn off the car for a while)
I fully agree, the 2019-2021 Bolt [1] has been my gold standard for the right combo of touch and tactile. Climate and radio preset buttons fully separate and easy to see/touch.
It's a shame they went more "slick" with the 2022 refresh, still tactile, but just more flush and less accessible without a glance. [2]
[1] https://cdn.motor1.com/images/mgl/OYAqe/s1/2020-chevy-bolt-e...
[2] https://electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2021/02/2022-...
It's a shame they went more "slick" with the 2022 refresh, still tactile, but just more flush and less accessible without a glance. [2]
[1] https://cdn.motor1.com/images/mgl/OYAqe/s1/2020-chevy-bolt-e...
[2] https://electrek.co/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2021/02/2022-...
Wow, I'm jealous of the control panel in your first link. In contrast, my 2014 Chevy Volt-with-a-"V" has an absolutely aweful interface. It's a combination of small, laggy touchscreen and a bunch of also-laggy, haphazardly-arranged touch-sensitive buttons:
https://www.automotiveaddicts.com/25445/2012-chevrolet-volt-...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x73W4jZpkf0
https://www.automotiveaddicts.com/25445/2012-chevrolet-volt-...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x73W4jZpkf0
In the US, all cars will have screens now of one sort or another. Laws were passed requiring the installation of backup cameras in all cars. So, you will never see a new car that doesn't come with a screen of some sort. And if it's going to be required to have a screen, they're not going to make it a single use only for backup cameras.
I don't necessarily disagree with you in general, I do think we're going to continue to see touch screens dominate, but I thought I'd point out a significant outlier to anyone who like the OP doesn't like touch screens: The Mazda 3.
On the latest Mazda 3 (2019+) it does seemingly only use the screen for info and back up camera. There's a big wheel in between the seats to move about the menus. I test drove one recently and it is very nice and intuitive.
On the latest Mazda 3 (2019+) it does seemingly only use the screen for info and back up camera. There's a big wheel in between the seats to move about the menus. I test drove one recently and it is very nice and intuitive.
It seems that Star Trek was incredibly prescient when they depicted literally every interface as a touchscreen.
It's more the case that Star Trek's lack of budget has driven the modern world in that direction, because that was clearly "the future."
Apparently they wanted the Apollo style space-age interfaces with all the knobs and switches. Just, they didn't have the budget, and paint was cheaper.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/09/how-star-trek-artist...
> According to Michael Okuda, original Star Trek art director Matt Jefferies had practically no budget. "He had to invent an inexpensive, but believable solution," he told Ars. "The spacecraft of the day, such as the Gemini capsules, were jammed full of toggle switches and gauges. If he had had the money to buy those things, the Enterprise would have looked a lot like that."
> What could be simpler to make than a flat surface with no knobs, buttons, switches, or other details? Okuda designed a user interface dominated large type and sweeping, curved rectangles. The style was first employed in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home for the Enterprise-A, and came to be referred to as "okudagrams." The graphics could be created on transparent colored sheets very cheaply, though as ST:TNG progressed, control panels increasingly used video panels or added post-production animations.
Apparently they wanted the Apollo style space-age interfaces with all the knobs and switches. Just, they didn't have the budget, and paint was cheaper.
https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/09/how-star-trek-artist...
> According to Michael Okuda, original Star Trek art director Matt Jefferies had practically no budget. "He had to invent an inexpensive, but believable solution," he told Ars. "The spacecraft of the day, such as the Gemini capsules, were jammed full of toggle switches and gauges. If he had had the money to buy those things, the Enterprise would have looked a lot like that."
> What could be simpler to make than a flat surface with no knobs, buttons, switches, or other details? Okuda designed a user interface dominated large type and sweeping, curved rectangles. The style was first employed in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home for the Enterprise-A, and came to be referred to as "okudagrams." The graphics could be created on transparent colored sheets very cheaply, though as ST:TNG progressed, control panels increasingly used video panels or added post-production animations.
And the reason of course, was because it was super cheap and easy to modify.
In the 32nd century, tho, they use programmable matter because people like tactile feedback, it turns out.
In the 32nd century, tho, they use programmable matter because people like tactile feedback, it turns out.
Well, TNG-era and afterwards at least. The original series was all knobs and buttons.
(Aside, in the novels they came up with a reason for this: During the Earth-Romulan war they had to go partially low-tech to avoid the Romulan telecapture technology, a technology they'd just developed to remotely hack into and control enemy starships. Apparently the design kept for ~100 years up through TOS when they finally learned more about the Romulans.)
(Aside, in the novels they came up with a reason for this: During the Earth-Romulan war they had to go partially low-tech to avoid the Romulan telecapture technology, a technology they'd just developed to remotely hack into and control enemy starships. Apparently the design kept for ~100 years up through TOS when they finally learned more about the Romulans.)
I think car manufacturers will ultimately move towards voice assistants for these sort of tasks.
Which is useless when you have regional non-us accents, or have the windows open, or a crying baby.
Thank you, voice recognition systems suck when you have an accent or too much background noise.
I hope they do that with non-cloud voice recognition
My family tried an Echo Auto for voice control in one of our cars last year, but we ended up disconnecting it.
We drive through hills and mountains often, and it was common for voice commands to be ignored or to have seconds in latency because of spotty mobile network.
It worked OK in cities, as long as you were not on an underground parking lot, which was a common occurrence.
My family tried an Echo Auto for voice control in one of our cars last year, but we ended up disconnecting it.
We drive through hills and mountains often, and it was common for voice commands to be ignored or to have seconds in latency because of spotty mobile network.
It worked OK in cities, as long as you were not on an underground parking lot, which was a common occurrence.
>Not to mention using a touchscreen to adjust the temperature while driving is incredibly dangerous compared to a dial you can feel for without taking your eyes off the road.
I understand this concern and opinion. I just wish that people who had this opinion realized that their car has a very modern voice interface that can reliably understand commands for temperature changes.
I know, I know, it's not the buttons you're used to, and these systems used to be very bad. But give it a shot sometime. I was impressed with Tesla's implementation, and I imagine the rest of the industry has caught up too. The best part is, it's the safest method of all, because it doesn't require taking either your hands or your eyes off the road. So if safety is your jam (and it ought to be!), this is really the best solution.
I understand this concern and opinion. I just wish that people who had this opinion realized that their car has a very modern voice interface that can reliably understand commands for temperature changes.
I know, I know, it's not the buttons you're used to, and these systems used to be very bad. But give it a shot sometime. I was impressed with Tesla's implementation, and I imagine the rest of the industry has caught up too. The best part is, it's the safest method of all, because it doesn't require taking either your hands or your eyes off the road. So if safety is your jam (and it ought to be!), this is really the best solution.
I don't think it's as prevalent as you think. My partner's car interface is almost all touch, including the temperature controls, but there's no voice interface. Luckily, my vehicle has no touch interfaces at all and everything is much more reliable than their's, not even including the time when half their screen stopped responding to touch.
In my opinion all voice interfaces I have used (with the exception of very especialized software like Dragon Naturally Speaking) seem to have terrible locale settings for anything other than American English.
So sure if you are willing to talk to your car like you're a CNN news anchor, then yes voice interfaces are great and far safer than touch screens.
So sure if you are willing to talk to your car like you're a CNN news anchor, then yes voice interfaces are great and far safer than touch screens.
As someone who has a physical condition that makes speaking sometimes very unpleasant, the last thing I want in my car is a voice-only interface.
Also, cue the skit about the thick scottish-accented guy trying to activate a voice-activated elevator...
Buttons, please. And only buttons.
Also, cue the skit about the thick scottish-accented guy trying to activate a voice-activated elevator...
Buttons, please. And only buttons.
Had to look up the skit. Thank you for the laugh.
The link for those wishing to watch and skip a google search:
https://youtu.be/NMS2VnDveP8
The link for those wishing to watch and skip a google search:
https://youtu.be/NMS2VnDveP8
I haven't used Tesla's implementation, but I've suffered through Android Auto's voice controls. I've never had to retry a physical button four times because it needs a hearing aid.
I’ve never used a voice recognition app that can tell what I’m saying and I’m a native English speaker. I’m not about to start speaking differently to make an app happy
> I understand this concern and opinion. I just wish that people who had this opinion realized that their car has a very modern voice interface that can reliably understand commands for temperature changes.
Very new, expensive cars, sure.
Meanwhile, most cars are shifting at least some controls to touch, because they have to have a big screen anyway (backup camera requirements).
Very new, expensive cars, sure.
Meanwhile, most cars are shifting at least some controls to touch, because they have to have a big screen anyway (backup camera requirements).
> voice interface that can reliably understand commands for temperature changes.
Unless... - The radio is playing. - The windows are open. - You're driving in heavy wind/rain/hail pelting the car or other driving conditions making an awful racket. - You don't drive a super expensive car, but one designed by marketing, bean counters, and summer interns. - Other people in the car are talking/conversing. - Other people in the car are sleeping (long road trips aren't uncommon for many). - You have an accent. - You don't speak a language supported by the car maker. - You have a speech impediment. - You have a physical disability preventing clear or any speech. - A software update breaks the system.
So what exactly is the benefit of moving to touch screens / voice control? I'm pretty sure physical buttons and dials don't suffer from any of those problems except for maybe physical disabilities, but at least with physical buttons/switches/dials, you or a third party could modify and/or tie into them to suit the specific needs of the disabled driver. Good luck getting the auto makers to let you modify their software for a similar purpose. I just don't see the point in moving from something that works well in the vast majority of scenarios to something that works measurably less well, with virtual no real benefit. Fine if voice control is in addition to physical, tactile interfaces, but the trend toward replacement doesn't fill me joy.
Unless... - The radio is playing. - The windows are open. - You're driving in heavy wind/rain/hail pelting the car or other driving conditions making an awful racket. - You don't drive a super expensive car, but one designed by marketing, bean counters, and summer interns. - Other people in the car are talking/conversing. - Other people in the car are sleeping (long road trips aren't uncommon for many). - You have an accent. - You don't speak a language supported by the car maker. - You have a speech impediment. - You have a physical disability preventing clear or any speech. - A software update breaks the system.
So what exactly is the benefit of moving to touch screens / voice control? I'm pretty sure physical buttons and dials don't suffer from any of those problems except for maybe physical disabilities, but at least with physical buttons/switches/dials, you or a third party could modify and/or tie into them to suit the specific needs of the disabled driver. Good luck getting the auto makers to let you modify their software for a similar purpose. I just don't see the point in moving from something that works well in the vast majority of scenarios to something that works measurably less well, with virtual no real benefit. Fine if voice control is in addition to physical, tactile interfaces, but the trend toward replacement doesn't fill me joy.
>So what exactly is the benefit of moving to touch screens / voice control?
When it works -- and it works in most of the situations you mentioned (spoiler alert: I work in this space) because it's designed to -- it's safer than using any physical controls at all.
I get that adoption of the half-ass solutions is frustrating. But if we are truly targeting a future where being able to manipulate car features is to be as safe as possible, voice is the best way to do that, at least until we have a solution to beam thoughts directly to the car's computer.
When it works -- and it works in most of the situations you mentioned (spoiler alert: I work in this space) because it's designed to -- it's safer than using any physical controls at all.
I get that adoption of the half-ass solutions is frustrating. But if we are truly targeting a future where being able to manipulate car features is to be as safe as possible, voice is the best way to do that, at least until we have a solution to beam thoughts directly to the car's computer.
I don't consider more frequent updates to be a good thing, either. Yes, of course, I want things to be fixed if they're broken. But when automakers take the route of smartphone apps, where they're updating once a month or more, changing UI, moving things around, adding unnecessary features, it's really not what I want in a car. I don't want touch screen control at all, but if I must have it, I REALLY want the UI to stay the same and the controls to stay in the same place. I don't want some random over the air update to be able to break what little muscle memory I might have built up to use the touch screen interface effectively.
Cadillac driver here (2021 model). I believe it's one of the very few new vehicles that have a physical button for every feature. Granted there is a lot of buttons, it's very nice you don't even have to use the touchscreen ever if you don't want. I theorize this could be due to the age demographic of majority of their buyers, that they have retained all physical buttons.
IMO the UI preferences of people (yeah, often older people) who are bad with technology are often the best for most folks—the rest of us have just learned to work through the pain of other interfaces, rather than demanding better. Most of the stuff they don't like slows down or confuses me, too, it's just not a show-stopper because I know how to get past it.
We have a PHEV from Chevy (the Volt) and it has the best dashboard ever. Knobs for the stuff you want (A/C, Volume, Skip, etc.) And touchscreen for the stuff you don't (GPS, Apple/Android Auto, etc.)
Teslas have the same knobs and buttons (A/C, volume, skip, pause resume) on the steering wheel
This is where I think regulation works, to a degree. Most states in the US already ban using handheld devices in a non-hands free capacity (which excludes almost every usage except for navigation and voice-activated messaging and calling), and this should also apply to auto manufacturers with regards to touchscreens in cars. The liability would rest with the manufacturers, since they are the ones installing the touch screens and requiring drivers use them.
My toyota Corolla has a touch screen for interacting with audio. It has the following delightful features:
- latency
- it has a boot procedure when you turn the car on. While this happens, the controls have quite substantial latency. However the first thing that happens is it begins playing audio.
- there is a knob for adjusting volume, but it's still part of the same system as the rest of it. There is still substantial latency to this control, especially immediately upon turning the car on. However even a little latency here is really annoying, because one naturally adjusts volume via trial and error.
- if you've paired the car with your phone via Bluetooth, it immediately sends a message to your phone to start playing whatever audio was played most recently at whatever the current volume is. I wrote a tasker routine to intercept this, but an android patch a while back helpfully broke this and I haven't bothered fixing it.
All of this combines for a user experience dramatically worse than an aux cord. It's kind of spectacular in its terribleness. And this is an otherwise great car.
- latency
- it has a boot procedure when you turn the car on. While this happens, the controls have quite substantial latency. However the first thing that happens is it begins playing audio.
- there is a knob for adjusting volume, but it's still part of the same system as the rest of it. There is still substantial latency to this control, especially immediately upon turning the car on. However even a little latency here is really annoying, because one naturally adjusts volume via trial and error.
- if you've paired the car with your phone via Bluetooth, it immediately sends a message to your phone to start playing whatever audio was played most recently at whatever the current volume is. I wrote a tasker routine to intercept this, but an android patch a while back helpfully broke this and I haven't bothered fixing it.
All of this combines for a user experience dramatically worse than an aux cord. It's kind of spectacular in its terribleness. And this is an otherwise great car.
This is another benefit of truly analog manual controls: Memory. Used to be your stereo volume knob was just at a certain level; when you turned it on it was at that level. Now they're all software controlled. At least some stereo equipment maintains this paradigm but I'm with you on the phone volume as it's dictated by your phone and the volume for one device could be drastically different than another.
The wild variability in boot times for the entertainment center is what gets me. Sometimes, my bluetooth will start playing immediately, other times the car company's logo will grace the screen for a good 30 seconds before I can interact with it at all. There doesn't seem to be any relation to frequency of starting it up, time since the last drive, etc.
Running fsck. We're now in the era of low effort embedded systems. Just slap Linux on it and don't bother tuning for usability in non-desktop use cases.
I understand your critics against touchscreens and they are justified. Your car doesn’t have a good touchscreen interface from what you say and also from my experience when I drove the corollas from the car pool. However it’s not because many cars are bad that the technology is bad.
A touchscreen from an 20 years old Archos MP3 player is extremely bad while an iPad Pro M1 is very good.
A touchscreen from an 20 years old Archos MP3 player is extremely bad while an iPad Pro M1 is very good.
Some tools are just not good for the job.
At least to me, I haven‘t seen a compelling reasons that touchscreens replacing analog car controls isn‘t a square peg going into a circle hole.
At least to me, I haven‘t seen a compelling reasons that touchscreens replacing analog car controls isn‘t a square peg going into a circle hole.
Well, analog controls are not very good to control a gps map or browse a music collection.
Why do we need screens on everything when we have a phone? A mobile computing device.
The last gen Citroen Ami uses the phone. You can check how it looks.
I find that a round knob with a push-button click, when coupled with a non-touch screen, is far superior to swiping around on a touchscreen to browse a music collection.
I'm wondering if part of that is that the companies producing these awful interfaces don't see themselves as 'software' companies, so they put these things in but no one has the time or passion or interest to make it a better experience.
Not saying they'd definitely be good if only some one loved 'em, but judging from the car touch screens I've used I believe no one has tried yet.
Not saying they'd definitely be good if only some one loved 'em, but judging from the car touch screens I've used I believe no one has tried yet.
I don't think it's really about the touchscreen. I think very few manufacturers, if any, are putting very much thought into this. Apple Carplay, for example, is just a jumbo, uber-simplified version of ipadOS/iOS. In my car it has a great, high resolution 10" touchscreen but a very lackluster experience. It's pretty damning if even Apple, a tech company at heart, is doing it poorly. It doesn't autoplay audio, store memory of what you were doing when last connected, or have any available preferences. "Car" is right there in the name but nowhere to be found in the experience based on everything drivers have expected from vehicles for the better part of a century.
My VW Jetta has Apple Carplay and similar issues abound.
> it has a boot procedure when you turn the car on. While this happens, the controls have quite substantial latency.
I've got one better. Controls during bootup in my car are simply ignored, and the bootup duration for Carplay in particular is so bad that it makes the bluetooth delay seem acceptable.
> However the first thing that happens is it begins playing audio.
This is ironic because I wish mine would start playing. There's no setting for playback behavior either. The only setting, in fact, is the ability to reorder and add/remove third-party apps.
Oh, worse still, sometimes audio doesn't play even when you manually select something. The UI will register it as playing but the audio doesn't come through. When this happens, you have to disconnect and reconnect your phone, which is dangerous in motion. It's a joke. It makes me wonder what the deal is, and I have no idea who to report the bug to.
> All of this combines for a user experience dramatically worse than an aux cord. It's kind of spectacular in its terribleness. And this is an otherwise great car.
Yup. My beater in college that came with some random aftermarket radio was better. Carplay is pretty but beyond that it feels like an afterthought as an experience.
> it has a boot procedure when you turn the car on. While this happens, the controls have quite substantial latency.
I've got one better. Controls during bootup in my car are simply ignored, and the bootup duration for Carplay in particular is so bad that it makes the bluetooth delay seem acceptable.
> However the first thing that happens is it begins playing audio.
This is ironic because I wish mine would start playing. There's no setting for playback behavior either. The only setting, in fact, is the ability to reorder and add/remove third-party apps.
Oh, worse still, sometimes audio doesn't play even when you manually select something. The UI will register it as playing but the audio doesn't come through. When this happens, you have to disconnect and reconnect your phone, which is dangerous in motion. It's a joke. It makes me wonder what the deal is, and I have no idea who to report the bug to.
> All of this combines for a user experience dramatically worse than an aux cord. It's kind of spectacular in its terribleness. And this is an otherwise great car.
Yup. My beater in college that came with some random aftermarket radio was better. Carplay is pretty but beyond that it feels like an afterthought as an experience.
>>> "However the first thing that happens is it begins playing audio."
Yeah. In the same boat and my wife like to play pranks when she uses the car. Turns the volume to max right before removing the key. When her phone is not found it defaults to radio. That "saved me" from having to drink my morning coffee in the office on more than one occasion + it's good training for the heart.
Edit: Forgot to mention that the volume knob is ignored until the system fully boots up and the audio starts as soon as you twist the key.
Yeah. In the same boat and my wife like to play pranks when she uses the car. Turns the volume to max right before removing the key. When her phone is not found it defaults to radio. That "saved me" from having to drink my morning coffee in the office on more than one occasion + it's good training for the heart.
Edit: Forgot to mention that the volume knob is ignored until the system fully boots up and the audio starts as soon as you twist the key.
This is what I used to do to torment my mom when I was a kid. Except with the physical knobs she had in her car (in the 80s), I could crank the volume without having to turn on the car.
Hah our Subaru does this where it defaults to playing the radio at some volume whenever you “boot up” the car. I’ve got no idea what station is selected as the boot up station but every time I turn on our car it plays static.
How about no sound? How about defaulting to silence? Nope…
How about no sound? How about defaulting to silence? Nope…
Agreed. I feel people should start replacing touchscreens with physical buttons/dials with small LED screens on them --- their functions and behaviours can be programmed to change on demand while retaining tactile feedbacks.
> I suppose this allows for more frequent updates, but in my experience it just leads to more bugs and more painful factory updates.
What is allows for is: cost cutting. Not having to install a mask, a button, wire harness and QA everything is a massive manufacturing cost saving. It speeds up production and lowers the amount of components that need to be sourced, installed and later made available for replacement as part of a service.
This is the same situation as with Electron apps - the savings aren't for YOU the USER, the savings are for person MAKING the thing. They get all the benefit at the cost of your user experience.
What is allows for is: cost cutting. Not having to install a mask, a button, wire harness and QA everything is a massive manufacturing cost saving. It speeds up production and lowers the amount of components that need to be sourced, installed and later made available for replacement as part of a service.
This is the same situation as with Electron apps - the savings aren't for YOU the USER, the savings are for person MAKING the thing. They get all the benefit at the cost of your user experience.
They get the cost of a costly user experience, which isn't nothing.
>> This is the same situation as with Electron apps - the savings aren't for YOU the USER, the savings are for person MAKING the thing. They get all the benefit at the cost of your user experience.
I hate Electron as much as the next average HN user, but isn't the benefit of Electron actually kinda for the user as well as the developer, in the sense that Electron is basically a one-stop shop for porting to other platforms?
For instance, Microsoft Teams is written in Electron. This means the application is pretty damn well identical whether users within my company are using Windows or Mac computers. There are advantages to that.
I'd say for myself, Unity is a great example of where, basically; if I went 'native', I would really only be supporting one platform, like I used to when I did game dev in the late 90's and early 00's. But Unity gives me the power to flip a switch, and then all my friends can play pretty much the same copy of my game on any platform of their choosing.
It also means if there are bugs on one platform, they usually show up on another as well; making QE and addressing bugs a little bit easier, making for a better user experience.
Not a fan of Electron, just saying that there are benefits to the user for using such a system.
I hate Electron as much as the next average HN user, but isn't the benefit of Electron actually kinda for the user as well as the developer, in the sense that Electron is basically a one-stop shop for porting to other platforms?
For instance, Microsoft Teams is written in Electron. This means the application is pretty damn well identical whether users within my company are using Windows or Mac computers. There are advantages to that.
I'd say for myself, Unity is a great example of where, basically; if I went 'native', I would really only be supporting one platform, like I used to when I did game dev in the late 90's and early 00's. But Unity gives me the power to flip a switch, and then all my friends can play pretty much the same copy of my game on any platform of their choosing.
It also means if there are bugs on one platform, they usually show up on another as well; making QE and addressing bugs a little bit easier, making for a better user experience.
Not a fan of Electron, just saying that there are benefits to the user for using such a system.
>> This means the application is pretty damn well identical whether users within my company are using Windows or Mac computers. There are advantages to that.
Disadvantages too. Unlike a website, I want the software on my computer to take advantage of the native UI and other features unique to the OS. If Electron didn't exist MS would still build teams for multiple platforms. It would disadvantage small developers but the majority of users (who use well known software developed by large companies) lose out on the prior mentioned benefits thanks to Electrons existence.
Disadvantages too. Unlike a website, I want the software on my computer to take advantage of the native UI and other features unique to the OS. If Electron didn't exist MS would still build teams for multiple platforms. It would disadvantage small developers but the majority of users (who use well known software developed by large companies) lose out on the prior mentioned benefits thanks to Electrons existence.
I always hope these kinds of situations would lead to a market opportunity for someone to come in and do it right... but it rarely does.
You can't create a market opportunity for something without it being a differentiating feature.
2022 Honda Civic but with physical buttons probably doesn't move the needle because car buyers are price sensitive and because 2022 Honda Civic with screen is still better than alternatives.
2022 Honda Civic but with physical buttons probably doesn't move the needle because car buyers are price sensitive and because 2022 Honda Civic with screen is still better than alternatives.
Funny you should mention the Honda Civic...
I had a 2017 Honda Civic Hatchback. First year of the new model design, it had a touch sensitive volume control... After that, I think it was the 2019 and up all Honda's came with a volume knob AS A DIFFERENTIATOR because the UX was so bad without it.
I had a 2017 Honda Civic Hatchback. First year of the new model design, it had a touch sensitive volume control... After that, I think it was the 2019 and up all Honda's came with a volume knob AS A DIFFERENTIATOR because the UX was so bad without it.
Right but that's a different market force! Customer feedback is really effective at redressing provably bad UX but it's a lot harder for that same change to happen in response to a competing manufacturer because in aggregate such a small thing isn't enough to get someone to switch away from Honda entirely.
I mean, it's the driving cause behind me selling the car and moving to a VW...
I think what really is needed is for these displays and interfaces to be replaceable like old car stereo decks.
Speaking of car stereos, I've always thought they should be rack mount and then they went away completely.
I wonder if someday we'll have an open-source car, sort of like the framework laptop. I think it would be amazing. Think of the robust market that has cropped up around custom PCs and custom bicycles.
I wonder if someday we'll have an open-source car, sort of like the framework laptop. I think it would be amazing. Think of the robust market that has cropped up around custom PCs and custom bicycles.
The display in my car is a double DIN stereo that just happens to have a display on the front and a USB port. You might still be able to replace it.
It does take way too long to boot up.
It does take way too long to boot up.
> What is allows for is: cost cutting. Not having to install a mask, a button, wire harness and QA everything is a massive manufacturing cost saving. It speeds up production and lowers the amount of components that need to be sourced, installed and later made available for replacement as part of a service.
I tend to have the same opinion, but at the same time I'm not convinced:
- I bought 1 year ago a new car for 80k $ => that's not cheap and in my opinion putting 4 extra buttons (up/down) or 2 extra knobs to control the temperature of the two front seats wouldn't have been an incredible engineering challenge that would have added hundreds of $ to the cost (which was anyway high).
- we have ~100 buttons that all work reliably on our keyboards, which are connected to our PCs/notebooks with just a single cable => I admit that in a car there is the extra challenge of temperature variance (car parked in the Sahara or somewhere in Iceland), but I cannot think that that's an engineering wonder (worked fine during the last 100 years).
Therefore maybe the trend is driven by designers: make everything shiny & slick, risk of having the own work thrown into the trash when taking a step back to do usability tests vs. physical controls so let's just forget about that.
I tend to have the same opinion, but at the same time I'm not convinced:
- I bought 1 year ago a new car for 80k $ => that's not cheap and in my opinion putting 4 extra buttons (up/down) or 2 extra knobs to control the temperature of the two front seats wouldn't have been an incredible engineering challenge that would have added hundreds of $ to the cost (which was anyway high).
- we have ~100 buttons that all work reliably on our keyboards, which are connected to our PCs/notebooks with just a single cable => I admit that in a car there is the extra challenge of temperature variance (car parked in the Sahara or somewhere in Iceland), but I cannot think that that's an engineering wonder (worked fine during the last 100 years).
Therefore maybe the trend is driven by designers: make everything shiny & slick, risk of having the own work thrown into the trash when taking a step back to do usability tests vs. physical controls so let's just forget about that.
we have ~100 buttons that all work reliably on our keyboards, which are connected to our PCs/notebooks with just a single cable => I admit that in a car there is the extra challenge of temperature variance
I wanted to mention that. Sure, the way auto electronics were traditionally installed was expensive but a keyboard is $20 by itself, a midi music keyboard designed for wear and having buttons and knobs is ~$150. A modular system of instruments and controls that fits around the steering wheel and has a single cable coming out could not be that expensive.
Changing to something like would require a lot of adjustment of electronics processes - different chips and voltages to allow the modularity and single cable, I would guess. But touch-screens also need this I would imagine.
I wanted to mention that. Sure, the way auto electronics were traditionally installed was expensive but a keyboard is $20 by itself, a midi music keyboard designed for wear and having buttons and knobs is ~$150. A modular system of instruments and controls that fits around the steering wheel and has a single cable coming out could not be that expensive.
Changing to something like would require a lot of adjustment of electronics processes - different chips and voltages to allow the modularity and single cable, I would guess. But touch-screens also need this I would imagine.
The US backup camera fiasco was informative, because IIRC one of the domestic auto manufactures testified it was going to add $800 or some such to the price of a car (can't find a link about it). Which back then was still like 3x or so the cost of an aftermarket system. The law passed anyway, and for years its remained a high priced option, until there were lawsuits about the feds failing to enforce the law and require all cars to have them. There are various links on the web about how even the NHTSA estimated it would be ~$40 added to the price of a new car, something many found high considering the costs of the cameras and how many cars already had LCDs that could be repurposed.
Although I suspect the addition of backup cameras has given automakers excuses when it comes to rear visibility.
Although I suspect the addition of backup cameras has given automakers excuses when it comes to rear visibility.
Yep, it also gives a rather encompassing single failure point that will be very hard to replace and very expensive >10 years. Possibly more than the car is even worth at that point in time.
But it's not cheaper. And the car companies make money off aftermarket parts. QA just moves to software, so you're not saving anything there either. Plus so far, screens are less reliable than analog controls, so instead of replacing a cheap knob, you're replacing a top quality screen with special manufacturing requirements due to the environment of the car cabin.
> using a touchscreen to adjust the temperature while driving
I've read this argument again and again but I wonder: How often do you people change the temperature in your car? Mine is set to 21°C since two years, never felt the need to change it.
I've read this argument again and again but I wonder: How often do you people change the temperature in your car? Mine is set to 21°C since two years, never felt the need to change it.
Multiple times a year, mostly in late spring and autumn, and that's infrequent compared to some people I know.
People use cars differently. Your experience may not be universal just because it is consistent. Besides individual variation people also differ in whether and how many passengers they regularly transport and how many drivers share the car (e.g. my wife and I share one car and often drive together).
People use cars differently. Your experience may not be universal just because it is consistent. Besides individual variation people also differ in whether and how many passengers they regularly transport and how many drivers share the car (e.g. my wife and I share one car and often drive together).
Constantly.
Probably because you have an expensive enough car, that actually does a good job at regulating the cabine temperature.
In my cheap pickup I have to constantly adjust temperature and fan speed. In my old German "ultimate driving machine", it's set and forget.
In my cheap pickup I have to constantly adjust temperature and fan speed. In my old German "ultimate driving machine", it's set and forget.
I did a car stereo design question during a job interview once. "Design your ideal car stereo" was the prompt. I said that all I wanted was a bluetooth button and a volume knob. They pressed me for details, and I said the volume knob needed to have a minimum and maximum threshold. I guess that worked, because I got the job.
I ended up giving this exercise to a lot of candidates. About 30% said they would project the UI onto the windshield.
I ended up giving this exercise to a lot of candidates. About 30% said they would project the UI onto the windshield.
I actually test drove a car last year that projected the speedometer onto the windshield in an attempt to make it look like it was overlaying the road. It was terrible! Before even leaving the parking lot I clarified with the sales rep that this "feature" was optional, because there was no way I was buying a car with it.
License agreement screens to use a vehicle you have purchased. I despair that our profession has brought this to fruition. Plus, 'features' locked behind pay walls. Crazy town.
And agree to accept the nag screen before the car will start.
Soon:
“You need to return the call from your mom before the car will start for home.” Etc.
Soon:
“You need to return the call from your mom before the car will start for home.” Etc.
Its not just touch screens vs physical controls. Far to many of the recent cars with buttons are designed by people who apparently never drove the automobile in question. For example, AC fan controls were in the past simple sliders, or knobs, you could crank it to max when one enters a hot car, then put it at the 25% (or whatever speed) without taking your eyes off the road, in a matter of a fraction of a second placing, what was usually a unique control, in a particular position.
These days the digitization of everything means that modern cars with physical controls usually have up/down buttons to change the fan speed or temp. So like the Ford Flex I rented recently, you can't tell from touching the physical control whether the fan is at max speed, so the sequence is, look on the console for the right button (because there are were a half dozen or so identical buttons next to each other), hold it down, while listening to the fan speed until it sounds like its stopped getting faster. Then when you want to slow down, one has to look/feel for the button, hold it for a second or two until it seems to be roughly at the right speed, try not to over/unershoot because its laggy/etc.
Some of this is the result of climate controls designed to hold a given temp rather than setting the fan speed directly, where the assumption is the fan will run at max until it reaches it set point. But that is annoying in a whole other set of cases, including the one where the car isn't doing a good job of circulating the air causing a hotspot on the sunny side/etc. On my wife's car I find myself pushing the climate controls to max cool when I get in because its trying to run in "silent" mode, or waiting for the AC to come up to full pressure and I want it to cool down faster, then I have to look at the controls to reset it back to something reasonable when it finally starts to reach a comfortable temp.
These days the digitization of everything means that modern cars with physical controls usually have up/down buttons to change the fan speed or temp. So like the Ford Flex I rented recently, you can't tell from touching the physical control whether the fan is at max speed, so the sequence is, look on the console for the right button (because there are were a half dozen or so identical buttons next to each other), hold it down, while listening to the fan speed until it sounds like its stopped getting faster. Then when you want to slow down, one has to look/feel for the button, hold it for a second or two until it seems to be roughly at the right speed, try not to over/unershoot because its laggy/etc.
Some of this is the result of climate controls designed to hold a given temp rather than setting the fan speed directly, where the assumption is the fan will run at max until it reaches it set point. But that is annoying in a whole other set of cases, including the one where the car isn't doing a good job of circulating the air causing a hotspot on the sunny side/etc. On my wife's car I find myself pushing the climate controls to max cool when I get in because its trying to run in "silent" mode, or waiting for the AC to come up to full pressure and I want it to cool down faster, then I have to look at the controls to reset it back to something reasonable when it finally starts to reach a comfortable temp.
I wonder if there's a list somewhere of "dumb things you need to check when looking into a new car"? Most of these issues are things that are hard to notice ahead of time or during a test drive so it's kind of extra worrying to me.
Totally agree. Despite the move to touchscreens in cars over the years - they're acually terrible for usability and safety. The lack of tactile feedback and the fact that buttons can move position and appearance from app-to-app means that they require much more cognitive load than physical buttons.
Putting a trimmed-down Android tablet into a car is cheaper for manufacturers, but it's bad for usability.
There's been some research done that finds touchscreens are more distracting than drink or drug driving:
https://www.ala.co.uk/connect/in-car-touchscreens-more-dange...
Putting a trimmed-down Android tablet into a car is cheaper for manufacturers, but it's bad for usability.
There's been some research done that finds touchscreens are more distracting than drink or drug driving:
https://www.ala.co.uk/connect/in-car-touchscreens-more-dange...
Yeah I hate this. Part of the reason I do not like the interior of all Tesla vehicles. I test drove one and asked the salesmen what happens if the screen breaks - he told me that it actually happened to his Tesla and that because of parts shortages it took months and months to get it fixed. When this happens all you can do is drive the car and open and close the windows essentially - no sunroof, no AC, nothing.
I'm surprised that Tesla's cars even have window buttons. They've eliminated everything else.
Screens are not the real issue. The real issue is whether you have to look at it to set it.
There are annoying devices which have a very small number of tactile buttons, and overload them with multiple functions. Monitors, watches, and clocks tend to be especially bad, because the user interface is not used much. So you get some tiny unlabeled buttons, and have to consult the manual to find out when you need a short press, a long press, a press and hold, a two button press, or a paper clip.
Another class of annoying devices is point of sale systems. Some say they're ready for your card but really aren't - the store's system and the credit card terminal are not sufficiently aware of each other's state. Some have a RFID sensor, but it's not clear where the sensor is. Or when it's listening. Some are just really slow. Probably because they're doing too much in a busy "cloud". However, POS systems do work better today. I haven't had a transaction totally fail to be completed in several years.
There are annoying devices which have a very small number of tactile buttons, and overload them with multiple functions. Monitors, watches, and clocks tend to be especially bad, because the user interface is not used much. So you get some tiny unlabeled buttons, and have to consult the manual to find out when you need a short press, a long press, a press and hold, a two button press, or a paper clip.
Another class of annoying devices is point of sale systems. Some say they're ready for your card but really aren't - the store's system and the credit card terminal are not sufficiently aware of each other's state. Some have a RFID sensor, but it's not clear where the sensor is. Or when it's listening. Some are just really slow. Probably because they're doing too much in a busy "cloud". However, POS systems do work better today. I haven't had a transaction totally fail to be completed in several years.
>Modern cars seem to be moving towards all controls on a touch screen somewhere
They aren't. Your car may be a poorly designed exception.
The things you need to use need to do while driving can usually be done with controls on the steering wheel.
If you need visual feedback while using your steering wheel controls you can glance at the dashboard screen.
>using a touchscreen to adjust the temperature while driving is incredibly dangerous compared to a dial you can feel for without taking your eyes off the road
Your car is poorly designed. You can adjust the temp on MANY new cars without the touch screen with simple up down buttons and very clear temperature with its own always on display.
They aren't. Your car may be a poorly designed exception.
The things you need to use need to do while driving can usually be done with controls on the steering wheel.
If you need visual feedback while using your steering wheel controls you can glance at the dashboard screen.
>using a touchscreen to adjust the temperature while driving is incredibly dangerous compared to a dial you can feel for without taking your eyes off the road
Your car is poorly designed. You can adjust the temp on MANY new cars without the touch screen with simple up down buttons and very clear temperature with its own always on display.
It's a cost cutting strategy and it sucks. A screen and software is cheap at scale.
I'm thinking some manufacturers might be catching on to the downsides of touchscreen controls. I did a test drive of the previous generation Honda Civic, and it had touchscreen climate controls. I wound up getting a 2022 Honda Civic which has physical dials for all climate controls.
Though, as an aside, dials for temperature and fan speed are fine, but they also use a dial for changing which vents the air comes out of, which makes no sense. Also, the dials rotate infinitely, even though the ranges are finite. It means I still have to look to see what the setting is at, instead of being able to tell by feel.
By comparison, the 1992 Honda Civic climate controls are way better: https://i.imgur.com/r8JjjNw.png
Though, as an aside, dials for temperature and fan speed are fine, but they also use a dial for changing which vents the air comes out of, which makes no sense. Also, the dials rotate infinitely, even though the ranges are finite. It means I still have to look to see what the setting is at, instead of being able to tell by feel.
By comparison, the 1992 Honda Civic climate controls are way better: https://i.imgur.com/r8JjjNw.png
> Though, as an aside, dials for temperature and fan speed are fine, but they also use a dial for changing which vents the air comes out of, which makes no sense. Also, the dials rotate infinitely, even though the ranges are finite. It means I still have to look to see what the setting is at, instead of being able to tell by feel.
Yikes. I know I'm just a nobody on the internet, but if I worked at Honda in any position of power, I would do everything in my power to get the people responsible for rubber-stamping this fired.
This is unacceptable for a modern vehicle.
Yikes. I know I'm just a nobody on the internet, but if I worked at Honda in any position of power, I would do everything in my power to get the people responsible for rubber-stamping this fired.
This is unacceptable for a modern vehicle.
Regardless of how bad it is, it's a step up from touchscreen interfaces, which means it actually is acceptable by modern vehicle standards.
But I agree that by objective standards, it's unacceptable.
But I agree that by objective standards, it's unacceptable.
Humane Interface by J. Raskin had some interesting points about how to make low tech interfaces.
You need essentially eliminate "modes" - like the clock/set time/radio mode buttons on your alarm clock. I'm not saying he's right - but he's worth reading.
You need essentially eliminate "modes" - like the clock/set time/radio mode buttons on your alarm clock. I'm not saying he's right - but he's worth reading.
That's a great point about "modes".
Even 40 years people already joked about the alarm clock you mentioned: everyone knew how to use VCRs, but the damn clock was never adjusted. Since it was neither intuitive, nor something a user would memorize how to do, most VCRs just sat there saying 12:00 or 00:00 forever. For the alarm clock, of course, we had to learn since it was its main function.
I see this in music equipment a lot, too. To program something with modes you need significantly more time than something with just knobs. And the performance possibilities are also much limited as soon as you bring in menu-diving.
Even 40 years people already joked about the alarm clock you mentioned: everyone knew how to use VCRs, but the damn clock was never adjusted. Since it was neither intuitive, nor something a user would memorize how to do, most VCRs just sat there saying 12:00 or 00:00 forever. For the alarm clock, of course, we had to learn since it was its main function.
I see this in music equipment a lot, too. To program something with modes you need significantly more time than something with just knobs. And the performance possibilities are also much limited as soon as you bring in menu-diving.
That's a great point about looking to music equipment for UX ideas. If you want to see what happens when a design team puts serious effort into building a satisfying and effective interface, look at electronic music devices.
Those mixer boards you see are horribly complicated, but with the thousands of knobs and buttons most anyone can figure out how to mute a microphone in a few minutes or less.
The touchscreen versions can be more complicated - but since they also have the ability to change the knobs to presets they may be more useful to actual sound engineers.
The touchscreen versions can be more complicated - but since they also have the ability to change the knobs to presets they may be more useful to actual sound engineers.
Good points. Some mechanical version can also change the buttons, faders and knobs positions to presets when they have automation circuits, this has been a thing since the late 70s. So you get the best of both worlds.
One important aspect is that with tactile controls one barely needs presets, though, except for recall. Mixing done from scratch is quite fast, even when compared to presets, so I would argue that there is a significant tradeoff when going digital.
One important aspect is that with tactile controls one barely needs presets, though, except for recall. Mixing done from scratch is quite fast, even when compared to presets, so I would argue that there is a significant tradeoff when going digital.
While great in the hands of a competent designer, the "low-tech" interface gets a bad rap because it easily becomes a maze of inscrutable modes and dual- or triple-use buttons in the hands of a careless designer.
Reminds me of modern stoves. All of them have touch controls which means every time a friend of mine is presenting me their new kitchen, I have no idea how to use the stove. They always say "No, no, it's really easy to get used to" but it's still frustrating because the touch controls never bring any new features to the table. They are just knobs abstracted into separated buttons and sliders, of which the latter you are not quite sure if you should drag them or just point to the wanted value. With a physical knob, the intuition of the laws of physics tells you how the knob can be turned.
They are easier to clean for sure but I can't believe the current "click this, slide that" UX is the best the manufacturers could come up with.
They are easier to clean for sure but I can't believe the current "click this, slide that" UX is the best the manufacturers could come up with.
Having had one of these, I just want to say: “Never again.” Mine would turn itself on when you washed it and turn itself off when something splattered (like 50% of the time when I boiled water).
It made me wonder if anyone actually tested the damn design before approval for mass production.
It made me wonder if anyone actually tested the damn design before approval for mass production.
Haha that’s true! I am an electrical engineering student, if I have to guess it may be due to random electric charges, probably grounding was not done properly.
I know nothing about electricity but water always seems to confuse those hotplates... or laptop's touchpads FWIW.
(how do I know??)
I think this is a safety function. You may not be able to turn off the stove yourself if something boils over, and the buttons get covered in hot liquid.
Sounds like these stoves could use an "oh shit" / "Big Red Button" that's easily accessible when this happens.
Is there not the switch on the mains where you are? In the UK we have a quick-off* toggle switch for electric ovens. Usually near the oven but could be elsewhere in a bigger kitchen
That'd be my go-to panic resolve anyway
* For folks unfamiliar by this I mean it takes almost zero effort to turn the switch off, but takes a little bit of force to switch back on
That'd be my go-to panic resolve anyway
* For folks unfamiliar by this I mean it takes almost zero effort to turn the switch off, but takes a little bit of force to switch back on
I’ve never seen this here in the US. Sounds like a good idea!
I have a isolation switches near my oven (and also for my fridge, and a combined one for my washing machine and dryer) here in Ireland, which I believe are required on new or newly renovated properties by planning laws, but there's nothing asymmetric about the force required, it's just a relatively stiff switch whether turning on or off.
It's possible that the resistance part isn't even a thing
If I'm honest I only noticed it because the last one I came across seemed to be wired upside down (easy on, resistant off) and I'm almost certain the house before had the same but wired the "right way"
Could just have been some rogue grease or something either lubricating or gunking up the switch haha
If I'm honest I only noticed it because the last one I came across seemed to be wired upside down (easy on, resistant off) and I'm almost certain the house before had the same but wired the "right way"
Could just have been some rogue grease or something either lubricating or gunking up the switch haha
Seems like a poor safety feature to have it also turn on when you're cleaning.
I've never seen one of these soft touch control designs on a cooktop but I did hear they existed and at least one cat had turned one on by standing on it resulting in a house fire. The only dumber idea I can think of is a touch screen, which I'm sure they're hard at work integrated right now.
I've never seen one of these soft touch control designs on a cooktop but I did hear they existed and at least one cat had turned one on by standing on it resulting in a house fire. The only dumber idea I can think of is a touch screen, which I'm sure they're hard at work integrated right now.
> Seems like a poor safety feature to have it also turn on when you're cleaning.
Right, that's bad design.
The cooktop I'm familiar with always turns off and beeps if something (metal pots or a liquid) covers a part of the button area.
To turn it on, you have to press two different buttons within a certain time limit, with a pot standing on the appropriate cooking zone. Most cats probably won't manage to do that.
> The only dumber idea I can think of is a touch screen
Oh, don't get me started. We own an oven with a touch screen. It's pure idiocy. But the cooktop is actually very good IMO.
Right, that's bad design.
The cooktop I'm familiar with always turns off and beeps if something (metal pots or a liquid) covers a part of the button area.
To turn it on, you have to press two different buttons within a certain time limit, with a pot standing on the appropriate cooking zone. Most cats probably won't manage to do that.
> The only dumber idea I can think of is a touch screen
Oh, don't get me started. We own an oven with a touch screen. It's pure idiocy. But the cooktop is actually very good IMO.
http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20211230000501
Cats responsible for 107 house fires in Seoul in past 3 yrs ... According to the Seoul Metropolitan Fire & Disaster Headquarters, cats are believed to have started the blaze by turning on the electric stove in the kitchen with their paws. ... Electric induction cookers often come with touch-sensitive buttons, which can be switched on by the paw of an animal.
Cats responsible for 107 house fires in Seoul in past 3 yrs ... According to the Seoul Metropolitan Fire & Disaster Headquarters, cats are believed to have started the blaze by turning on the electric stove in the kitchen with their paws. ... Electric induction cookers often come with touch-sensitive buttons, which can be switched on by the paw of an animal.
I used to always have some kitchen rags around for exactly that type of situation, in fact I still have one that I've purchased from Ikea. I just wrap my hand/fingers with said rag and manipulate that button accordingly (or get a hot dish from the stove itself etc).
In my house, my electric stove has a master isolation switch for exactly this purpose.
On the other hand they are extremely easy to clean. Just get some cloth and ceramic stove cleaner and you're good to go.
The knobs are more convenient to operate, but they tend to accumulate grease in the joints and other parts where you cannot reach. And if you want to clean them thoroughly you need to disassemble the knobs and that's annoying as hell. For me being easier to clean compensates everything.
The knobs are more convenient to operate, but they tend to accumulate grease in the joints and other parts where you cannot reach. And if you want to clean them thoroughly you need to disassemble the knobs and that's annoying as hell. For me being easier to clean compensates everything.
Every stove knob I've ever interacted with easily pulls / slides off its peg and can be hand washed if it gets too dirty. Changing a lightbulb is an order of magnitude harder.
Yeah...when cleaning I take off the knobs and soak them while cleaning the rest of the top. Then finish by hand washing the knobs and then putting it all back together.
The other thing is you can buy new knobs which can update/change/refresh the look of an older cooktop.
The other thing is you can buy new knobs which can update/change/refresh the look of an older cooktop.
I just used to bash them in the dishwasher with everything else
Got the touch buttons now and am forever turning stuff off randomly. It's like my hand meats are drawn to pressing more than one button at a time
I guess the idea is if the water overflows it'll 'touch' multiple buttons and turn the heat off but I've only ever turned it off by accident so far haha
Got the touch buttons now and am forever turning stuff off randomly. It's like my hand meats are drawn to pressing more than one button at a time
I guess the idea is if the water overflows it'll 'touch' multiple buttons and turn the heat off but I've only ever turned it off by accident so far haha
[deleted]
These ideas aren't born in the actual product design teams, where "don't put touch control near things that get hot" or "no unprotected touch controls on surfaces where spilling can occur" are not concepts that need to be explained. The way this usually happens is that product management hands down the requirement from down top, either on their own or after contracting some expensive industrial design agency (i.e. a mixed team of engineering and art majors who never had to sell, service and especially provide tech support for, any of the products whose outside they designed) to help "refresh" their product line.
Then, when in a shocking twist of events it's absolutely miserable, the tests are slightly mangled to highlight the usability gains ("easier to wipe", "looks modern and integrates well in a modern kitchen") and ensure no one's yearly bonus is endangered.
Surprisingly, it works out really well despite competition because everyone's doing it pretty similarly.
If your next question is "but why on Earth is it done like that!?", well, there are many reasons for that. But the tl;dr is that making kitchen appliances with universal, "boring" features, which last for 20 years, would spell disaster for a lot of companies in a lot of industries, from home appliances to furniture, and for smaller, specialized suppliers in these fields. The market has fine-tuned itself for frequently replaceable junk that's just good enough to that someone can plausibly say "well ackshually" when I refer to it as junk. Anything better would inherently result in much longer growth cycles, which Western management and stakeholders are not capable of handling anymore, and would disrupt "fashionable" trends, which would further prolong growth cycles in both home appliances and connected industries (furniture, home decor, cooking vessels believe it or not, and so on). It would also make it difficult to outsource mass production to cheap factories with poor quality control processes, thus driving prices up even more than the better materials and design would warrant, but that's more of a second-order effect than a cause by now.
Sauce: I used to work on consumer products years ago -- not kitchen appliances specifically but I know people who did those, too. Attending meetings was a lesson in cognitive dissonance and doublespeak and it's one of the least rewarding tech jobs you can imagine.
Then, when in a shocking twist of events it's absolutely miserable, the tests are slightly mangled to highlight the usability gains ("easier to wipe", "looks modern and integrates well in a modern kitchen") and ensure no one's yearly bonus is endangered.
Surprisingly, it works out really well despite competition because everyone's doing it pretty similarly.
If your next question is "but why on Earth is it done like that!?", well, there are many reasons for that. But the tl;dr is that making kitchen appliances with universal, "boring" features, which last for 20 years, would spell disaster for a lot of companies in a lot of industries, from home appliances to furniture, and for smaller, specialized suppliers in these fields. The market has fine-tuned itself for frequently replaceable junk that's just good enough to that someone can plausibly say "well ackshually" when I refer to it as junk. Anything better would inherently result in much longer growth cycles, which Western management and stakeholders are not capable of handling anymore, and would disrupt "fashionable" trends, which would further prolong growth cycles in both home appliances and connected industries (furniture, home decor, cooking vessels believe it or not, and so on). It would also make it difficult to outsource mass production to cheap factories with poor quality control processes, thus driving prices up even more than the better materials and design would warrant, but that's more of a second-order effect than a cause by now.
Sauce: I used to work on consumer products years ago -- not kitchen appliances specifically but I know people who did those, too. Attending meetings was a lesson in cognitive dissonance and doublespeak and it's one of the least rewarding tech jobs you can imagine.
I get that it's better for the producers if everyone agrees to make throwaway appliances that need to be replaced every couple years, but how do they prevent someone from entering the market and selling high quality equipment that lasts? They would have fewer repeat sales, but more of the market share presumably.
It's a combination of factors but the gist of it is that they're not preventing anyone from doing it -- nobody wants to do it because they can't justify it.
Designing and selling long-lived consumer products is a tremendous effort in terms of regulatory activity and logistics. And if you're just entering the market, you're entering a market where established players have been sitting on standardizing committees, lobbying regulatory bodies, and have had special deals with manufacturers, transporters, TV channels and shopping malls since Jimmy Carter was in the White House, and have been able to leverage them when dealing with online shops since the days of the dotcom boom.
Furthermore, getting that "more of the market share" requires actual first sales to happen in the first place. Selling fewer, better, and inherently more expensive products by claiming that yours are really good and last a long time is not very straightforward at all: it's not like everyone else is openly advertising that they're selling cheap junk that's worse than their 1980s versions in every way except maybe power consumption (because we can make better power supplies now). If you're selling kitchen stoves that last for twenty years, it's gonna be at least seven or eight years before anyone really believes you.
So all this requires tremendous initial investment in a pretty hostile environment. Consumer markets are already perceived as low-yield and under tremendous price pressure. But, worse, some segments -- household appliances in particular -- also suffer from a "marketshare = dead market" problem: if you sold someone a washing machine that lasts fifteen years, you're not going to sell them another one for fifteen years. So if you're selling things that last for fifteen years, you gotta convince the folks whose money you're depending on that you can keep selling things at a reasonable pace for fifteen years from now, and you won't really know if you've succeeded at your basic value proposition ("we make better things that last longer") for at least seven or eight years into it.
That's not just pretty risky, it's on a timeframe that's about an order of magnitude higher than companies/investment funds/people willing to throw that kind of money into things that run on electricity are able to work with.
That's not to say no one has been entering these markets. They have, but they've usually done it through other value propositions -- stuff that's even cheaper, stuff that's ethically sourced and so on. New premium brands do pop up but they either target prosumer/super premium markets (slang for "super rich people who want to brag or impress"), where the rules are slightly different, or go straight for the professional market first, where the rules of the game are very much different, and use whatever reputation they can make there to start selling home appliances too.
Designing and selling long-lived consumer products is a tremendous effort in terms of regulatory activity and logistics. And if you're just entering the market, you're entering a market where established players have been sitting on standardizing committees, lobbying regulatory bodies, and have had special deals with manufacturers, transporters, TV channels and shopping malls since Jimmy Carter was in the White House, and have been able to leverage them when dealing with online shops since the days of the dotcom boom.
Furthermore, getting that "more of the market share" requires actual first sales to happen in the first place. Selling fewer, better, and inherently more expensive products by claiming that yours are really good and last a long time is not very straightforward at all: it's not like everyone else is openly advertising that they're selling cheap junk that's worse than their 1980s versions in every way except maybe power consumption (because we can make better power supplies now). If you're selling kitchen stoves that last for twenty years, it's gonna be at least seven or eight years before anyone really believes you.
So all this requires tremendous initial investment in a pretty hostile environment. Consumer markets are already perceived as low-yield and under tremendous price pressure. But, worse, some segments -- household appliances in particular -- also suffer from a "marketshare = dead market" problem: if you sold someone a washing machine that lasts fifteen years, you're not going to sell them another one for fifteen years. So if you're selling things that last for fifteen years, you gotta convince the folks whose money you're depending on that you can keep selling things at a reasonable pace for fifteen years from now, and you won't really know if you've succeeded at your basic value proposition ("we make better things that last longer") for at least seven or eight years into it.
That's not just pretty risky, it's on a timeframe that's about an order of magnitude higher than companies/investment funds/people willing to throw that kind of money into things that run on electricity are able to work with.
That's not to say no one has been entering these markets. They have, but they've usually done it through other value propositions -- stuff that's even cheaper, stuff that's ethically sourced and so on. New premium brands do pop up but they either target prosumer/super premium markets (slang for "super rich people who want to brag or impress"), where the rules are slightly different, or go straight for the professional market first, where the rules of the game are very much different, and use whatever reputation they can make there to start selling home appliances too.
My oven has touch controls on the front that are rendered useless as soon as I open it and heat/vapor is released onto the front panel. Luckily the touch interface is only for secondary features like setting timers, the important ones - temperature and mode selection - are physical knobs that can be pushed in flush with the front.
From my limited experience with touch operated stoves - these would be just as reliably operated by randomly throwing darts at a board.
From my limited experience with touch operated stoves - these would be just as reliably operated by randomly throwing darts at a board.
My parents have one and I think it works really well. There is a physical power button, start button, as well as a physical knob. For the basic usage, you press power, turn the knob to select the mode, press start, then turn the knob to select your desired temperature.
No use of the touch screen for the basic flow. But if you want to do something else like start self cleaning or turn steaming on, you use the touchscreen rather than pull out a manual that tells you to press button 1, 3 and 4 for 4 seconds.
No use of the touch screen for the basic flow. But if you want to do something else like start self cleaning or turn steaming on, you use the touchscreen rather than pull out a manual that tells you to press button 1, 3 and 4 for 4 seconds.
>No, no, it's really easy to get used to
Says everyone on Linux with their ridiculous custom setup on an obscure window manager. The difference here being that you can change things to make them more comfortable and don't have to wait for some "designer" to have the idea first.
Says everyone on Linux with their ridiculous custom setup on an obscure window manager. The difference here being that you can change things to make them more comfortable and don't have to wait for some "designer" to have the idea first.
Cleaning is what I spend far more time doing with a stove, and is more important, then the very brief period I'm involved in setting the temperature during cooking.
So it seems like a fairly good trade-off to me.
So it seems like a fairly good trade-off to me.
In my experience they’re not great for cleaning. They get confused when they get wet and start blinking and beeping and turning things on and off randomly. A set of well-designed physical dials could be made in a way that’s easier to keep clean.
You can't keep physical dials clean by their nature. They have to connect to something, which means you have holes. Holes + aerosolized grease = sticky 100% of the time.
There's no way around it. I do my best to clean under the knobs of my stove but they don't come off. Don't even get me started about how much of an ass pain burners are.
When I'm not renting I'll definitely install an induction system. If I never deal with cleaning burners, and knobs again it'll be too soon.
There's no way around it. I do my best to clean under the knobs of my stove but they don't come off. Don't even get me started about how much of an ass pain burners are.
When I'm not renting I'll definitely install an induction system. If I never deal with cleaning burners, and knobs again it'll be too soon.
I’m hopeful that we will see less and less gratuitous use of “hi-tech” UI in consumer electronics in the near future. It seems that many manufacturers still believe consumers think blinking LEDs and touchscreens and beeps and chromed plastic spaceship shapes are cool. Despite most of us using high resolution touchscreens many hours per day.
A good physical knob or button usually feels much more luxurious and expensive.
A good physical knob or button usually feels much more luxurious and expensive.
None of my friends say their stove touch buttons are great. They are not just unintuitive, most implementations are painfully slow.
(my own pet peeve though are microwaves - they are a positive monstrosity of horrible interface bearing no connection to actual typical usage. I'd like one with a massive "add 30s and start button", and anything else is a nice optional extra for me :-D
(my own pet peeve though are microwaves - they are a positive monstrosity of horrible interface bearing no connection to actual typical usage. I'd like one with a massive "add 30s and start button", and anything else is a nice optional extra for me :-D
Get a Whirlpool with Jet Start [1], it's a big-ish button that does exactly that. Easily the nunber 1 used button on our microwave (which, unfortunately, has loads more buttons).
A pretty good idea, I'm sure other manufacturers have the same but I don't know the marketing lingo.
[1]: https://www.manualslib.com/manual/972967/Whirlpool-Jt469.htm...
A pretty good idea, I'm sure other manufacturers have the same but I don't know the marketing lingo.
[1]: https://www.manualslib.com/manual/972967/Whirlpool-Jt469.htm...
Commercial heavy-duty microwaves and the cheapest plastic microwaves share the same interface: two dials. One is time, the other is power cycle. Sometimes it's just one dial for time.
This is why I buy the cheapest ones. They don't break and their buttons are intuitive, I don't need a Bachelor's in microwave UI to use one.
> two dials. One is time, the other is power cycle
This is the ideal design and no one can convince me otherwise. Same thing goes for ovens. All I care about is "how hot do I cook/bake this?" and "For how long?"
Two dials is perfect.
This is the ideal design and no one can convince me otherwise. Same thing goes for ovens. All I care about is "how hot do I cook/bake this?" and "For how long?"
Two dials is perfect.
Personally I really like the sensor modes of my microwave. For most of my leftovers, I can toss the plate/bowl in the microwave, hit REHEAT, and it figures it out. If it thinks I need to stir/rotate, it'll beep at me to do so while its cooking. Seems a lot simpler as a user than thinking about how long to cook it, what power level, etc.
The best microwave I've ever used lived in the break room at my last job. It had one big knob, which worked like a standard kitchen timer: you would just twist it right until it pointed at the amount of time you want, then let it tick back down to the left until cooking was done. Want more? Just twist it right a little more, and let it keep ticking.
I have no idea why domestic microwaves come with a maze of buttons when such vastly superior knob technology exists.
I have no idea why domestic microwaves come with a maze of buttons when such vastly superior knob technology exists.
Yeah, I've got a cheapo microwave, but honestly it's UI is pretty good as appliances go.
Turn the knob for time, hit ok, get power prompt, hit ok again for 100% (or adjust using the knob for less), microwaving starts.
There is also specific program functionality to tell it you have 200g of mince meat to defrost or whatever and it figures out the time/power setting, but I personally never use them.
Turn the knob for time, hit ok, get power prompt, hit ok again for 100% (or adjust using the knob for less), microwaving starts.
There is also specific program functionality to tell it you have 200g of mince meat to defrost or whatever and it figures out the time/power setting, but I personally never use them.
Samsung Solo Microwaves are one knob for time + start immediately. One knob for power (that you use once a year): https://www.samsung.com/uk/microwave-ovens/solo/mw3000am-ms2...
They iterate over the design bits (black knobs on black microwave -> silver knobs on black microwave -> current design), but the microwave remains the same
They iterate over the design bits (black knobs on black microwave -> silver knobs on black microwave -> current design), but the microwave remains the same
Such knobs should be the most obvious interface but sadly most of the analogue models on the market lack a lot of accuracy. Some times even up to 30s-1min range. Enough to be the difference between cold or over-cooked food.
The best are often a big knob controlling a digital LCD timer. Started with a single start button doubling as +30s.
The best are often a big knob controlling a digital LCD timer. Started with a single start button doubling as +30s.
> The best are often a big knob controlling a digital LCD timer.
That's exactly how this one worked. I wish I could recall the brand, but I don't; it felt more like an industrial device than a home appliance.
That's exactly how this one worked. I wish I could recall the brand, but I don't; it felt more like an industrial device than a home appliance.
Last time I had to buy a microwave, I intentionally sought out one with two knobs: time and power. It would be very hard to improve on the UX that provides.
Yup definitely on your side, it’s frustrating to see button less interfaces, buttons make many more sense.
how to use the stove
I've been using an induction stove for years now, and I still can't get over the fact that I don't have stepless control over the output power. When I have to keep something on a simmer, I'm continually adjusting the controls because keeping the pan on 2 will eventually get off the boil, and if I keep it on 3 it boils too hard.
Give me back my continuously-variable controls, please.
I've been using an induction stove for years now, and I still can't get over the fact that I don't have stepless control over the output power. When I have to keep something on a simmer, I'm continually adjusting the controls because keeping the pan on 2 will eventually get off the boil, and if I keep it on 3 it boils too hard.
Give me back my continuously-variable controls, please.
I was looking at new models lately and they have way more refined range, you could even do succesful bain-marie and butter caramel risk free of burning. Still don't know why they won't do a touch knob for quick actuation of the temperature (when you wanna make fry rice or things like that.)
On the other hand, literally last night the physical knob for one of my stove burners came off in my hand leaving me having to use a pair of pliers to turn it off. So, your mileage may vary.
But you could put the knob back on, right? I mean, it slides off to make it easier to clean or replace, and you just need to slide it back on...?
Or, replace the barrel and molex, or maybe solder a couple wires, but where's the fun in that? You could instead replace a high dollar board & / or controller(s) to get back your otherwise basic functionality.
or put a neighbour knob if you have already realised that you can dismount and mount them again.
In this case, weirdly and confoundingly, no.
I'd rather have some physical knob that I can use to turn something off, even if I have to bust out the pliers. Good luck shutting off some touch control that's on the fritz.
The stove at my parents place has some touch control to activate another heating ring(?). Not only is that hard to activate with wet or greasy fingers, but after a couple of years of use it keeps turning itself off now. Thank god that thing fails "closed" and does not (yet?) spontaneously activate effectively doubling the heating power.
The stove at my parents place has some touch control to activate another heating ring(?). Not only is that hard to activate with wet or greasy fingers, but after a couple of years of use it keeps turning itself off now. Thank god that thing fails "closed" and does not (yet?) spontaneously activate effectively doubling the heating power.
Everything seems to be done for looks rather than utility these days. Appliances have to 'look good' and 'fit' in the kitchen scheme. Knobs are apparently too 'protrudy'.
I was at a friends' and they had touch buttons on the hotplate. Nothing really hard to understand, but it would not register touches with my index finger. After fighting, I figured I would try to use my thumb and that worked.
One vote for the physical buttons. If you want to act quickly, tactile buttons are really annoying.
One vote for the physical buttons. If you want to act quickly, tactile buttons are really annoying.
Also home appliances love to use icons without any seeming standardisation. On one oven, the fan icon means fan assisted cooking and is basically the one you want 90% of the time, and then on another it means turn the fan on without applying heat. Also various half open rectangles with squiggly lines which may or may not have anything to do with grill modes depending on your specoific oven.
As I've gotten older I've become very anti-icon. Just use text!
While I agree, I assume that the reason behind it is that icons don't require translation which allows them to sell the equipment worldwide without modifications to the interface. Not saying it's a good reason, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's just economics behind.
Text means that you need different versions for different international markets, which causes a lot of additional SKUs and associated logistics costs.
And it's not just that, but words with the same meaning can have vastly different lengths depending on language, which may or may not fit in your original design. To name an example: If you have an fan-assisted oven, you can have a small round button labeled 'fan'. In Dutch, however, the word is 'ventilator', which would require much more space.
And it's not just that, but words with the same meaning can have vastly different lengths depending on language, which may or may not fit in your original design. To name an example: If you have an fan-assisted oven, you can have a small round button labeled 'fan'. In Dutch, however, the word is 'ventilator', which would require much more space.
> Text means that you need different versions for different international markets, which causes a lot of additional SKUs and associated logistics costs.
If only we could all decide upon a "default" language to use globally, much like a lot of software out there is available only in English which seems to be good enough (almost all programming languages included) for most cases.
Then again, I'm the kind of person who finds most localizations in my native language to be uncomfortable to use and attempts by the academia to force people to use translated IT terms pointless - that will only lead to more confusion.
Of course, not everyone knows multiple languages so maybe that's not the best argument, since we should be accomodating to many people if possible. And then there's the fact that I might have to learn Mandarin eventually if such an initiative came to pass.
If only we could all decide upon a "default" language to use globally, much like a lot of software out there is available only in English which seems to be good enough (almost all programming languages included) for most cases.
Then again, I'm the kind of person who finds most localizations in my native language to be uncomfortable to use and attempts by the academia to force people to use translated IT terms pointless - that will only lead to more confusion.
Of course, not everyone knows multiple languages so maybe that's not the best argument, since we should be accomodating to many people if possible. And then there's the fact that I might have to learn Mandarin eventually if such an initiative came to pass.
Honestly, text in another language is nearly as useful to me as inscrutable icons. Maybe even more useful as long as it's a romance or Germanic language.
Pretty sure this is often a cost saving measure, capacitive buttons can be less expensive than knobs, especially if they have to be waterproof.
This is the only reason I don't have a Tesla yet. I want physical buttons for almost everything.
I despise touch controls in almost everything, from cars to home appliance, in my opinion the only reason they're replaced physical controls is because it's simply cheaper to make and people just got used to them because manufacturers convinced them through marketing "it's the future! be modern!". For example an induction hob at my wife's parents home - recently my mother-in-law couldn't turn it on because some cryptic key icon was flashing, I had to look into the manual to find out it's a children protection mode that is turned on and off by holding the key icon for 3 seconds, I didn't even know you can press it and it's so easy in general to accidentally press various things when cooking, sometimes you don't even notice that you have accidently changed the temperature.
Touch controls are also cheaper to iterate, soft-update, or reuse across models.
You don't even have to touch them, water (even slightest amounts), metal, or anything like that can trigger a "press". It's like the thing hasn't even been field-tested in an actual kitchen.
I'm remodeling my kitchen, all my appliances (except the microwave) has nice big knobs on them, big display on the oven to show the results.
I LOATH my current oven / cook top that has up and down push button arrows and a tiny screen that is pointed at my waist ...
I LOATH my current oven / cook top that has up and down push button arrows and a tiny screen that is pointed at my waist ...
[deleted]
> the touch controls never bring any new features to the table.
1. Far easier to clean (you even mention this despite saying it brings no features...)
2. Easier for a lock function to help prevent kids/accidental turning on of the stove
3. Take up less space, makes the stove top a flush surface making it more reusable as a counter top
There are pros and cons to knobs vs capacitive buttons on a stove. In my kitchen I do not have a lot of spare counter space, so having the entire stove practically flush with the rest of the counter with absolutely nothing protruding is a big positive feature to me. I've never personally encountered any misunderstandings of the on/off or up/down buttons, and I've never had issues with boil overs or something triggering buttons unwantingly or been unable to make adjustments while cooking. So for me, the flush capacitive buttons are a huge selling point; having knobs would be worse in my use case.
1. Far easier to clean (you even mention this despite saying it brings no features...)
2. Easier for a lock function to help prevent kids/accidental turning on of the stove
3. Take up less space, makes the stove top a flush surface making it more reusable as a counter top
There are pros and cons to knobs vs capacitive buttons on a stove. In my kitchen I do not have a lot of spare counter space, so having the entire stove practically flush with the rest of the counter with absolutely nothing protruding is a big positive feature to me. I've never personally encountered any misunderstandings of the on/off or up/down buttons, and I've never had issues with boil overs or something triggering buttons unwantingly or been unable to make adjustments while cooking. So for me, the flush capacitive buttons are a huge selling point; having knobs would be worse in my use case.
Never seen a stove with knobs on top of the stovetop. They are usually on the front of the bench. Removing point 1 and 3.
There are tons of stoves which have their controls on the top. It is an incredibly common feature. You're practically arguing there aren't cars with four doors because you've only personally driven coupes.
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/searchpage.jsp?st=stove+top
Lets compare two pretty similar stoves and see how they compare to my 3 points above:
Electric stove with knobs: https://www.bestbuy.com/site/ge-profile-36-built-in-electric...
Electric stove with touch controls: https://www.bestbuy.com/site/ge-profile-36-built-in-electric...
1. Which one looks easier to clean, the one that's literally a flat plane of glass, or the one with six protrusions which would need to be removed to clean under, which then need to be individually cleaned themselves?
2. It looks like this one actually has some kind of lock function, so that's nice. Not all knob-based stoves have this idea. Looking around at other stoves this feature is somewhat uncommon, but not ultra rare.
3. Once again, one is truly a flat plane of glass, while the other has six protrusions on it which you then have to deal with when moving things around the counter. Its nice not having those dials in the way when you're just trying to use that space as a counter in a pinch.
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/searchpage.jsp?st=stove+top
Lets compare two pretty similar stoves and see how they compare to my 3 points above:
Electric stove with knobs: https://www.bestbuy.com/site/ge-profile-36-built-in-electric...
Electric stove with touch controls: https://www.bestbuy.com/site/ge-profile-36-built-in-electric...
1. Which one looks easier to clean, the one that's literally a flat plane of glass, or the one with six protrusions which would need to be removed to clean under, which then need to be individually cleaned themselves?
2. It looks like this one actually has some kind of lock function, so that's nice. Not all knob-based stoves have this idea. Looking around at other stoves this feature is somewhat uncommon, but not ultra rare.
3. Once again, one is truly a flat plane of glass, while the other has six protrusions on it which you then have to deal with when moving things around the counter. Its nice not having those dials in the way when you're just trying to use that space as a counter in a pinch.
Must be some American thing. Here the knobs are always on the front, usually because the stove comes integrated on top of the oven, but even for glass tops the knobs come in a separate module that you mount under the stovetop and protrude out on the front. Except knobs in the first place are rather unusual now due to the touch-trend.
Having knobs on the top sounds like an incredibly stupid idea. For all the reasons you posted and more. No wonder people look into touch solutions if that’s the baseline comparison.
Having knobs on the top sounds like an incredibly stupid idea. For all the reasons you posted and more. No wonder people look into touch solutions if that’s the baseline comparison.
> usually because the stove comes integrated on top of the oven
In the US this is the norm in cheaper, smaller kitchens and especially rental units but becomes less common in larger kitchens with built-in ovens. Its not like counter top stoves are the "baseline", its just a common arrangement as well as all-in-one ranges. Sometimes cars have two doors, sometimes they have four.
See these kitchens with a separate stove: https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/6e40a3a3/dms3rep/multi/k... https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ac/2e/78/ac2e785c29d9892d155a... https://imagesvc.meredithcorp.io/v3/mm/image?url=https%3A%2F...
And these kitchens with a combined oven+stove: https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images... https://cf.ltkcdn.net/interiordesign/images/orig/273067-1600... https://static.onecms.io/wp-content/uploads/sites/37/2020/11...
Both styles are pretty common in the US, it all depends on the layout of your kitchen. In my home, the oven is built in to a wall higher up off the ground with multiple drawers underneath. The stove is separate and on top of a large counter with lots of drawers underneath. Having knobs on the face of the range is less safe in a house with kids, its way easier for them to manipulate the knobs on the face than knobs on the top. Plus, having knobs on the face would mean I'd lose the wide, shallow drawer with all my quick cooking utensils right at the very top of the stove area. It would have to be several inches lower, making it less convenient. The controls on the top also make it easier to see and adjust the controls instead of having the controls be lower and pointed at my crotch. So there are positives to having the controls on the top. Like lots of things, there are tradeoffs either way.
Having touch controls on the top of the range is a nice feature for my kitchen. My experience would be worse if the controls were dials mounted where my most used kitchen drawer is currently, and would put my house in more danger from kids having easier access to them.
In the US this is the norm in cheaper, smaller kitchens and especially rental units but becomes less common in larger kitchens with built-in ovens. Its not like counter top stoves are the "baseline", its just a common arrangement as well as all-in-one ranges. Sometimes cars have two doors, sometimes they have four.
See these kitchens with a separate stove: https://irp-cdn.multiscreensite.com/6e40a3a3/dms3rep/multi/k... https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ac/2e/78/ac2e785c29d9892d155a... https://imagesvc.meredithcorp.io/v3/mm/image?url=https%3A%2F...
And these kitchens with a combined oven+stove: https://hips.hearstapps.com/hmg-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/images... https://cf.ltkcdn.net/interiordesign/images/orig/273067-1600... https://static.onecms.io/wp-content/uploads/sites/37/2020/11...
Both styles are pretty common in the US, it all depends on the layout of your kitchen. In my home, the oven is built in to a wall higher up off the ground with multiple drawers underneath. The stove is separate and on top of a large counter with lots of drawers underneath. Having knobs on the face of the range is less safe in a house with kids, its way easier for them to manipulate the knobs on the face than knobs on the top. Plus, having knobs on the face would mean I'd lose the wide, shallow drawer with all my quick cooking utensils right at the very top of the stove area. It would have to be several inches lower, making it less convenient. The controls on the top also make it easier to see and adjust the controls instead of having the controls be lower and pointed at my crotch. So there are positives to having the controls on the top. Like lots of things, there are tradeoffs either way.
Having touch controls on the top of the range is a nice feature for my kitchen. My experience would be worse if the controls were dials mounted where my most used kitchen drawer is currently, and would put my house in more danger from kids having easier access to them.
The worst model of this i used only had a single set of + and - buttons. Then a single selector-button for which area of the stove you wanted them to control.
Have fun cooking with 2 zones, any time you need to adjust the heat of the next zone you need to press select 3 times to circle the whole stove and then adjust several times with plus or minus. Add the mandatory touch-delay to each action and by the time you reach desired temperature your food is burnt already. How can anyone think this is a good idea?!
Have fun cooking with 2 zones, any time you need to adjust the heat of the next zone you need to press select 3 times to circle the whole stove and then adjust several times with plus or minus. Add the mandatory touch-delay to each action and by the time you reach desired temperature your food is burnt already. How can anyone think this is a good idea?!
If there is an analog bar, you know about where you are in the whole range. If there is just a number, you often have no idea how good or bad it really is.
OT: I have never before read the word "aughts" and had to look it up. Turns out this describes the first decade of the 21st century (or of any century?), i.e. the years 2000 to 2009. The British seem to use the word "noughties".
I too learnt of "noughties" recently. Never heard "aughts" before.
But then again, English isn't my first language.
Now that I think about it, I've heard people here say, for example, "1 nought 1", "1 nought 2", "1 nought 3" etc for 101, 102, 103, and so on.
Of course, I always thought they said "1 'not' 1", and not "1 'nought' 1", and didn't ponder too much into it, even though neither of them made sense to me.
But then again, English isn't my first language.
Now that I think about it, I've heard people here say, for example, "1 nought 1", "1 nought 2", "1 nought 3" etc for 101, 102, 103, and so on.
Of course, I always thought they said "1 'not' 1", and not "1 'nought' 1", and didn't ponder too much into it, even though neither of them made sense to me.
Here is some advanced stuff from Monty PythonÄs Flying Circus:
"Good afternoon and welcome to Lords on the second day of the first test. So far today we've had five hours batting from England and already they're nought for nought. Cowdrey is not out nought. Naughton is not in. Knott is in and is nought for not out. Naughton of Northants got a nasty knock on the nut in the nets last night but it's nothing of note. Next in is Nat Newton of Notts. Not Nutring - Nutting's at nine, er, Nutring knocked neatie nighty knock knock..."
Here at timestamp 0:32 https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6dl8og
"Good afternoon and welcome to Lords on the second day of the first test. So far today we've had five hours batting from England and already they're nought for nought. Cowdrey is not out nought. Naughton is not in. Knott is in and is nought for not out. Naughton of Northants got a nasty knock on the nut in the nets last night but it's nothing of note. Next in is Nat Newton of Notts. Not Nutring - Nutting's at nine, er, Nutring knocked neatie nighty knock knock..."
Here at timestamp 0:32 https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6dl8og
It can go both ways of course. The first edition of Norman’s classic ‘design of everyday things’ was 1988, and it’s interesting to read that book today and see how a lot of the hard problems he was discussing were completely solved by the advent of touchscreen interfaces (specifically, the ability to reconfigure the interface according to what tasks are relevant at that moment). Done right, touchscreens are a huge boon for usability (I mean, look at what the iphone did). Done poorly they’re a disaster, but that’s been true forever with UI design regardless of the tools at hand.
(I haven’t read the revised edition (2013) of Norman’s book, I guess he must address touchscreens)
(I haven’t read the revised edition (2013) of Norman’s book, I guess he must address touchscreens)
What are the examples of touchscreens done right besides the iPhone which is also on a UX downhill since, probably iPhone 4 or 5 era?
Cars? Motherfucking abysmal. ATMs? How many times we tried to press a button realizing you're missing it completely because there's a 3-inch think screen? Laptops? Only those who like fingerprints. Cameras? I think if you are seriously using it, you prefer tactile. Signature pads? This should not even exist. Vending machines? I think they're more confusing with buttons jumping on screen and changing their labels than without. Handheld video games? Still rely on buttons.
I wish designers would not try to stick them in everything. They're only good for small handheld devices to cram lots of functions in, and they're always a UX compromise. They can only improve the number of functions you can squeeze in a device.
Cars? Motherfucking abysmal. ATMs? How many times we tried to press a button realizing you're missing it completely because there's a 3-inch think screen? Laptops? Only those who like fingerprints. Cameras? I think if you are seriously using it, you prefer tactile. Signature pads? This should not even exist. Vending machines? I think they're more confusing with buttons jumping on screen and changing their labels than without. Handheld video games? Still rely on buttons.
I wish designers would not try to stick them in everything. They're only good for small handheld devices to cram lots of functions in, and they're always a UX compromise. They can only improve the number of functions you can squeeze in a device.
> touchscreens done right besides the iPhone
I prefer devices with qwerty to be honest, and if you already have a qwerty input plus sensor "joystick" w/ pressable button under it - I am talking about Blackberry - you quickly realize that you don't need sensor input except of for apps w/o proper support of joystick and webpages w/ GDPR.
> Signature pads? This should not even exist.
Drawing pads?
> I wish designers would not try to stick them in everything.
I wish designers and MARKETINGers stop to place them in anything, except of mentioned higher.
> Vending machines? I think they're more confusing with buttons jumping on screen and changing their labels than without
I have a vending machine from Porsche auto salon and buttons doesn't jump. Sensor is needed for adding kind of luxury mood if you already have a display which is needed for jumping Porsche logo.
I prefer devices with qwerty to be honest, and if you already have a qwerty input plus sensor "joystick" w/ pressable button under it - I am talking about Blackberry - you quickly realize that you don't need sensor input except of for apps w/o proper support of joystick and webpages w/ GDPR.
> Signature pads? This should not even exist.
Drawing pads?
> I wish designers would not try to stick them in everything.
I wish designers and MARKETINGers stop to place them in anything, except of mentioned higher.
> Vending machines? I think they're more confusing with buttons jumping on screen and changing their labels than without
I have a vending machine from Porsche auto salon and buttons doesn't jump. Sensor is needed for adding kind of luxury mood if you already have a display which is needed for jumping Porsche logo.
Watches, phones, tablets.
What these have in common is that they are touchscreens. I can't think of a case of something else which just happens to have a touchscreen where I wouldn't prefer some other interface.
What these have in common is that they are touchscreens. I can't think of a case of something else which just happens to have a touchscreen where I wouldn't prefer some other interface.
>a lot of the hard problems he was discussing were completely solved by the advent of touchscreen interfaces (specifically, the ability to reconfigure the interface according to what tasks are relevant at that moment). Done right, touchscreens are a huge boon for usability (I mean, look at what the iphone did).
Eh, reconfigurability and dynamic interfaces are great for developers because it allows you to change things later and fix mistakes. Context sensitive UIs assume my brain can switch spatial contexts as well and for some interfaces, context switches are expensive on my brain. I want to rely more on muscle memory so I can focus on higher cognitive tasks, I don't want my UI to be one of those higher cognitive tasks.
Touch interfaces have their place but too many fall prey to the allure of sexy and try to slap it on every problem. On phones it ultimatelt makes sense, even there jumping between apps and updates on apps I find myself spending time figuring out interfaces far more than I should need to. This hurts usability more than helps it. I understand the goal is typi ally continuous improvement but I wonder for how many the goal is simply continous new shiny
Eh, reconfigurability and dynamic interfaces are great for developers because it allows you to change things later and fix mistakes. Context sensitive UIs assume my brain can switch spatial contexts as well and for some interfaces, context switches are expensive on my brain. I want to rely more on muscle memory so I can focus on higher cognitive tasks, I don't want my UI to be one of those higher cognitive tasks.
Touch interfaces have their place but too many fall prey to the allure of sexy and try to slap it on every problem. On phones it ultimatelt makes sense, even there jumping between apps and updates on apps I find myself spending time figuring out interfaces far more than I should need to. This hurts usability more than helps it. I understand the goal is typi ally continuous improvement but I wonder for how many the goal is simply continous new shiny
One only needs to look at how professionals operate to find already iterated to a close perfection user interfaces. Take a professional kitchen at a restaurant and compare it with a gadget filled home kitchen.
My dinosaur 5 Star Range cannot be beat. Despite the large knobs, it does everything I want it to do, how I want it done. No UX getting in the way to "assist" in deviating me from my intended settings.
I work on software for professional use and while I'd never say our UX is near perfection, we do get a bunch of tickets if things change and some process starts taking an extra click or two. We're at least pressured to avoid UX regressions and needless changes.
I had a similar experience with accounting software recently. The ugly software is built for someone entering 20 invoices in a row, and automates as much of it as it can. The shiny startup software was designed by a very skilled designer who never had to do accounting.
That's not always the right way to go either. A professional using a particular device on the daily will be proficient in its usage regardless of how terrible the user interface, simply on the basis of how often they use the thing. On the other hand, how quickly an amateur can pick up a device and start using it will be heavily dependent on how intuitive and instructive the interface is. These two can often be conflicting, though not always. For a product that has a lot of "amateur" users (many home appliances), a touch screen can often be the right paradigm to choose.
A classic example of this is the situation where an experienced cashier on an "analog" system can just fly through the buttons and complete transactions in no time, while at the same time a rookie would take that much more time to ramp up, figure out, and internalize the various button mappings. A darker interpretation of this would be that the system is optimization for fungible workers, where swapping out one cashier at will for another has negligible impact on productivity.
A classic example of this is the situation where an experienced cashier on an "analog" system can just fly through the buttons and complete transactions in no time, while at the same time a rookie would take that much more time to ramp up, figure out, and internalize the various button mappings. A darker interpretation of this would be that the system is optimization for fungible workers, where swapping out one cashier at will for another has negligible impact on productivity.
Maybe it just costs less to build LED screen cars than those with knobs ?
Could well be, if nothing else in workforce competence.
I like to claim the development the last few decades seems to be going from specialized tools that performed their task beautifully to generic tools that performed that task (or some semblance thereof) at all.
Case in point: "Desktop evolution"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI3ojKxhy-4
I like to claim the development the last few decades seems to be going from specialized tools that performed their task beautifully to generic tools that performed that task (or some semblance thereof) at all.
Case in point: "Desktop evolution"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CI3ojKxhy-4
Unfortunately that's true. These days it's just cheaper and easier to place everything on a screen rather than using anything physical. Imagine that voice recognition gets even better, then it would be even cheaper to have nothing but a speaker and a microphone. Touchscreens and capacitive buttons have a number of issues that physical controls don't, but (unfortunately?) they're usually cheaper, last longer and are much more convenient for the manufacturers so they're not going anywhere. Tactile feedback, a fixed spatial position and being "always on" are now luxuries.
Reminded me of my favorite article. http://worrydream.com/ABriefRantOnTheFutureOfInteractionDesi...
I'm willing to pay extra to avoid touch screens in my cars, washing machines, door locks, and personal computers. I can't be the only one!
I'm willing to pay extra to avoid touch screens in my cars, washing machines, door locks, and personal computers. I can't be the only one!
As kid I obviously was thrilled by futuristic touchscreen stuff but now I can't help but hate that and want all the controls analog.
Before I transferred to the University of Pittsburgh, I was pursuing a minor in graphic design. I could have taken one of the last darkroom photography courses offered at La Roche College, but chose to take a digital course since I had extensive experience in that area dating back to saving snaps on floppies at the Duquesne Multicultural Computer Academy in the City of Pittsburgh.
I agree with you WRT tactile interfaces, the only reason things like the iPhone work are a combination of text prediction and over-reliance on rare ingredients like rare earth minerals to make that super strong glass and super thin, long lasting batteries.
(China controls a lot of those mines now, because Obama was a weak leader who handed Africqa and SE Asia over to totalitatians.)
I hate how many things were taken digital rapidly, classic example being I read about Nordic countries ditching AM/FM radio.
It is cool and good to be able to buy a twenty dollar radio and set of rechargable double AAs, and then have access to news via folks like NPR + some classical or whatever to flood a room with noise when you need to go full cyberpunk at the library, but the library was closed due to COVID.
I can't tell if the generation after millenials are all what that hentai loving sci fi guy from boing boing warned us about: unable to use the command line or understand the value of general purpose computing, but on my end I'm about to go stand outside with a sign and a cup rather than waste energy and resources standing up a website, writing out a bunch of "creative nonfiction", and then having folks pretend that if they send me something like "Monero" (that might be secure in a technial sense, but is literally sold only in one physical location in my city.)
(A long time ago, I considered being a designer, but that's subjective, and it seems like the field is structured so they mostly invent ways to steal ideas from the technical folks who make it possible for them to have the serenity first to think up cute designs.)
So many designers forget that "low tech" designs were planned after years or generations of iteration and shouldn't be changed lightly -- that might be a load bearing lorus ipsum ;)
(For context, the reason you're getting this type of reply is that around 2010 I offered to work for a major FFRDC codeing up custom forensics tools that would be more usable so they wouldn't need to pay millions for training and licenses, but I never even got a reply to my email despite being referred to that person by someone who founded an entire conference on my area of research.
Then again, we were also discussing whether I should join the FBI at the time.
(My take was they hadn't figured out how to navigate the conflict of interest between the counter intelligence mission and the criminal division, just like the NSA hadn't figured out how to navigate offense and defense or the secret service never learned to navigate the dual mission of offense and defense)
Later on, at Defcon an SS agent (using THAT acronym on purpose) told me if you want to know what it's like to be in the secret service, go stand in a suit on your front lawn in 80% humiudity for twelve hours, but to be fair I didn't check if I could apply and ONLY focus on things like counterfeiting, since I've made it clear for over a decade I won't kill the president, but I'll absolutely pull out my phone and arch my eyebrows at the corpse as I take a photo if someone else does.
This poster paid 150 dollars on a nonprofit salary to go see Obama gaslight him on encryption after.
This is like the fall of the USSR.
Post better.
Be Better.
TL;DR: Great article, thanks for sharing Marban. I agree that low tech interfaces are cool and good.
I agree with you WRT tactile interfaces, the only reason things like the iPhone work are a combination of text prediction and over-reliance on rare ingredients like rare earth minerals to make that super strong glass and super thin, long lasting batteries.
(China controls a lot of those mines now, because Obama was a weak leader who handed Africqa and SE Asia over to totalitatians.)
I hate how many things were taken digital rapidly, classic example being I read about Nordic countries ditching AM/FM radio.
It is cool and good to be able to buy a twenty dollar radio and set of rechargable double AAs, and then have access to news via folks like NPR + some classical or whatever to flood a room with noise when you need to go full cyberpunk at the library, but the library was closed due to COVID.
I can't tell if the generation after millenials are all what that hentai loving sci fi guy from boing boing warned us about: unable to use the command line or understand the value of general purpose computing, but on my end I'm about to go stand outside with a sign and a cup rather than waste energy and resources standing up a website, writing out a bunch of "creative nonfiction", and then having folks pretend that if they send me something like "Monero" (that might be secure in a technial sense, but is literally sold only in one physical location in my city.)
(A long time ago, I considered being a designer, but that's subjective, and it seems like the field is structured so they mostly invent ways to steal ideas from the technical folks who make it possible for them to have the serenity first to think up cute designs.)
So many designers forget that "low tech" designs were planned after years or generations of iteration and shouldn't be changed lightly -- that might be a load bearing lorus ipsum ;)
(For context, the reason you're getting this type of reply is that around 2010 I offered to work for a major FFRDC codeing up custom forensics tools that would be more usable so they wouldn't need to pay millions for training and licenses, but I never even got a reply to my email despite being referred to that person by someone who founded an entire conference on my area of research.
Then again, we were also discussing whether I should join the FBI at the time.
(My take was they hadn't figured out how to navigate the conflict of interest between the counter intelligence mission and the criminal division, just like the NSA hadn't figured out how to navigate offense and defense or the secret service never learned to navigate the dual mission of offense and defense)
Later on, at Defcon an SS agent (using THAT acronym on purpose) told me if you want to know what it's like to be in the secret service, go stand in a suit on your front lawn in 80% humiudity for twelve hours, but to be fair I didn't check if I could apply and ONLY focus on things like counterfeiting, since I've made it clear for over a decade I won't kill the president, but I'll absolutely pull out my phone and arch my eyebrows at the corpse as I take a photo if someone else does.
This poster paid 150 dollars on a nonprofit salary to go see Obama gaslight him on encryption after.
This is like the fall of the USSR.
Post better.
Be Better.
TL;DR: Great article, thanks for sharing Marban. I agree that low tech interfaces are cool and good.
Frick Medium again. Cannot find an archive for this one, so take a Scribe instead.
https://archive.ph/YgElI
https://archive.ph/YgElI
The place where I feel this the most is cars.
I drove a Tesla Model 3 that belongs to a friend and had used a rented VW Golf mark 8. The touch screen and touch sensitive panels with haptic feedback were horrible. I now appreciate my VW Golf Mark 7 even more. It is glorious to have knobs, physical buttons, and levers for all things that needs to be controlled while driving. It's intuitive, and I can use them without looking at them(taking attention off of the road). I wish and hope that a modern car gets this "old fashioned" interface when I am in the market for a new car in a few years.
Touchscreens look great on spec sheets and to those who buy them, not necessarily to those who have to use them.
And those that buy them are loathe to admit they suck until after they've sold it off (because admitting it sucks means admitting you made a bad purchase).
And those that buy them are loathe to admit they suck until after they've sold it off (because admitting it sucks means admitting you made a bad purchase).
To anyone designing low-tech user interfaces: I'm all for something simple but please, oh please, use something with a better feedback than the membrane "keyboard" shown in the article. Membrane keys are the absolute shittiest piece of shit ever produced. I use three everyday: my safe has one. My projector's remote control and my LED strip light (I use a LED strip to give a "home cinema" feel to the room) has one. The one on the safe, thankfully, at least emits a "beep" every time a press registers. Doesn't make it great by any means but there's that. On the projector there's a delay between any press and the projector giving you any feedback, so you don't know if a press registered or not.
I do honestly think, and I'm not a big smartphone fan, that a virtual keyboard on s smartphone's screen with haptic feeback (where the phone vibrates a bit when you "press" a key) is infinitely better than membrane keyboards.
Now I'm not saying everything should be replaced with screens+haptic feedback: what I'm saying is membrane keyboard are the worst piece of shit man ever invented.
On the other hand my alarm system has buttons (zero screen): one button, one function. And the feedback on these buttons is perfect. It's bliss. Same in my ultra high end, but thankfully nine years old, car: one button, one function. And when you press that button you know it's been pressed. Perfection. (I say "thankfully nine years old" because the very same car brand/model now uses screens everywhere instead of buttons).
So you can have two exactly identical looking user interface and, without trying, it's impossible to tell if it's a complete piece of shit or not (well, these membranes things: you kinda spot them from a mile): you need to actually press the buttons to know.
Membranes are the opposite of perfect user experience: they're mediocre turds.
I do honestly think, and I'm not a big smartphone fan, that a virtual keyboard on s smartphone's screen with haptic feeback (where the phone vibrates a bit when you "press" a key) is infinitely better than membrane keyboards.
Now I'm not saying everything should be replaced with screens+haptic feedback: what I'm saying is membrane keyboard are the worst piece of shit man ever invented.
On the other hand my alarm system has buttons (zero screen): one button, one function. And the feedback on these buttons is perfect. It's bliss. Same in my ultra high end, but thankfully nine years old, car: one button, one function. And when you press that button you know it's been pressed. Perfection. (I say "thankfully nine years old" because the very same car brand/model now uses screens everywhere instead of buttons).
So you can have two exactly identical looking user interface and, without trying, it's impossible to tell if it's a complete piece of shit or not (well, these membranes things: you kinda spot them from a mile): you need to actually press the buttons to know.
Membranes are the opposite of perfect user experience: they're mediocre turds.
[deleted]
So your complaint isn't really about the membrane itself but the lack of haptic or other feedback that comes with a press.
I worked on controls with one company and their solution was to put a membrane overlay on the panel but place low-travel physical buttons behind it. You had the advantages of a membrane overlay (sealed from dust/moisture, better artwork on top) and the higher reliability of the button. And if the overlay tore or wore off the system still worked.
I worked on controls with one company and their solution was to put a membrane overlay on the panel but place low-travel physical buttons behind it. You had the advantages of a membrane overlay (sealed from dust/moisture, better artwork on top) and the higher reliability of the button. And if the overlay tore or wore off the system still worked.
[deleted]
> On the projector there's a delay between any press and the projector giving you any feedback, so you don't know if a press registered or not.
This a related issue with slow response times of modern UIs. I spent a decent chunk of my career replacing AS-400 systems with ones accessed through the browser. Those AS-400 systems were often hosted in the building and were written to run on servers from the 80s or earlier. With modern hardware they rendered screens within single digit ms and I think the emulator did some input queueing.
Users would know that to, as an example, change someone's address they'd have to hit 7, 3, enter, 3, tab, tab and start typing. With a browser interface they couldn't do that because the latency was unpredictable and the page might not be ready for their input. Usually we ended up slowing the users down significantly.
This a related issue with slow response times of modern UIs. I spent a decent chunk of my career replacing AS-400 systems with ones accessed through the browser. Those AS-400 systems were often hosted in the building and were written to run on servers from the 80s or earlier. With modern hardware they rendered screens within single digit ms and I think the emulator did some input queueing.
Users would know that to, as an example, change someone's address they'd have to hit 7, 3, enter, 3, tab, tab and start typing. With a browser interface they couldn't do that because the latency was unpredictable and the page might not be ready for their input. Usually we ended up slowing the users down significantly.
Interesting read, I certainly think there is a lot to be said for minimlism where a system can be controlled with physical controls/ buttons without an instruction manual, fancy screens and UI are often a complete overkill for a product. The Design of Everyday things is an essential read on these topics and generally a book I'd recommend to anyone working in tech or design.
In the case of cars, why can't the UX be a replaceable module so that third party options can be chosen?
I think it's not only "low tech". The bigger issue I see, is that everything tries to be an Assistant.
For example, the Oculus Quest, there's a on / off button fine, easy to understand. Except, it magically turns itself on if it assumes, you may use it, and turns itself off if not used anymore. Unfortunately that is often not correct, so you start counter acting, holding it carefully so the sensor does not react and double checking if it turned off or just on again, when switching it off. Congratulation, they made a simple on / off switch unintuitive.
I see this pattern everywhere. It seems ux designers are trying to hard to be clever. Just give us a Tool, that does one thing and always acts the same. If it doesn't make sense, let the user learn from it's mistake.
For example, the Oculus Quest, there's a on / off button fine, easy to understand. Except, it magically turns itself on if it assumes, you may use it, and turns itself off if not used anymore. Unfortunately that is often not correct, so you start counter acting, holding it carefully so the sensor does not react and double checking if it turned off or just on again, when switching it off. Congratulation, they made a simple on / off switch unintuitive.
I see this pattern everywhere. It seems ux designers are trying to hard to be clever. Just give us a Tool, that does one thing and always acts the same. If it doesn't make sense, let the user learn from it's mistake.
A few days ago in these very pages, I dissed the UI of an oscilloscope. But using one yesterday, I realized an advantage: I could operate it with one hand while holding the probe with the other. Even software interfaces for instrumentation, that use the keyboard and mouse, are physically awkward and your computer has to be positioned just right.
A couple more advantages:
* A small interface makes small things small. A voltmeter doesn't need to be as big as a computer, and there are lots of gadgets that are smaller.
* One-foot operation, such as the page turning pedals that musicians are now using for their sheet music.
A couple more advantages:
* A small interface makes small things small. A voltmeter doesn't need to be as big as a computer, and there are lots of gadgets that are smaller.
* One-foot operation, such as the page turning pedals that musicians are now using for their sheet music.
I have a 2017 Honda Civic. That particular model year, they chose to remove the volume knob for a capacitive little slider thing (in addition to the buttons on the wheel). The very next year, they put it back. Turns out it's pretty useful to be able to control the volume of your stereo without taking your eyes off the road when operating a car. They did a similar thing for the air controls, except they left some of them as actual knobs and buttons.
Sometimes the old ways are better and have lasted so long for a reason.
Sometimes the old ways are better and have lasted so long for a reason.
The volume knob is gone as early as the 2015 model, at least in the EX-L variant; but the steering wheel buttons are still there.
If I didn't have physical buttons on the steering wheel to press, I wouldn't bother using the stereo at all.
Driving is the absolute worst environment for touch screens. Not only am I unable to look at where I am touching at the same moment I want to touch, the whole car is moving unpredictably in relation to my finger.
If I didn't have physical buttons on the steering wheel to press, I wouldn't bother using the stereo at all.
Driving is the absolute worst environment for touch screens. Not only am I unable to look at where I am touching at the same moment I want to touch, the whole car is moving unpredictably in relation to my finger.
> Turns out it's pretty useful to be able to control the volume of your stereo without taking your eyes off the road when operating a car.
I do agree the volume slider is a terrible choice of interface, but TBF there is a tactile, physical volume control on your car within reach of your hands while they're on the wheel. There is a volume adjustment on your steering wheel, so theoretically you shouldn't even have to use the volume control on the stereo while you're driving.
I do agree the volume slider is a terrible choice of interface, but TBF there is a tactile, physical volume control on your car within reach of your hands while they're on the wheel. There is a volume adjustment on your steering wheel, so theoretically you shouldn't even have to use the volume control on the stereo while you're driving.
I still prefer the knob. Among the myriad of buttons, levers, and paddles on the steering wheel, with tiny symbols on them, I have to look down and figure out which ones are the volume control. It's much better on the other car where there are fewer buttons.
The slider is a bad idea because the car is bouncing up and down, so your hand isn't stable unless you pin it down with your thumb or something like that, and you have to look away from the road. The car doesn't roll as much, so a knob is inherently more stable, and can be found by peripheral vision plus feel.
The slider is a bad idea because the car is bouncing up and down, so your hand isn't stable unless you pin it down with your thumb or something like that, and you have to look away from the road. The car doesn't roll as much, so a knob is inherently more stable, and can be found by peripheral vision plus feel.
I'd like to have volume knob for a rental car because I don't remember everything at once, but I think button on steering is fine for my own car.
Why is it a collection of physical controls literally in front of you all the time while in the driver's seat somehow impossible to remember but a collection of physical controls further away from you easier to remember? I would think the controls you're literally holding constantly would be easier to remember than the controls further away and farther from your normal vision when driving.
Why would you have to look down at the wheel but not the dashboard?
Why would you have to look down at the wheel but not the dashboard?
Does anybody have sources they want to share for getting components for classic interfaces like these today?
I'd imagine production has plummeted since the glory days, but there ought to be stock of some things around still and people salvaging nice parts?
I don't do any hardware work worth mentioning, but I hope to get around to amending that soon, and I'd find it attractive to use interfaces appropriate to the task (which, as people here have noted, will mean the ones on topic in a very substantial share of the cases).
I'd imagine production has plummeted since the glory days, but there ought to be stock of some things around still and people salvaging nice parts?
I don't do any hardware work worth mentioning, but I hope to get around to amending that soon, and I'd find it attractive to use interfaces appropriate to the task (which, as people here have noted, will mean the ones on topic in a very substantial share of the cases).
Digikey and Mouser
For hobbyists in the US, Sparkfun or Adafruit are a good start. Otherwise go to the big suppliers: Digikey, Farnell and Mouser. China (Aliexpress) supplies pretty much everything else. Many dropship on eBay and Amazon too, if you want convenience.
You shouldn't need to salvage unless you really want some vintage pot knob or slider that you can't find elsewhere. Industrial hardware usually needs to be tactile (eg operated with gloves).
Some modern stuff is better anyway, like mono OLED displays which are far more readable than LCDs.
You shouldn't need to salvage unless you really want some vintage pot knob or slider that you can't find elsewhere. Industrial hardware usually needs to be tactile (eg operated with gloves).
Some modern stuff is better anyway, like mono OLED displays which are far more readable than LCDs.
Thanks! That's very helpful, and I'm glad to learn availability today is much better than I had imagined.
Is "low tech" really cheaper?
Curious, because I thought the reason nobody did buttons anymore was that printing a pattern on a touch capacitive surface was dirty cheap.
Whereas I assume tactile buttons require a lot work when mounting/building the product.
Am I wrong?
I guess an 8 digit display is still cheaper than a touch screen :)
Curious, because I thought the reason nobody did buttons anymore was that printing a pattern on a touch capacitive surface was dirty cheap.
Whereas I assume tactile buttons require a lot work when mounting/building the product.
Am I wrong?
I guess an 8 digit display is still cheaper than a touch screen :)
Cheaper, how? Are we looking only at production cost, or total lifetime? How much energy does a button use over its lifetime, vs a checkbox on a LED screen?
In this context, I'd imagine cheaper from an R&D + Manufacturing side. But equally this probably is the case - if adding a screen requires adding a much more powerful microcontroller to drive it, it probably adds a fair bit of cost
All the laser printers I have used have a low-tech user interface, with an LCD screen and a bunch of buttons. The problem is that the buttons that the user can press (the "active" buttons) are dependent on context. Imho it would be much better if laser printers had a smartphone-style interface (touchscreen).
Same for office phones (which have a plethora of buttons e.g. for conference calls that are not useful in many contexts).
Same for office phones (which have a plethora of buttons e.g. for conference calls that are not useful in many contexts).
I used a few office printers with touch screens, and they were much better.
Maybe that's the distinction - if you are making a product that needs to do exactly one thing (or category of things), it should not have a touchscreen, it should have a button and a dial (eg toaster, oven, hob, clock). If you cannot map all common uses of the product to a single button press and instead rely on context, a touchscreen might be the better option
[deleted]
IMHO, user interfaces generally are better the more buttons and knobs they have (scaled for compactness requirements). Obviously some thought must be put into those buttons and knobs, but I've never personally ran into a UI that had too many.
I have always been skeptical of many "new-fangled" interfaces, like touchscreens and HUDs.
I know that, many years ago, cars started to display speed and tach displays as digital, and that was fairly quickly reversed, because people kept seeing their speed as a jumble of characters (look at digital displays that change rapidly).
I know that a number of auto manufacturers are starting to ditch touchscreen, for knobs.
I've found that haptic feedback is helpful. I use it (as well as a "retro-style" LED display) in my latest little timer app[0]. The earlier versions of that app were a lot more complex, and I ended up removing a great deal of the flexibility. So far, people have given me good feedback on the new "Fisher-Price" interface.
[0] https://riftvalleysoftware.com/work/ios-apps/ambiamara/
I know that, many years ago, cars started to display speed and tach displays as digital, and that was fairly quickly reversed, because people kept seeing their speed as a jumble of characters (look at digital displays that change rapidly).
I know that a number of auto manufacturers are starting to ditch touchscreen, for knobs.
I've found that haptic feedback is helpful. I use it (as well as a "retro-style" LED display) in my latest little timer app[0]. The earlier versions of that app were a lot more complex, and I ended up removing a great deal of the flexibility. So far, people have given me good feedback on the new "Fisher-Price" interface.
[0] https://riftvalleysoftware.com/work/ios-apps/ambiamara/
The most important lesson I learned in engineering school: define the problem then look for a solution.
Most people have a solution in mind before they even look at the problem, and that solution is usually "build an app", or "slap a screen on it". With bureaucracy, it's "put the form on the internet".
There are a few low tech devices I much prefer:
- A kitchen timer vs. my phone. I don't need to unlock the phone and navigate to the timer app. I just twist the knob until I see the desired number. Hell, it's probably set to 3 minutes already, because I mostly use it to make tea.
- My microwave has one knob for time, and one knob for intensity. Best microwave interface ever. It doesn't tell time, so I never need to adjust it. I had microwaves so complicated that I turned to social networks for help.
- Stoves. I refuse to buy a stove without knobs. I have hated every stove without knobs I've ever used. Touch-sensitive buttons don't work with oven mitts, but get triggered by a wet rag, steam and spilled spaghetti sauce.
- Car infotainment. Each knob controls one thing. It's always in the same place, and I can find it while keeping my eyes on the road.
- Wired audio. This device is paired to the device it's physically connected to.
Most people have a solution in mind before they even look at the problem, and that solution is usually "build an app", or "slap a screen on it". With bureaucracy, it's "put the form on the internet".
There are a few low tech devices I much prefer:
- A kitchen timer vs. my phone. I don't need to unlock the phone and navigate to the timer app. I just twist the knob until I see the desired number. Hell, it's probably set to 3 minutes already, because I mostly use it to make tea.
- My microwave has one knob for time, and one knob for intensity. Best microwave interface ever. It doesn't tell time, so I never need to adjust it. I had microwaves so complicated that I turned to social networks for help.
- Stoves. I refuse to buy a stove without knobs. I have hated every stove without knobs I've ever used. Touch-sensitive buttons don't work with oven mitts, but get triggered by a wet rag, steam and spilled spaghetti sauce.
- Car infotainment. Each knob controls one thing. It's always in the same place, and I can find it while keeping my eyes on the road.
- Wired audio. This device is paired to the device it's physically connected to.
[deleted]
>Most people have a solution in mind before they even look at the problem, and that solution is usually
"put it on the blockchain"
But to your point, you're absolutely right. If you want to actually deliver valuable solutions, you need to have a good understanding of what unmet need you're trying to address. Otherwise you end up with a bad problem-solution match, and you waste everyone's time. Too often, technically minded people put too much emphasis on what's novel instead of what's valuable.
"put it on the blockchain"
But to your point, you're absolutely right. If you want to actually deliver valuable solutions, you need to have a good understanding of what unmet need you're trying to address. Otherwise you end up with a bad problem-solution match, and you waste everyone's time. Too often, technically minded people put too much emphasis on what's novel instead of what's valuable.
> My microwave has one knob for time, and one knob for intensity.
I don't think a knob is the optimal interface for time. In microwaves you need to input both low values of ~10s and very high values of ~600s with good precision on both cases. Sure, a logarithmic knob will give you that, but I don't think it's what you would expect.
For power it's good. It's even a much better interface for the power level than the usual. But then, anything is a much better interface than the usual microwave power level one.
> Wired audio. This device is paired to the device it's physically connected to.
There used to exist those wireless speakers with two pieces, one you physically connected to the audio output on the device, the other had the speaker. The transmission was analog and sucked due to noise, but it was much more reliable and had less lag than bluetooth.
For some reason, instead of fixing it into a digital transmission, everybody just stopped manufacturing the device.
I don't think a knob is the optimal interface for time. In microwaves you need to input both low values of ~10s and very high values of ~600s with good precision on both cases. Sure, a logarithmic knob will give you that, but I don't think it's what you would expect.
For power it's good. It's even a much better interface for the power level than the usual. But then, anything is a much better interface than the usual microwave power level one.
> Wired audio. This device is paired to the device it's physically connected to.
There used to exist those wireless speakers with two pieces, one you physically connected to the audio output on the device, the other had the speaker. The transmission was analog and sucked due to noise, but it was much more reliable and had less lag than bluetooth.
For some reason, instead of fixing it into a digital transmission, everybody just stopped manufacturing the device.
I rarely need an exact amount of time. In fact I generally leave it with the door ajar and a few minutes on the timer.
Even then, a knob works perfectly. It does not need to set the value linearly. The first quarter of the timer could be 5 second increments, and the second half minutes.
Even then, a knob works perfectly. It does not need to set the value linearly. The first quarter of the timer could be 5 second increments, and the second half minutes.
I'm just curious what you cook in a microwave for 10 minutes.
Large thick skinned squashes with hard flesh like butternut, kabocha or spaghetti. Probably not on max heat, but on medium so they cook evenly.
It's not really cooking, but I find it useful to defrost frozen meat in the microwave if I have forgotten to leave it out of the freezer overnight. Defrosting in a microwave usually means letting it run at low power for a long time (> 10 minutes depending on the type of meat and weight). Of course, I use the presets that come with my microwave to figure out the right time/power combination, so I definitely find that feature useful.
>> My microwave has one knob for time, and one knob for intensity.
> I don't think a knob is the optimal interface for time. In microwaves you need to input both low values of ~10s and very high values of ~600s with good precision on both cases. Sure, a logarithmic knob will give you that, but I don't think it's what you would expect.
I definitely disagree. I had a stove once that had a perfect knob for setting time. The rate of increase/decrease was determined by the speed that you twisted it. Turn slowly for fine granularity, fast for large changes. I think it may have done something clever when you started fast and then slowed down (the natural thing to do), since I think the naive thing probably wouldn't work that well.
It felt *awesome*. It sounds silly, but it's been just over a decade and I still miss that control knob. I think about it every time I'm faced with the latest way of adjusting some quantity. It's definitely not just because it was a physical knob—plenty of physical knobs are irritating and only good for either small or large changes, or feel unpredictable, or don't have good tactile feedback (too smooth and too chunky are both bad).
> I don't think a knob is the optimal interface for time. In microwaves you need to input both low values of ~10s and very high values of ~600s with good precision on both cases. Sure, a logarithmic knob will give you that, but I don't think it's what you would expect.
I definitely disagree. I had a stove once that had a perfect knob for setting time. The rate of increase/decrease was determined by the speed that you twisted it. Turn slowly for fine granularity, fast for large changes. I think it may have done something clever when you started fast and then slowed down (the natural thing to do), since I think the naive thing probably wouldn't work that well.
It felt *awesome*. It sounds silly, but it's been just over a decade and I still miss that control knob. I think about it every time I'm faced with the latest way of adjusting some quantity. It's definitely not just because it was a physical knob—plenty of physical knobs are irritating and only good for either small or large changes, or feel unpredictable, or don't have good tactile feedback (too smooth and too chunky are both bad).
> "A kitchen timer vs. my phone"
Having to LOOK at the number? ;)
I can talk to the phone while I'm slicing: 'Hey Siri, set a timer for x {timeunit}"
> "Wired audio."
Hoping this one doesn't keep disappearing...
Having to LOOK at the number? ;)
I can talk to the phone while I'm slicing: 'Hey Siri, set a timer for x {timeunit}"
> "Wired audio."
Hoping this one doesn't keep disappearing...
It's still nice to see the time left if you're cooking things.
We got a new fancy coffee machine at work. Obviously with a big shiny touch screen attached. Best case, it requires 3 touch actions to get a standard coffee. One modal to select drink, one modal to select strength, one modal to confirm start. Some times, even more if it went into presentation mode where it brags about how good coffee it produces, requiring yet another touch to dismiss.
The old model. One physical button for coffee, one for cappuccino, one for espresso, one for tea water. Single press instantly gives you want you want. For more custom mixes you can optionally change the strength with another button on top before making your choice.
How is this progress? I don't want "engagement" with my coffee machine. I just want it to give me coffee with as little effort as possible. It's exactly like you say, someone was given the task to solve a coffee app, instead of looking at the actual problem first.
The old model. One physical button for coffee, one for cappuccino, one for espresso, one for tea water. Single press instantly gives you want you want. For more custom mixes you can optionally change the strength with another button on top before making your choice.
How is this progress? I don't want "engagement" with my coffee machine. I just want it to give me coffee with as little effort as possible. It's exactly like you say, someone was given the task to solve a coffee app, instead of looking at the actual problem first.
> Many consumers judge product qualities based on superficial impressions and studies have shown that these impressions can cause users to perceive a product as less usable than it actually is.
I'm genuinely amazed that touch screens are still seen as "high tech" by so many people. They've been common for a decade and most people should be very familiar with their flaws. They're harder to use, more susceptible to defects, provide little or no feedback, and add expense to the product. The only real advantage touch screens have is that they are dynamic, so you can cram multiple interfaces into a small physical footprint - at the cost of only being able to display interface at a time. And I guess you could theoretically update the interface after sale... but I don't know if I've ever seen that done in practice other than to fix bugs.
I'm genuinely amazed that touch screens are still seen as "high tech" by so many people. They've been common for a decade and most people should be very familiar with their flaws. They're harder to use, more susceptible to defects, provide little or no feedback, and add expense to the product. The only real advantage touch screens have is that they are dynamic, so you can cram multiple interfaces into a small physical footprint - at the cost of only being able to display interface at a time. And I guess you could theoretically update the interface after sale... but I don't know if I've ever seen that done in practice other than to fix bugs.
Are after-market retrofits replacing touch screens with low-tech controls possible?
Project Idea: low tech consumer goods website. Rate ovens microwaves washing mach ines etc by low tech high quality.
Biggest offender are automakers. A giant touch screen that replaces physical knobs and switches is incredibly backwards thinking.
The ability to make quick changes to HVAC, radio, or heating/cooling settings is now requiring drivers to take their eyes off the road to drag a greasy finger across a virtual dial, it's pretty inane all things considered.
The ability to make quick changes to HVAC, radio, or heating/cooling settings is now requiring drivers to take their eyes off the road to drag a greasy finger across a virtual dial, it's pretty inane all things considered.
A certain "smart" speaker company replaced their expensive device's single functional button with capacitive touch. The product is worse, now less accessible.
The Awair Element indoor air quality monitor has an interesting low-tech yet information dense physical display.
It's a low resolution matrix of LEDs behind a plastic facade that displays current air quality measurements pretty simply but effectively.
It's a clever design choice for many reasons, not just because it lowers the BOM of the device, but because people already have enough computer/phone/TV high resolution displays in their living spaces, and in contrast the Awair looks somewhat elegant in contrast.
There are some reasonable critiques regarding the accuracy or effectiveness of these consumer indoor air monitors, but I get far more questions about the Awair than I do about any other devices I have. Some of that is its novelty, but some of it also is the minimal UX.
It's a low resolution matrix of LEDs behind a plastic facade that displays current air quality measurements pretty simply but effectively.
It's a clever design choice for many reasons, not just because it lowers the BOM of the device, but because people already have enough computer/phone/TV high resolution displays in their living spaces, and in contrast the Awair looks somewhat elegant in contrast.
There are some reasonable critiques regarding the accuracy or effectiveness of these consumer indoor air monitors, but I get far more questions about the Awair than I do about any other devices I have. Some of that is its novelty, but some of it also is the minimal UX.
My favorite example:
Microwave controls. One dial for power and one dial for time is all you really need and much better than numpad controls.
Microwave controls. One dial for power and one dial for time is all you really need and much better than numpad controls.
I have an LG microwave with a simple touch strip on the front for setting the time and it’s actually amazing. all the more complicated never used features are hidden behind the door and not seen until opened. The touch strip is ribbed and clever enough to start jumping ahead by whole minutes or more as you scroll.
There are "low tech" interfaces are on handheld ham radios and can be pretty annoying to have to read the manual to change basic settings, like from step from 2.5k to 25k or somewhere in between. A touch screen would make handheld transceivers so much easier to use especially considering the number of features in it.
imo a lot of benefit claimed are not 'low tech', they are just the natural result of simple > complex.
The philosophy of simple > complex isn't low-tech or high-tech, it just is.
The philosophy of simple > complex isn't low-tech or high-tech, it just is.
I use to have a 2006 Saab. I LOVED how it had mechanical buttons for everything on the dash.
http://images.gtcarlot.com/pictures/48277419.jpg
It's no surprise given that Saab has a history in aerospace.
I totally get why car manufacturers are moving to essentially a big iPad as a replacement for the overall dash (it's like when the iPhone came out and people loved their Blackberry keyboards), but from a function vs form perspective - buttons are way easier.
http://images.gtcarlot.com/pictures/48277419.jpg
It's no surprise given that Saab has a history in aerospace.
I totally get why car manufacturers are moving to essentially a big iPad as a replacement for the overall dash (it's like when the iPhone came out and people loved their Blackberry keyboards), but from a function vs form perspective - buttons are way easier.
I still daily drive a Classic 900 (1987) and not only is everything a real button or knob, but it's all controlled by vacuum, not electronics. It's fun to hear the hisses when you change the vent settings.
Re: vent
I still think the HVAC vent knob on my Saab was the most innovate knob I've ever seen and nothing compares today.
It allowed you to redirect the air in a fluid full 360 degree (semi-circular) position seamlessly. All other cars it's 2 separate horizontal and vertical controls.
I still think the HVAC vent knob on my Saab was the most innovate knob I've ever seen and nothing compares today.
It allowed you to redirect the air in a fluid full 360 degree (semi-circular) position seamlessly. All other cars it's 2 separate horizontal and vertical controls.
Yes, it goes from "0" at the bottom to defrost at the top and every step in between makes perfect sense. Just twist the knob and it works. No thinking.
I spent the first several years of my career developing low-tech user interfaces for parking and payment kiosks that had little more than piezo buttons and HD44780-based text-only LCD's. It certainly helped me appreciate that for UX, sometimes "less is more".
I just started getting into embedded programming (Arduinos and Pi's) and one of the most exciting things is the possibility to make physical thing with custom buttons, toggles, and LEDs to do a thing. E.g. I prototyped a metronome (for practicing music) with an animated LED light bar (out of PVC pipe!) and pushbuttons to program it. Thing can be huge and robust, like throw-against-the-wall robust. And I like that there are only so many buttons and they don't move!
One of the best low-tech interfaces is the honeywell round thermostat. Change the dial to point to the temperature you want and the internal indicator shows you the current temperature. All without requiring any transistors. Go shop for a thermostat, look at other options, and be amazed at how complex the layers of technology can make things.
So how to I set my away temperature? How do I set the return temperature? How do I set the sleep temperature? How do I set the wake temperature?
How can I make it change based on my schedule, as I'm home most of the day on the weekends while I'm often out during the week?
Seems like its not that great of a UI given the requirements I have.
How can I make it change based on my schedule, as I'm home most of the day on the weekends while I'm often out during the week?
Seems like its not that great of a UI given the requirements I have.
Turn it up and down when you come and go? In my opinion all those features are a catastrophe in that your body will end up being in your house at the wrong time or your clothing will be warmer or hotter than typical or your spouse will, and you will want to play with the temp anyways and end up fiddling with things to get it right. The learning thermostats try to solve this, but it’s at great cost and complexity and experiences vary and habits change.
> In my opinion all those features are a catastrophe in that your body will end up being in your house at the wrong time
You're trading sometimes being in the house at the wrong time to every day being in the house at the wrong time. Then your other statement doesn't matter if its programmable or not, if you're constantly in disagreement of what the thermostat should be you're going to be fiddling with it regardless of if its programmed or not.
I realize people's experiences vary greatly, but that's kind of my point about looking at the basic Honeywell thermostat and declaring its a great user experience. To me, its a terrible user experience and far worse than my basic 7 day 4 stage programmable thermostat which I touch once a season and otherwise let it be. In the end I save energy, reduce my bill, have on average a more comfortable house, and I rarely have to interact with the thermostat.
You're trading sometimes being in the house at the wrong time to every day being in the house at the wrong time. Then your other statement doesn't matter if its programmable or not, if you're constantly in disagreement of what the thermostat should be you're going to be fiddling with it regardless of if its programmed or not.
I realize people's experiences vary greatly, but that's kind of my point about looking at the basic Honeywell thermostat and declaring its a great user experience. To me, its a terrible user experience and far worse than my basic 7 day 4 stage programmable thermostat which I touch once a season and otherwise let it be. In the end I save energy, reduce my bill, have on average a more comfortable house, and I rarely have to interact with the thermostat.
The comment about the marketing person saying users would feel like the lower-tech UX was archaic was interesting because of the insight it implied.
The value a product expresses really is the product. The user has to feel something about it. A medical device in a hospital setting used by nurses on patients needs to express professional sophistication to the patient and reliability to the RN. The simple LCD display makes sense for expressing something purpose-built, e.g. for a doctor doing a test, but for the RN, who does most of the care and patient interaction, things like rapport, trust, and familiarity go a lot further, hence asking for a touch screen.
Once as a PM on a security product, I entered into the UX development with the perspective of producing a consumer product that just told you the thing you needed to know, believing that the value we were providing was from our ML analytics back end we had invested so much in. What came back from enterprise sales was, "we want more widgets on the screen, can you just make it look like it's doing something?" My reaction was, "find smarter customers," which of course was the the most uniquely and profoundly wrong response in almost every way at once. After going out on some sales calls, what customers wanted was our data. They didn't care about our huge ML pipeline with a calm and decisive consumer oriented UX, because in their environment, having smooth products was not what made them express power to their own stakeholders - they expressed their own value by showing whizzing screens of data. What they really wanted in hindsight was a private telemetry and surveillance API for fleet devices, like a more featureful MDM, but scriptable so they could demonstrate their own value - and not an ML model that did that for them. A low tech command line or API was the real product they wanted. Customers who did like it were enterprise managers who wanted to show they were hip to silicon valley driven tech change.
I'd wonder if we could make a radial web chart of the values a customer really has and the result would indicate the design language elements the UX of a product should have. You'd have to figure out what things like "powerful" mean to your customers, and what would equip them to become that through using your product. Other sub values are things like authoritative, safe, precision, virtuotic, calm, belonging, competent, inventive, hidden depth, compliant and aligned, elevated, the exception, etc. Based on these, I'd design a product UX around a stack ranked set of values like these.
Makes me think there is a future in new kinds of input devices though.
The value a product expresses really is the product. The user has to feel something about it. A medical device in a hospital setting used by nurses on patients needs to express professional sophistication to the patient and reliability to the RN. The simple LCD display makes sense for expressing something purpose-built, e.g. for a doctor doing a test, but for the RN, who does most of the care and patient interaction, things like rapport, trust, and familiarity go a lot further, hence asking for a touch screen.
Once as a PM on a security product, I entered into the UX development with the perspective of producing a consumer product that just told you the thing you needed to know, believing that the value we were providing was from our ML analytics back end we had invested so much in. What came back from enterprise sales was, "we want more widgets on the screen, can you just make it look like it's doing something?" My reaction was, "find smarter customers," which of course was the the most uniquely and profoundly wrong response in almost every way at once. After going out on some sales calls, what customers wanted was our data. They didn't care about our huge ML pipeline with a calm and decisive consumer oriented UX, because in their environment, having smooth products was not what made them express power to their own stakeholders - they expressed their own value by showing whizzing screens of data. What they really wanted in hindsight was a private telemetry and surveillance API for fleet devices, like a more featureful MDM, but scriptable so they could demonstrate their own value - and not an ML model that did that for them. A low tech command line or API was the real product they wanted. Customers who did like it were enterprise managers who wanted to show they were hip to silicon valley driven tech change.
I'd wonder if we could make a radial web chart of the values a customer really has and the result would indicate the design language elements the UX of a product should have. You'd have to figure out what things like "powerful" mean to your customers, and what would equip them to become that through using your product. Other sub values are things like authoritative, safe, precision, virtuotic, calm, belonging, competent, inventive, hidden depth, compliant and aligned, elevated, the exception, etc. Based on these, I'd design a product UX around a stack ranked set of values like these.
Makes me think there is a future in new kinds of input devices though.
[deleted]
“solutionism”
"Touch Screens in Cars Solve a Problem We Didn't Have" Jay Caspian Kang, NYT May 23 2022
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/23/opinion/touch-screens-car...
"Touch Screens in Cars Solve a Problem We Didn't Have" Jay Caspian Kang, NYT May 23 2022
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/23/opinion/touch-screens-car...
I still wish smartphones had physical PgUp/PgDn buttons. Much easier on the thumbs when you do a lot of scrolling.
Maybe the volume button could be used for this
That might be possible on Android. But dedicated buttons would be better, to avoid having modes, and because sometimes there are use cases where you want to use both functions (e.g. scrolling through playlists while trying songs with different volume levels).
Electronic consumer devices like Minidisc players and PDAs used to often have a multitude of buttons to directly access all commonly used functions.
Electronic consumer devices like Minidisc players and PDAs used to often have a multitude of buttons to directly access all commonly used functions.
> Depending on how the controls are organized and differentiated by size or shape, users might also be able to distinguish between and access the controls without needing to look at the user interface
I'm reminded of the big red button almost everything in a machine shop has.
I'm reminded of the big red button almost everything in a machine shop has.
I feel like a lot of people have forgotten that before the iPhone, touchscreens were widely regarded as a terrible interface only suitable for niche applications like kiosks. There were good reasons for that, and latency and lack of tactile feedback were high on the list. Touchscreens have proved effective in situations where you need a highly-flexible interface in a small space, but an awful lot of devices (like appliances) have more space and don't need the flexibility, so they end up taking all of the downsides with none of the benefits.
A lot of designers (or marketers) seem to be trying to copy the look and feel of Apple devices without understanding the factors that led to their design.
A lot of designers (or marketers) seem to be trying to copy the look and feel of Apple devices without understanding the factors that led to their design.
I agree.
I get why the trade off is worthwhile on smartphone.
But I hate the push in automotive application. Yes, I'd like a big screen for navigation, but don't replace HVAC controls.
It's not just about touch screen. There is overuse of capacitive buttons in cars. And it is all about dollars.
I get why the trade off is worthwhile on smartphone.
But I hate the push in automotive application. Yes, I'd like a big screen for navigation, but don't replace HVAC controls.
It's not just about touch screen. There is overuse of capacitive buttons in cars. And it is all about dollars.
Although I'm very much on the side of using more low-tech interfaces, it's important to remember that pre-iPhone touchscreens were a VERY different beast. Resistive touchscreens, in particular, were awful.
This is very true. Resistive touchscreens were slower, less reliable, and IIRC had coarser position sensing. Since we're talking about history, it's also worth noting that early opinions on touchscreens tended to assume they would be desk-mounted or wall-mounted, which leads to the gorilla arm problem.
This article strangely undersells the advantages of low tech. It's true that they're not better for everything, but they have advantages well beyond the basic things mentioned.
A tactile button has far fewer accuracy issues with positioning: if you can feel the button, you won't start pressing 2/3 off and then get further and further off until you're triggering something else, as happens all the time on touchscreens.
A knob provides a richer communication path between your brain and the device. With touchscreens, you can basically just poke and swipe, with some unintuitive nuances like long press or multi-fingered gestures. With a knob, you're using separate muscles and so can associate muscle memory based on the size, texture, and granularity of "click" feedback as you turn. We also have the ability to finely modulate the rate of twisting something—compare that to tapping frantically on a touchscreen left/right icon to control a quantity.
Knobs don't share space in our muscle memory with buttons. To some extent, different knobs and different buttons are distinguishable too.
Physical sliders are good for fine-grained control, but are also good at just smashing them all the way to min or max. When I try that on a touchscreen control, it might not make it all the way to the extreme, or my angle is wrong (no physical constraint to keep my hand/finger in place!) and it doesn't register at all because I veered off of the control.
Even when I'm looking at the screen already, using a directional pad means I'll always gradually get further and further off until it stops registering. Either because my attention is on a different part of the screen, or because my fingers are in the way of seeing the displayed pad. Not a problem with a physical stick or knob.
A tactile button has far fewer accuracy issues with positioning: if you can feel the button, you won't start pressing 2/3 off and then get further and further off until you're triggering something else, as happens all the time on touchscreens.
A knob provides a richer communication path between your brain and the device. With touchscreens, you can basically just poke and swipe, with some unintuitive nuances like long press or multi-fingered gestures. With a knob, you're using separate muscles and so can associate muscle memory based on the size, texture, and granularity of "click" feedback as you turn. We also have the ability to finely modulate the rate of twisting something—compare that to tapping frantically on a touchscreen left/right icon to control a quantity.
Knobs don't share space in our muscle memory with buttons. To some extent, different knobs and different buttons are distinguishable too.
Physical sliders are good for fine-grained control, but are also good at just smashing them all the way to min or max. When I try that on a touchscreen control, it might not make it all the way to the extreme, or my angle is wrong (no physical constraint to keep my hand/finger in place!) and it doesn't register at all because I veered off of the control.
Even when I'm looking at the screen already, using a directional pad means I'll always gradually get further and further off until it stops registering. Either because my attention is on a different part of the screen, or because my fingers are in the way of seeing the displayed pad. Not a problem with a physical stick or knob.
Oh, it is actually worse.
The amount of times when I swiped down from the top (to open the notification shade or whatever it is called now or to refresh the page), the UI shows pulling down the thing fully... and when backs off. I repeat the gesture, but again it goes all the way down and retracts back and nothing happens.
And of course when I don't need that, I just swipe down to go top of the page - it thinks what I actually want to refresh the page. Many comments were lost that way.
The amount of times when I swiped down from the top (to open the notification shade or whatever it is called now or to refresh the page), the UI shows pulling down the thing fully... and when backs off. I repeat the gesture, but again it goes all the way down and retracts back and nothing happens.
And of course when I don't need that, I just swipe down to go top of the page - it thinks what I actually want to refresh the page. Many comments were lost that way.
Or worse, those UI affordances may change over time. With the swipe down behavior you mentioned, on iOS, I used to just swipe down from the center of the top of the iPad to see the notification shade. A recent iOS behavior made it so swiping down from the center now causes the app window to be dragged. Ugh! Now I have to relearn to find a spot slightly to the right to pull down to view the shade.
I can't count how often my left or down swipe has been interpreted as a left or right swipe on touchscreens
I agree with you but in response to:
A tactile button has far fewer accuracy issues with positioning: if you can feel the button, you won't start pressing 2/3 off and then get further and further off until you're triggering something else, as happens all the time on touchscreens.
I gotta mention that I have a circa 2000 Japanese luxury car and the dials that control the stereo and the air conditioning are actually remarkably unpredictable. Turning the knob at all quickly will disorient the system and you can have a large increase in value or no-increase-at all (it seems to be an artifact of the knob changing a digital value). If you look carefully and move slowly they work but they essentially have all the drawbacks you describe with a touch screen - except you can't do something else entirely, thankfully. Obviously, better design would fix this so one does have to say "properly designed knobs are better".
A tactile button has far fewer accuracy issues with positioning: if you can feel the button, you won't start pressing 2/3 off and then get further and further off until you're triggering something else, as happens all the time on touchscreens.
I gotta mention that I have a circa 2000 Japanese luxury car and the dials that control the stereo and the air conditioning are actually remarkably unpredictable. Turning the knob at all quickly will disorient the system and you can have a large increase in value or no-increase-at all (it seems to be an artifact of the knob changing a digital value). If you look carefully and move slowly they work but they essentially have all the drawbacks you describe with a touch screen - except you can't do something else entirely, thankfully. Obviously, better design would fix this so one does have to say "properly designed knobs are better".
I agree! I could rant endlessly about all the bad physical interfaces I've used. My house is full of them. All the new appliances come with the flat buttons—are they capacitive or something?—they may or may not register when you press them, that often don't work when poked with a gloved elbow, etc. And dials like you describe that change random amounts or aren't debounced or whatever. There are probably more possible ways for physical things to go wrong than the small but common set of problems with touchscreens. It's more that they can go more right, too. (Or at least have their problems and benefits better matched to a task.)
Now that you mention it all applicances I’ve ever seen have those annoying flat buttons. If they made a microwave or oven control panel with the equivalent of a satisfying mechanical keyboard it would pretty well differentiate itself with a premium feel, though even the feel of a decent tv remote would be a huge improvement.
My microwave has four interface elements:
- rotary knob for function (microwave power level, defrost mode, some never-used oven modes) - rotary knob for time; this turns itself back towards zero as it unwinds - audible "ting" when timer elapses - physical press button for the door latch
I can heat food with a single turn of the timer knob.
Most microwaves require you to navigate. You can fuck off with that shit, not in my house.
- rotary knob for function (microwave power level, defrost mode, some never-used oven modes) - rotary knob for time; this turns itself back towards zero as it unwinds - audible "ting" when timer elapses - physical press button for the door latch
I can heat food with a single turn of the timer knob.
Most microwaves require you to navigate. You can fuck off with that shit, not in my house.
That's a bad implementation. Implemented well, a radio volume dial allows for predictable fine- and coarse-grained control. All of my cars have had good volume knobs that respond instantly and predictably, but I'm not surprised that there are bad ones.
There are no good implementations of touch screen buttons. However, there are some good implementations of touch sliders though, particularly on some LG microwaves (which someone else also brought up[1]).
I've written about these microwaves previously on HN, so I'll just quote myself[2].
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31506358
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30873016
> Regarding microwave oven ergonomics, the best one I've seen doesn't have old-school dials, but a touch-sensitive slider bar. You may think this is bad, but it works very, very well. The front of the microwave has the time display, the time slider bar, and two buttons: stop/cancel and start/+30sec. Open the door and there are a few auto cook options and power level options. There is no number keypad at all; the slider bar gives you both very fine and coarse-grained control, depending on how fast you slide across it. It's all very intuitive, and I was very impressed with it.
There are no good implementations of touch screen buttons. However, there are some good implementations of touch sliders though, particularly on some LG microwaves (which someone else also brought up[1]).
I've written about these microwaves previously on HN, so I'll just quote myself[2].
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31506358
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30873016
> Regarding microwave oven ergonomics, the best one I've seen doesn't have old-school dials, but a touch-sensitive slider bar. You may think this is bad, but it works very, very well. The front of the microwave has the time display, the time slider bar, and two buttons: stop/cancel and start/+30sec. Open the door and there are a few auto cook options and power level options. There is no number keypad at all; the slider bar gives you both very fine and coarse-grained control, depending on how fast you slide across it. It's all very intuitive, and I was very impressed with it.
I guess the "digital but with physical buttons" is the middleground. It still gives the designers the ability to mess around with acceleration curves that amplify fast movements, or to not sample the value fast enough to get coherent digital readings. I don't understand why they do this. As a university engineering student, I have a great love for linear systems, which usually is anything analogue. It makes everything easier.
For example, the focus ring of a consumer digital camera lens drives me nuts, it's practically impossible to do a pull focus reliably between two objects. If you do it a little faster or slower, it will be off, regardless of the travel distance. On the other hand, professional cinema lenses usually have actual mechanical focus wheels attached to ensure perfect reproducibility.
For example, the focus ring of a consumer digital camera lens drives me nuts, it's practically impossible to do a pull focus reliably between two objects. If you do it a little faster or slower, it will be off, regardless of the travel distance. On the other hand, professional cinema lenses usually have actual mechanical focus wheels attached to ensure perfect reproducibility.
My 2017 Subaru has perfectly nice tactile controls for the radio, except that they’re disabled when the car is in reverse.
Have you used the touchscreen in a 2000's-era Japanese car? It's horrific.
I remember when my phone updated to Android 10 and soon after I received a call and, well, there's a video that shows pretty much exactly how things went:
https://youtu.be/UzpEHwZ-s-M?t=9
I can't believe we're asking software developers to recreate the world on a screen. It's an incredible amount of work that never gets done, leaving us with unintuitive interfaces.
https://youtu.be/UzpEHwZ-s-M?t=9
I can't believe we're asking software developers to recreate the world on a screen. It's an incredible amount of work that never gets done, leaving us with unintuitive interfaces.
So true. This is one reason why I really miss my Pebble watch with its physical buttons, which allowed me to perform a lot of operations by touch without looking (e.g., play/pause/forward/rewind for media control). In comparison, fiddling with the small touch screen of my Fitbit Versa is such a poor user experience.
Not to mention Pebble's "low-tech" screen was so clearly visible in direct sunlight, while I have problem clearly seeing the fancier screen of Fitbit when it's slightly bright outside.
Not to mention Pebble's "low-tech" screen was so clearly visible in direct sunlight, while I have problem clearly seeing the fancier screen of Fitbit when it's slightly bright outside.
Pebble Times (and others) are still available on eBay. I am wearing my third - the batteries died on my other two.
I find it harder to accurately position a physical slider than a knob. The reason is pretty obvious once you realize which muscles are involved in each movement.
Well, it depends on the length/circumference. Knobs are usually more satisfying to tune, but faders are not only as precise, but give better visual feedback and you can move multiple at once.
Oh, sliders do provide better visual feedback. But they are less imprecise because your gross motor muscles move your arm to move the slider, whereas a typical knob uses the fine control muscles in your hand.
Your post is really reassuring... I have all of these problems with touchscreens and find them almost unusable... yet I thought I was alone, because people seem to love them.
I think it goes to show how people are surprisingly willing to settle for sub par experiences. Nearly everyone in the united states use terrible paper mate pens that scratch and skip, and use composition notebooks with cover that looks like tv static, made of center-stapled tissue paper that don't open flat.
(If any of you are suffering from terrible stationary, I would recommend trying out Midori MD Paper notebooks or Rhodia Rhodiarama notebooks. Midori makes beautiful and functional notebooks with precision ruling that satisfies the engineer in me, and Rhodia uses luxurious Clairefontaine paper suitable for fountain pens and stuff)
(If any of you are suffering from terrible stationary, I would recommend trying out Midori MD Paper notebooks or Rhodia Rhodiarama notebooks. Midori makes beautiful and functional notebooks with precision ruling that satisfies the engineer in me, and Rhodia uses luxurious Clairefontaine paper suitable for fountain pens and stuff)
One reason I'm hanging on to my car for now. I prefer knobs and buttons. I can adjust my radio, ac, heat, defrost, etc without ever taking my eyes off the road.
I expect if lo-tek UI’s become a popular way to interface with software, it won’t be long before someone is codgering up a 3D printer to create baroque monstrosities. Like say a colicky knob that acts as a button in both push and pull directions with multiple different clicky depths, and slides.
That reminds me of many Asian web site UI’s: they’re very dense by some Western market standards because many Asian markets’ Internet users apparently want dense information transfer in their user experience, which seems to be eschewed by many current Western site designs.
That reminds me of many Asian web site UI’s: they’re very dense by some Western market standards because many Asian markets’ Internet users apparently want dense information transfer in their user experience, which seems to be eschewed by many current Western site designs.
> A knob provides a richer communication path between your brain and the device. With touchscreens, you can basically just poke and swipe, with some unintuitive nuances like long press or multi-fingered gestures. With a knob, you're using separate muscles and so can associate muscle memory based on the size, texture, and granularity of "click" feedback as you turn. We also have the ability to finely modulate the rate of twisting something—compare that to tapping frantically on a touchscreen left/right icon to control a quantity.
That gives me an idea, which I credit to you sfink. To make a product with knobs, buy knobs of slightly different makes with variations that feel slightly different, slightly different texture, different roughness, different give, despite being all of them supposedly the same jelly bean part. This helps muscle memory because despite appearing basically the same the muscles and spine know the difference right away, secretly.
What that means is for a 6-knob device you need 6 suppliers. What that means is there's room in the market for many companies, and less economies of scale, despite being formally a commodity. What that then means is there's more diversity in the marketplace, and more companies that can each stay afloat, competition is less cutthroat. The other thing that then means is American and Chinese companies can coexist in what is otherwise a bitter-fought market. In fact, one good way of getting subtly different knob feels is in fact making them in different countries with different regulatory environments dictating how not to make the knob.
And what that all means is we reduce the final stage of economies of scale--wars and empires.
That gives me an idea, which I credit to you sfink. To make a product with knobs, buy knobs of slightly different makes with variations that feel slightly different, slightly different texture, different roughness, different give, despite being all of them supposedly the same jelly bean part. This helps muscle memory because despite appearing basically the same the muscles and spine know the difference right away, secretly.
What that means is for a 6-knob device you need 6 suppliers. What that means is there's room in the market for many companies, and less economies of scale, despite being formally a commodity. What that then means is there's more diversity in the marketplace, and more companies that can each stay afloat, competition is less cutthroat. The other thing that then means is American and Chinese companies can coexist in what is otherwise a bitter-fought market. In fact, one good way of getting subtly different knob feels is in fact making them in different countries with different regulatory environments dictating how not to make the knob.
And what that all means is we reduce the final stage of economies of scale--wars and empires.
All very good points. I'd like to add that several of the advantages you list also apply to the old-school mouse vs. the touchscreen & touchpad.
Right?
Modern computers, GUIs, and even the TUI, provide flexibility for a device. They're good at manipulating many different types of information.
If you have something that is meant to do something very well and it is critical then it makes sense to have a machine with purpose built physical controls. Controls which enable you to manipulate that one critical type of information accurately and easily.
The dedicated machine with physical controls will have to be correct, complete, and durable. But it will always work better because the controls are designed for real human bodily movement. They become truly enmeshed in muscle memory. You know where a control is relative to the others. It's just different.
Modern computers, GUIs, and even the TUI, provide flexibility for a device. They're good at manipulating many different types of information.
If you have something that is meant to do something very well and it is critical then it makes sense to have a machine with purpose built physical controls. Controls which enable you to manipulate that one critical type of information accurately and easily.
The dedicated machine with physical controls will have to be correct, complete, and durable. But it will always work better because the controls are designed for real human bodily movement. They become truly enmeshed in muscle memory. You know where a control is relative to the others. It's just different.
The main advantage of the modern GUI is when you need to perform wildly different tasks on them. Physical controls may not be appropriate to every task. This was the pitch when Jobs unveiled the iPhone, and it makes sense.
However, if you have a device with a single function, there's no need for that. Your physical controls will always match the device's function. Use those.
However, if you have a device with a single function, there's no need for that. Your physical controls will always match the device's function. Use those.
[deleted]
This article misses the point of software controls: The designs can be changed up until the release of the item, sometimes even after the release using post-sales software updates. This allows companies to be more agile. The lead time for physical controls and custom LCDs is months if not years and costs tens of thousands of dollars, where software can be updated in days with near-zero cost. Also, most humans are easily wooed by the glitzy animations during the pre-sales period and aren't cognizant of the problems they suffer later due to bad controls.
Though the author did hit the nail on the head about tactility.
Though the author did hit the nail on the head about tactility.
Curiously, for some people low-tech is not better. I.e. used to have an Amana RadarRange which had two knobs - one for power and one for time. You turned them until you saw what you wanted on the display.
But my pre-reading children couldn't operate it. I'd say "nuke it for a minute and a half" and they'd twist the knob and ask "Is that enough? Which way should I turn it?" See they couldn't do the math to know if 45 seconds was more or less than a minute and a half.
If it'd been buttons I could have said "Press 90 seconds" or whatever and they could do that. Later when we got a different microwave they had a better time.
But my pre-reading children couldn't operate it. I'd say "nuke it for a minute and a half" and they'd twist the knob and ask "Is that enough? Which way should I turn it?" See they couldn't do the math to know if 45 seconds was more or less than a minute and a half.
If it'd been buttons I could have said "Press 90 seconds" or whatever and they could do that. Later when we got a different microwave they had a better time.
Looking at the dial I feel like if you told them to move it to 1:30 or move it to the 30 past the 1, it would be pretty obvious? Wouldn't you have the same issue of having to convert 1:30 to 90 seconds with the other microwave design? I don't understand how the two are different.
one you just type in the number. The other requires a knowledge of counting and ordinality etc.
Is 90 seconds greater than 45 seconds? Is 9 bigger then 5?
Today I was running some errands in my car. The AC was too cold. Without taking my eyes off the road, I felt around for the temperature knob. My car has large, grippy knobs. It's an off-roading focused model and the knobs were made to be usable while driving on bumpy roads. I found the temperature knob, I figured where it was set with the easy-to-feel tactile indicator, and I adjusted it down, all without having to use my eyes. I love tech but never want to lose my big, rubbery AC knobs in the car. There's enough distracted drivers on the road to watch out for, I don't want to be another one.
> Today I was running some errands in my car. The AC was too cold.
This literally never happens on any of my cars. I'd rather not have to be distracted with an uncomfortable car in the middle of driving and then have to feel around navigating a few different knobs and buttons to make my car comfortable, my car should just automatically be comfortable.
> There's enough distracted drivers on the road to watch out for
You were more distracted having to think about the climate, take your hand off the wheel, feel around for the knobs, and adjust them properly than someone using automatic climate control where they just never have to make that adjustment in the first place.
This literally never happens on any of my cars. I'd rather not have to be distracted with an uncomfortable car in the middle of driving and then have to feel around navigating a few different knobs and buttons to make my car comfortable, my car should just automatically be comfortable.
> There's enough distracted drivers on the road to watch out for
You were more distracted having to think about the climate, take your hand off the wheel, feel around for the knobs, and adjust them properly than someone using automatic climate control where they just never have to make that adjustment in the first place.
I was one of the first few Ux designers for a large defense contractor that made data-link communication devices for the military. Prior to my arrival all the GUIs were done in Matlab. Think 80s VCR-level complexity. Needless to say, these GUIs were not well received by the boots-on-the-ground soldier that had to operate the equipment. Furthermore, they were a complete mystery to the top brass who funded these projects.
When I arrived, some groups in the organization had begun to refactor these Matlab interfaces into WPF applications with slick new updates to the widgets, but it was really lipstick on a pig. After listening to all the stakeholders and users our proposal was to develop a skeuomorphic radio interface (green box with a bunch of dials and frequency display). Only the critical controls were featured on the radio face. All of the configuration options were buried. Now, I get all the eye-rolling when it comes to skeuomorphism as a fad, but it really resonated with our target audience and their superiors. This "Virtual Radio" soon became the defacto style for all communication devices throughout the organization. Because of the animation capabilities of VPF we were able to mimic both the look and feel of the various analog radio controls. It was super realistic. More importantly it allowed us to more easily communicate our designs to a broad audience, including: soldiers, contractors, technicians, and top brass. It has been nearly a decade since I left the company. I hope that this design has gone away. Not because it was ineffective (or trendy), but rather these communication systems needed to evolve to be self-configuring and self-operating, requiring little if any interaction by a soldier other than monitoring. After all, the best interface is one that doesn't need to exist.
When I arrived, some groups in the organization had begun to refactor these Matlab interfaces into WPF applications with slick new updates to the widgets, but it was really lipstick on a pig. After listening to all the stakeholders and users our proposal was to develop a skeuomorphic radio interface (green box with a bunch of dials and frequency display). Only the critical controls were featured on the radio face. All of the configuration options were buried. Now, I get all the eye-rolling when it comes to skeuomorphism as a fad, but it really resonated with our target audience and their superiors. This "Virtual Radio" soon became the defacto style for all communication devices throughout the organization. Because of the animation capabilities of VPF we were able to mimic both the look and feel of the various analog radio controls. It was super realistic. More importantly it allowed us to more easily communicate our designs to a broad audience, including: soldiers, contractors, technicians, and top brass. It has been nearly a decade since I left the company. I hope that this design has gone away. Not because it was ineffective (or trendy), but rather these communication systems needed to evolve to be self-configuring and self-operating, requiring little if any interaction by a soldier other than monitoring. After all, the best interface is one that doesn't need to exist.
I wonder how it evolved over time, after you left.
Most soldiers are in their early to mid 20's, right? They might have never encountered an analog radio at this point! On the other hand, those old physical UIs did have a certain intuitiveness to them that might just be easy to learn, even if it isn't familiar.
Most soldiers are in their early to mid 20's, right? They might have never encountered an analog radio at this point! On the other hand, those old physical UIs did have a certain intuitiveness to them that might just be easy to learn, even if it isn't familiar.
low tech can provide control and persistence.
I want a real hardware volume dial on my phones and laptops. Mostly so that I can turn them down and be sure that that I will not embarrass myself by making noises at events where silence is expected.
And I miss DIP switches. It is just brilliant that you could configure it once and for all. E.g. I have smoke detectors that could all be linked together by pressing some buttons in a weird ritual, but when you change a battery they forget and run down the battery in no time trying in vain to sync.
I want a real hardware volume dial on my phones and laptops. Mostly so that I can turn them down and be sure that that I will not embarrass myself by making noises at events where silence is expected.
And I miss DIP switches. It is just brilliant that you could configure it once and for all. E.g. I have smoke detectors that could all be linked together by pressing some buttons in a weird ritual, but when you change a battery they forget and run down the battery in no time trying in vain to sync.
> such as silk-screened button labels becoming faint after extended use
Becoming faint? On my Microsoft keyboard, the letters on the keys soon wore off completely. I had to re-learn touch typing.
Becoming faint? On my Microsoft keyboard, the letters on the keys soon wore off completely. I had to re-learn touch typing.
> When a user interface can get away with only icons in place of words, a low-tech user interface can work particularly well.
Icons just mean nobody can use it. Heaven help the poor user who loses the manual that has a chart to decode the icons.
Icons just mean nobody can use it. Heaven help the poor user who loses the manual that has a chart to decode the icons.
It would make low budget SciFi movies look realistic too
I detest touch screens. The feedback, durability, reliability, discoverability, and general focus of an application can often be maximized by selecting more traditional hardware user interface components. The ROC curve for gesture based volume controls peaks at false positives and again at false negatives.
Car touch screen UI engineer is the third worst job, right behind 737 MAX MCAS designer and the guys who faked Volkswagen emissions.
Why am I not surprised?