Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 458 posts

Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers

#191

Post by mietek »

smacktoward wrote: post #181
rossdavidh wrote: post #2

You know, I think touchscreens are not preferable unless you need/want to be able to have controls for many different systems in the same space (e.g. a smartphone with multiple apps). If you are needing a dedicated control for a high-stakes system, the fact that it's a more modern-looking interface should not matter. Touchscreens are inherently inferior to a mechanical interface, if it's a single-system (i.e. doesn't…

> i.e. doesn't need to morph into a different and back again The UX terminology for what you're describing is a modal interface : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_(user_interface) ... which is to say, an interface that works differently depending on what "mode" the interface is in. A classic example of a modal interface is vi/vim, where you have to explicitly switch into "editing" mode in order to actually insert t…

Another classic example of a modal interface is the Photoshop toolbox, dating back to MacPaint.

http://www.psd-dude.com/tutorials/resources-images/adobe-pho...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacPaint

It does not take much work for a Photoshop operator to orient themselves to the current mode, because it is communicated by a number of cues, including the shape of the mouse pointer.

One problem with vi’s interface is that, in contrast to Photoshop, it’s not easy for a vi operator to discover the available modes.

Are there any paint programs without a modal interface?

Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers

#192

Post by dmix »

greedo wrote: post #153
dmix wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's your point? Anyone who's played video games is well aware that value of both in different contexts. Which is my point about it not being a panacea... It's not about the value of mice/keyboards vs controllers in gaming but about designing the best interfaces for the use-case. I doubt when the Navy designs their systems that they're trying to mimic professional gamers who needs 99.9% aiming accuracy and extremel…

My point was rebutting the nonsense you wrote about most FPS players using controllers.

[Citation needed]

Call of duty and rainbow six and countless other FPS games sell big on console. Google says games sales are 35% PC.

Which again has nothing to do what I said. Stop turning this into a petty flames war.

Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers

#193

Post by lb1lf »

bmurphy1976 wrote: post #170
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question: Why don't modern cars yet monitor humidity in and outside the car and make the correct decisions to keep your windows clear? Why are we focusing on self-driving cars while our cars are too dumb to do this much on their own?

Why don't cars have 2 batteries? One for starting the car, and the other for all the crap that tends to kill the battery when you most need it? Probably because it costs more money and nobody will pay for it. That's the best guess I have.

You just have to be picky when you choose cars; my twenty year old Land Cruiser came with twin batteries factory fitted - though rather than one for starting and one for all the thingamajigs, they went with two beefy ones in parallel - 2*105Ah makes sure it starts every time.

I have been contemplating using the second one as an auxiliary battery after installing a fridge in the boot, though. Basically a matter of fitting a voltage monitor and a hefty relay.

Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers

#194

Post by wincy »

jakear wrote: post #5
rossdavidh wrote: post #2

You know, I think touchscreens are not preferable unless you need/want to be able to have controls for many different systems in the same space (e.g. a smartphone with multiple apps). If you are needing a dedicated control for a high-stakes system, the fact that it's a more modern-looking interface should not matter. Touchscreens are inherently inferior to a mechanical interface, if it's a single-system (i.e. doesn't…

This is why I detest touchscreens for most car functions. Specifically AC, with old fashioned knobs I have full control over AC without taking my eyes off the road, but nowadays everyone wants to put it on their infotainment system, hidden beneath 4 other buttons.

There’s a part of me that misses T9 texting on my cell phones. There was a time that I was very good at T9, and because it was deterministic (with auto complete off) you could text without looking and it’d text exactly what you meant. Definitely can’t do that now, and voice controls aren’t as good.

Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers

#195

Post by __m »

octorian wrote: post #13
situational87 wrote: post #4

I'm having trouble visualizing exactly how this works from the text, but it sounds like a total nightmare. Some sort of complicated list of steps for transferring control screens between different stations on the ship, and it's not clear why or when you do this at all. I'm guessing the Navy doesn't spend a lot of time on UI/UX, which is ironic since these long, high-stress shifts with lives on the line is exactly whe…

In my own experience, any software developed under government contract has horrendous UI/UX. Probably because it's hard to specify "don't suck and be pleasant to use" in terms of formal system requirements.

Just reference the relevant iso norms.

Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers

#196

Post by batbomb »

wincy wrote: post #194
jakear wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I detest touchscreens for most car functions. Specifically AC, with old fashioned knobs I have full control over AC without taking my eyes off the road, but nowadays everyone wants to put it on their infotainment system, hidden beneath 4 other buttons.

There’s a part of me that misses T9 texting on my cell phones. There was a time that I was very good at T9, and because it was deterministic (with auto complete off) you could text without looking and it’d text exactly what you meant. Definitely can’t do that now, and voice controls aren’t as good.

I can text without looking on iPhone 5/SE, but that went away with the 8

Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers

#197

Post by tfha »

jakear wrote: post #5
rossdavidh wrote: post #2

You know, I think touchscreens are not preferable unless you need/want to be able to have controls for many different systems in the same space (e.g. a smartphone with multiple apps). If you are needing a dedicated control for a high-stakes system, the fact that it's a more modern-looking interface should not matter. Touchscreens are inherently inferior to a mechanical interface, if it's a single-system (i.e. doesn't…

This is why I detest touchscreens for most car functions. Specifically AC, with old fashioned knobs I have full control over AC without taking my eyes off the road, but nowadays everyone wants to put it on their infotainment system, hidden beneath 4 other buttons.

The emergency brake. I really need that to be a mechanical lever and not an electrical one. If something is going wrong on the road I need a backup brake that takes me under a second to activate while in a state of panic with my eyes glued to the road and it had better be functional.

Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers

#198

Post by Justsignedup »

Wait. Let me get this straight.

Touchscreens, which are ideal for representing multiple user unterfaces in an intuitive way, but requiring constant visual contact are being replaced by a physical user interface that can be used by both touch, and memory?

Why was touchscreen ever even a consideration for controls you're not looking at?

Touchscreen is great for phones. It is awful for keyboards (see macbook pro). And if is even more awful for controls. Has nobody researched this before spending a few hundred million dollars?

Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers

#200

Post by dmoy »

da_chicken wrote: post #118
cletus wrote: post #110

Great. If only monitor manufacturers would do the same thing. I have a monitor with exactly 2 inputs (1 DP, 1 HDMI). What do I need to do to switch between them? 1. Press the Menu button 2. Move the option to Input Source 3. Select Input Source 4. Move from one to the other 5. Press Select Some monitor will compress 1-3 into a single Input Source option. Still, 3 presses? Why does literally NO ONE make a monitor with…

> Some monitor will compress 1-3 into a single Input Source option. Still, 3 presses? Why does literally NO ONE make a monitor with hardware input source buttons? WHY? Because they want to use essentially the same chassis case when they have 2 inputs or 20, and they have dozens of models over the life of the tooling to support. It's much easier to swap out the die for the backplate or to use a snap in backplate than…

This is exactly right.

My monitor has one plug (DVI-D dual link). My monitor has 5 buttons.

But thankfully the manufacturer removed basically all software, so only the power button does anything, and the other 4 buttons are unconnected in the background. (Unfortunately this means the brightness can only be controlled by the connected computer's software)

The chassis is the same as more complicated monitors though.

Post reply on HN