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

Digital pregnancy tests have an internal paper test

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 161 posts

Re: Digital pregnancy tests have an internal paper test

#71

Post by leto_ii »

Going over the conversation here I'm a bit surprised by how many people seem to prefer an unnecessarily complicated and obfuscating solution to the straight-forward one.

The Twitter thread clearly points out that the electronics serve strictly as an intermediary layer between the paper test and the user. They just binarize the paper reading. This in turn gives a false psychological sense of security ("it's the computer that says it, not me"), without any credible benefit.

Why should I trust the people who calibrated the electronic device more than my own eyes?

More generally, why are people so eager to discount the reliability of their own senses? You have eyes and a mind which are the product of billions of years of evolutionary refinement. If you're not sure whether it's || or |+, pee again on a different test and compare; or wait a few days. If the lighting in your bathroom is bad, take the test in natural light or a better lit room.

My personal instinct is to rely first and foremost on my own mind and senses. It's of course important to defer to expert knowledge, but we need to use our critical thinking when deciding if something is the result of expert knowledge, or simply a marketing gimmick.

Re: Digital pregnancy tests have an internal paper test

#72

Post by xg15 »

Benjamin_Dobell wrote: post #5

I'm not too sure why this is supposed to be surprising. When chemical reactions are involved, you often need chemicals. A significant portion of digital meters used for servicing swimming pools require servicing/replacement of strips/chemicals (reagents) within the device. Yes, there are also digital meters that work without chemicals per se, and have special electrodes that measure electric current. However, this ap…

But then, why couldn't you simply use the chemicals without the electronic parts?

I could imagine some reasons for pool monitoring systems - e.g., you might want to have the device perform continuous measurements and alert you if the results indicate problems - but that is not a case for a pregnancy test: People were perfectly capable to use chemicals-only tests.

Re: Digital pregnancy tests have an internal paper test

#73

Post by KONAir »

mrtksn wrote: post #64
hombre_fatal wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your link actually shows you why there is no UX advantage. OP is only two cycles into their pregnancy. A paper test can pick up on this tiny HCG measurement and show something. A digital test cannot because it's going to pick a higher threshold if it only wants to give you a binary result. A digital test will tell you that you're pregnant when you're far enough along for a paper test to be obvious. There are so many…

A digital test can be tuned to a better sensitivity. The UX advantage comes from giving a definitive answer. The answer can change at later times when the body starts giving stronger signals. You can simply indicate that you need to wait X number of days to detect the pregnancy and problem solved. This is much better UX than learning biology and chemistry to be able to read a test result. What does a faint line means…

It should just show the value and have the definition of them written on the box, UI should not be a concern at all if you have to have electronics in this case.

Re: Digital pregnancy tests have an internal paper test

#74

Post by pedrow »

tobinfricke wrote: post #15

I like the part where it uses the conductivity of pee as the power switch. https://twitter.com/Foone/status/1301709777383292928/photo/1

I wonder if it would be possible to also use it as the electrolyte in a cell, and generate enough current to run the test

Re: Digital pregnancy tests have an internal paper test

#75

Post by pedrow »

philips wrote: post #7
blendergeek wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it be possible to make a paper one have words (such as pregnant/not pregnant) instead of one/two lines?

Have an app that uses the phone camera?

I suspect it is difficult to get the 'raw' output from a cell-phone camera so you are dependent on the phone's processing (contrast enhancement etc), which might vary between models. Not impossible (e.g. having control lines) but needs thinking about.

Re: Digital pregnancy tests have an internal paper test

#76

Post by JorgeGT »

throwaway744678 wrote: post #65
sratner wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is often more precise, not necessarily more accurate. People often don't distinguish between the two.

Not a native speaker; I think I understand your point, though I fail to see a distinction between these two words: if the output is a number to the nth decimal, but it is not "accurate" (ie. the numbers are actually wrong), can it still be said to be "precise" ?

Yes, here's the typical example used to explain the difference between the two: https://blog.forecast.it/hs-fs/hubfs/accuracy-precision.jpg

In terms of probability density: https://www.allsensors.com/images/engineering/figure-1.png

Re: Digital pregnancy tests have an internal paper test

#77

Post by shawnz »

leto_ii wrote: post #71

Going over the conversation here I'm a bit surprised by how many people seem to prefer an unnecessarily complicated and obfuscating solution to the straight-forward one. The Twitter thread clearly points out that the electronics serve strictly as an intermediary layer between the paper test and the user. They just binarize the paper reading. This in turn gives a false psychological sense of security ("it's the comput…

> Why should I trust the people who calibrated the electronic device more than my own eyes?

Do you as a layperson know how sensitive the test strip is, or how blue it needs to turn to have a reasonable guarantee against false positives? It seems like the engineers of the device would have a much better perspective on those things.

Re: Digital pregnancy tests have an internal paper test

#79

Post by jsymolon »

IndrekR wrote: post #11

This kind of makes sense in a strange way. Inexpensive red LED's have relatively narrow spectral line half width (~20nm) and you can set detection thresholds against measured values. This is much better than "I think I saw something in a dimly lit bathroom". This means that in the readout part (UI) it is hard to get wrong results ("Is it one or two?"). Then again it is a wasteful and overpriced product that can leave…

> it is a wasteful

On one hand, what a marvelous thing it is. On the other, what a waste, single use of silicon, battery and LCD that'll go straight to the landfill.

Re: Digital pregnancy tests have an internal paper test

#80

Post by elliebike »

The issue here is that paper tests require the user to read and properly understand instructions. Teenagers in a panic can and will misread and misunderstand, as people often do when under duress.

It may seem "pointless", but making the tests more user friendly and less prone to user error is super important.

Post reply on HN