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

We need physical audio kill switches

rubenerd.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 443 posts

Re: We need physical audio kill switches

#211

Post by genewitch »

somehnguy wrote: post #95
MawKKe wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. It's one thing that does not need improving. My parents bought a new microwave with all kinds of fancy digital features that nobody uses 99% of the time. In addition to being really difficult to use, it also makes a very loud BEEEP on every button press. Insanity.

Beeping appliances is one thing I can't stand. They're always too loud and rarely offer any adjustment or mute functionality. I got a new microwave recently. It beeped on every button press, 5 beeps after a cook cycle, no way to mute (yeah, I checked). Within a day of owning it I took it apart and ripped the beeper off the board. Problem solved.

I recently went on a crusade to pull the piezo buzzers out of all my UPS... because, when the power's out, i don't need a sound to tell me, do i?

Re: We need physical audio kill switches

#212

Post by harha »

whywhywhywhy wrote: post #192

>I hit the mute button on my MacBook Pro Touchbar, and it took a solid two seconds for it to register. My ears were ringing throughout the whole call. This is unacceptable. The USB-C era MacBook Pros had some serious degradation in the audio department. The previous much loved generation, you plug headphones in the audio system switches to them so fast it's perceivable as instant, the USB-C era there is at best a 0.5…

The delay might be there to slowly get us used to the no-port era of phones to come and the speed of switching headphones from one device to another using bluetooth.

Re: We need physical audio kill switches

#213

Post by pcdoodle »

allenu wrote: post #105

I don't know what I'd do if my iPhone didn't have physical volume buttons. When I watch videos on YouTube now, as soon as an ad starts playing, I just mute it by using the volume button and look away for a few seconds as I can't stand ads (sadly there isn't a dedicated mute button).

I do the same thing, You're not going to blast your crafted photons onto my retinas however hard you try!

Re: We need physical audio kill switches

#214

Post by frosted-flakes »

liability wrote: post #117
tetris11 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every microwave I have ever owned have been under $30, purely because I didn't want to go digital. Analogue egg-timer knob - good enough accuracy, and instantly pliable

At least microwaves with digital controls actually have full numpads. Every digital-control oven I've ever had the misfortune of using only has increment/decrement buttons. Want to set the oven to 450F? Have fun pressing the increment button twenty times for five degree increments starting at 350F. It's an abomination.

The best microwave I've ever used didn't have any numpad at all. Instead, it has a horizontal sliding touch pad. It sounds stupid, but it works SO WELL. Move your finger slowly and it increments one second at a time, move it quickly and it jumps faster. On the front there are only two buttons (stop/clear and start/+30sec) and the touch slider and screen.

If you open the door there are a few more buttons for setting power levels and a timer, and the only useful preset button (popcorn), but none of the useless ones.

This LG NeoChef model: https://www.lg.com/ca_en/microwave-ovens/lg-LMC1575BD

Re: We need physical audio kill switches

#216

Post by CyberDildonics »

systemvoltage wrote: post #72
brandon272 wrote: post #29

I let my spouse, who likes the novelty of a touchscreen, talk me into a Whirlpool oven a couple years ago that is controlled by touchscreen. I had no idea it was possible to hate an oven so much. The only saving grace is that the stovetop elements are still controlled by knobs.

I don't understand why people find novelty of touchscreens appealing. We've got to do a better job of educating consumers. The marketing behind touchscreens is so powerful that it is unanimously considered as a feature, something you must have. I get angry just thinking about the amount of marketing bullshit around touchscreens. Just go to Garmin Aviation website and now a lot of operation in airplane cockpits is off…

I think people assume it's a step forward without thinking it through. It's a classic example of 'just because you can, doesn't mean you should'.

Re: We need physical audio kill switches

#217

Post by PostThisTooFast »

MereInterest wrote: post #177
mrkwse wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

macOS disables the audio control of HDMI outputs because that is what the HDMI specification expects/defines. If you think of all the devices that output via HDMI, Windows PCs are the outlier (afaik, not sure how Linux handles it) in allowing separate volume controls beyond those on the output device. Satellite set top boxes, media streaming devices (e.g. Apple TV - I realise NVidia Shield and some Chromecast apps do…

It's still a really poor decision, because it doesn't extend well to having multiple sources. For example, my tv is connected both to my media computer, and to a Nintendo Switch. If the computer is active, then the volume should be around 50 on a 0-100 scale. If the Switch is active, then the volume should be around 10 to get the same level of output. I would love to have a way to tell the Switch that it should adjus…

Then those devices are to blame. Disabling the volume control is common for all digital outputs, not just HDMI. There's an absolute scale for volume in the digital domain, so there should be no vast disparity from different devices unless they're doing something dumb.

Analog sources could vary in volume because they provided voltage across an analog input. When CD players came out, they had notoriously "hot" outputs, meaning physically higher voltage. Not so with digital connections.

Re: We need physical audio kill switches

#218

Post by mindslight »

closeparen wrote: post #191
mindslight wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest problem with "modern" digital controls, the lag, is completely avoidable. One can easily design a system using a microcontroller that responds within 10ms, which gives the appearance of being instantaneous. It's all just shoddy software engineering using bloated frameworks and poor languages, and consumers that don't know any better. Somehow we've had this problem going on a decade, and nobody has seen fi…

What languages and frameworks are people using in consumer electronics?

I have no idea these days, but it's clearly something that takes 100ms+ to process an input event (java? html? flash? all of the above?). Responsive encoders/buttons/displays were doable 15 years ago with 5 MIPS microcontrollers in C. Driving an HD44780 character LCD is easier than a full raster display, which explains the appeal of the bloat, but quick sprites etc should be completely doable after two decades of progress.

Re: We need physical audio kill switches

#220

Post by pbourke »

Symbiote wrote: post #178
skohan wrote: post #126

I've been thinking the same about power switches lately. If I turn a flashlight, or an old radio on or off, I flip a switch and get the result I want. With my 65 EUR gamepad, or 300 EUR headphones, I hold a button and wait several seconds for the result. Why has UX regressed so much in these areas?

My rented apartment has switches that presumably use radio to turn on and off the lights. There is no further integration, or smart app etc. I can't see which light switch is on or off, so even after years living here I mix up some of the switches. Sometimes the radio pulse doesn't register, so I have to go back to the switch and press it again. After pressing the switch, there's a perceivable, variable delay for the…

These kinds of switches are perfectly analogous to technical debt. Doing things the right/straightforward way involves costs that we don’t want to pay (holes in the wall/labour to run a new circuit) so we shoehorn a complex hack using some new tech (RF control). The cost savings are moderate and the price paid is amortized over every further use of the system.
Post reply on HN