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

The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

uxdesign.cc

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 410 posts

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#31

Post by tobr »

XorNot wrote: post #24
s4i wrote: post #7

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…

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.

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.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#34

Post by unwind »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #30
s4i wrote: post #7

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…

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

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...

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#35

Post by agent008t »

undefinedzero wrote: post #17
arky527 wrote: post #5

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.

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 circulati…

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.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#36

Post by sshlocalhost98 »

s4i wrote: post #7

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…

Yup definitely on your side, it’s frustrating to see button less interfaces, buttons make many more sense.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#37

Post by tremon »

s4i wrote: post #7

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…

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.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#38

Post by rambambram »

h3mb3 wrote: post #12
arky527 wrote: post #5

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.

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…

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.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#39

Post by bandie91 »

Gigachad wrote: post #14
eimrine wrote: post #2

> During the recent home device project I mentioned earlier, one of the biggest supporters of a touchscreen-based solution was the team’s marketing specialist. Why am I not surprised?

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 o…

> 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?

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#40

Post by Frost1x »

flashingleds wrote: post #15

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 bo…

>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

Post reply on HN