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

61–70 of 410 posts

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#61

Post by dsr_ »

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

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.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#62

Post by fold3 »

tremon wrote: post #37
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.

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.)

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#63

Post by tunap »

omega3 wrote: post #32

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.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#64

Post by neoberg »

jraph wrote: post #53
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…

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.

Lick your finger and then try. It usually helps.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#65

Post by watwut »

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…

The absurd part is the one where I have to set the clock on the oven in the first place

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#66

Post by Macha »

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…

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.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#67

Post by tunap »

couchand wrote: post #54
jameshart wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#68

Post by Gigachad »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #46
Gigachad wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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…

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.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#70

Post by zelos »

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

My microwave pretty much has that - press start and it sets the timer to 1 minute and starts. Then spin the dial to add time while it’s cooking.
Post reply on HN