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

81–90 of 410 posts

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#81

Post by corobo »

matwood wrote: post #76
sethammons wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every stove knob I've ever interacted with easily pulls / slides off its peg and can be hand washed if it gets too dirty. Changing a lightbulb is an order of magnitude harder.

Yeah...when cleaning I take off the knobs and soak them while cleaning the rest of the top. Then finish by hand washing the knobs and then putting it all back together. The other thing is you can buy new knobs which can update/change/refresh the look of an older cooktop.

I just used to bash them in the dishwasher with everything else

Got the touch buttons now and am forever turning stuff off randomly. It's like my hand meats are drawn to pressing more than one button at a time

I guess the idea is if the water overflows it'll 'touch' multiple buttons and turn the heat off but I've only ever turned it off by accident so far haha

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#82

Post by cmrdporcupine »

Gigachad wrote: post #68
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, this is a potential downside but also an argument for open protocols and specifications for managing and controlling these kinds of devices.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#83

Post by xnx »

zelos wrote: post #70
NikolaNovak wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I find it even better when they just have a dial

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#84

Post by crowbahr »

tobr wrote: post #31
XorNot wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You can't keep physical dials clean by their nature. They have to connect to something, which means you have holes. Holes + aerosolized grease = sticky 100% of the time.

There's no way around it. I do my best to clean under the knobs of my stove but they don't come off. Don't even get me started about how much of an ass pain burners are.

When I'm not renting I'll definitely install an induction system. If I never deal with cleaning burners, and knobs again it'll be too soon.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#85

Post by ridgered4 »

LaputanMachine wrote: post #47
christophilus wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having had one of these, I just want to say: “Never again.” Mine would turn itself on when you washed it and turn itself off when something splattered (like 50% of the time when I boiled water). It made me wonder if anyone actually tested the damn design before approval for mass production.

I think this is a safety function. You may not be able to turn off the stove yourself if something boils over, and the buttons get covered in hot liquid.

Seems like a poor safety feature to have it also turn on when you're cleaning.

I've never seen one of these soft touch control designs on a cooktop but I did hear they existed and at least one cat had turned one on by standing on it resulting in a house fire. The only dumber idea I can think of is a touch screen, which I'm sure they're hard at work integrated right now.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#86

Post by jameshart »

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...?

In this case, weirdly and confoundingly, no.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#87

Post by causi »

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.

It seems that Star Trek was incredibly prescient when they depicted literally every interface as a touchscreen.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#88

Post by pawelk »

christophilus wrote: post #13
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…

Having had one of these, I just want to say: “Never again.” Mine would turn itself on when you washed it and turn itself off when something splattered (like 50% of the time when I boiled water). It made me wonder if anyone actually tested the damn design before approval for mass production.

My oven has touch controls on the front that are rendered useless as soon as I open it and heat/vapor is released onto the front panel. Luckily the touch interface is only for secondary features like setting timers, the important ones - temperature and mode selection - are physical knobs that can be pushed in flush with the front.

From my limited experience with touch operated stoves - these would be just as reliably operated by randomly throwing darts at a board.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#89

Post by TT-392 »

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…

Pretty sure this is often a cost saving measure, capacitive buttons can be less expensive than knobs, especially if they have to be waterproof.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#90

Post by sanitycheck »

ratww wrote: post #11
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 really wonder if the possibility of updates alone can make software worse. Because you don't have to "get it right" on the first try. And the updates always contain something more than bug and security fixes, which often help keeping the quality of the experience low, despite fixed bugs. All the smart TVs I ever had lasted a long long time physically, but after a couple years they invariably started being noticeabl…

Yes. It'll have more bugs to begin with because the software team has no hard deadline to meet. Then it'll accumulate more bugs over time as "features" are added (while existing bugs are ignored). Then after 2-4 years nobody will be working on it any more and within 6-8 years it may no longer function at all or it may have well known never-to-be-patched security holes.

I try to avoid buying tech that can be updated, and tech that can connect to the internet in general.

Post reply on HN