In the case of cars, why can't the UX be a replaceable module so that third party options can be chosen?
The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces
91–100 of 410 posts
Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have grown to heavily dislike the whole smartify everything. Haptic feedback is a core part of how humans process the world, and to remove it in favor of more frequent updates seems like a naive decision at best. Flatness in phones works because we can use our full attention - which is also why car accidents happen when people use it while driving.
> Flatness in phones works because we can use our full attention I very much agree with you, and would like to add that flatness in phones is a feature because today phones are pocket computers, and computers should be able to provide any arbitrary UI to function as such. Cars on the other hand are not a computer nor are they intended to function as one. The fact that modern cars expose part of their on-board compute…
I've heard Teslas described as "iPads with Wheels".
Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I also find that many of these touchscreens are designed with California in mind. Sure, touchscreens are great when it's sunny and 22C. But when it's -25 and the car feels like a freezer, the touchscreen is sluggish and won't accepted gloved inputs, I start swearing and think about selling the car.
A buddy of mine said the touchscreen on his Chevy Cruz (I believe) didn't even work in the winter until the car was warmed up.
Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Your hosts love that
Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some korean brand was moving to physical buttons again, but I can't find which.
I think Honda have returned to at least partial physical controls for heating, air, and music for the Honda e. But it still has a lot of screen.
Backup cameras are legally mandated on new us vehicles. The screens are not going anywhere so they're going to get used for other stuff too.
Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces
#96I think it's not only "low tech". The bigger issue I see, is that everything tries to be an Assistant.
For example, the Oculus Quest, there's a on / off button fine, easy to understand. Except, it magically turns itself on if it assumes, you may use it, and turns itself off if not used anymore. Unfortunately that is often not correct, so you start counter acting, holding it carefully so the sensor does not react and double checking if it turned off or just on again, when switching it off. Congratulation, they made a simple on / off switch unintuitive.
I see this pattern everywhere. It seems ux designers are trying to hard to be clever. Just give us a Tool, that does one thing and always acts the same. If it doesn't make sense, let the user learn from it's mistake.
Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces
#97A few days ago in these very pages, I dissed the UI of an oscilloscope. But using one yesterday, I realized an advantage: I could operate it with one hand while holding the probe with the other. Even software interfaces for instrumentation, that use the keyboard and mouse, are physically awkward and your computer has to be positioned just right.
A couple more advantages:
* A small interface makes small things small. A voltmeter doesn't need to be as big as a computer, and there are lots of gadgets that are smaller.
* One-foot operation, such as the page turning pedals that musicians are now using for their sheet music.
Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces
#98Earlier 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…
> Ask someone to change the clock on their oven vs on their phone. Most could do it on the phone but not the oven. I'd argue that's not an example of touch screens being better than buttons but rather the button interface in question being poorly laid out, and as for the phone, it's not the lack of physical buttons but rather the on-screen guidance that makes life easier. My grandparents' cooker is a button-free wond…
For the coffee machine, it would be shitty UI if every function had a physical button. You don’t need a dedicated button to run the descale cycle since you do it twice a year, but it’s also a bit crap to have to pull out a manual to work out which order of buttons to press and for how long and what all the blinking lights mean. A touch screen executes this perfectly. It doesn’t have to blink led 2 to tell you of an error, it can just show the error on the screen.
Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces
#99Does anybody have sources they want to share for getting components for classic interfaces like these today?
I'd imagine production has plummeted since the glory days, but there ought to be stock of some things around still and people salvaging nice parts?
I don't do any hardware work worth mentioning, but I hope to get around to amending that soon, and I'd find it attractive to use interfaces appropriate to the task (which, as people here have noted, will mean the ones on topic in a very substantial share of the cases).
Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think Honda have returned to at least partial physical controls for heating, air, and music for the Honda e. But it still has a lot of screen.
Backup cameras are legally mandated on new us vehicles. The screens are not going anywhere so they're going to get used for other stuff too.
I don’t mind a small screen that isn’t involved in common cabin features.
I have a 2018 Mazda3 and I like the backup camera. But I can control the climate control and temperature with physical buttons. The seat warmers have buttons. I can control the volume with a knob or on the steering wheel.
The radio, unfortunately, is software. Seems like that much is unavoidable. But the small screen that is there is secondary to everything else I want to control while driving and I don’t ever need to use while driving. I’m typically using Apple CarPlay (or previously Android Auto) so if I do need to do something, I can use voice controls and at least keep my eyes on the road.
I don’t mind small screens, as you said, they’re not going away. What I don’t want is a giant screen that controls everything.