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

121–130 of 410 posts

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#121

Post by LaputanMachine »

ridgered4 wrote: post #85
LaputanMachine wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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

Right, that's bad design.

The cooktop I'm familiar with always turns off and beeps if something (metal pots or a liquid) covers a part of the button area.

To turn it on, you have to press two different buttons within a certain time limit, with a pot standing on the appropriate cooking zone. Most cats probably won't manage to do that.

> The only dumber idea I can think of is a touch screen

Oh, don't get me started. We own an oven with a touch screen. It's pure idiocy. But the cooktop is actually very good IMO.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#123

Post by paganel »

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.

I used to always have some kitchen rags around for exactly that type of situation, in fact I still have one that I've purchased from Ikea. I just wrap my hand/fingers with said rag and manipulate that button accordingly (or get a hot dish from the stove itself etc).

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#124

Post by my69thaccount »

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 is an awful idea in practice. For example, an update to my Anova precision cooker required I logged in with a Facebook account to continue using it.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#125

Post by tremon »

jopsen wrote: post #111

Is "low tech" really cheaper? Curious, because I thought the reason nobody did buttons anymore was that printing a pattern on a touch capacitive surface was dirty cheap. Whereas I assume tactile buttons require a lot work when mounting/building the product. Am I wrong? I guess an 8 digit display is still cheaper than a touch screen :)

Cheaper, how? Are we looking only at production cost, or total lifetime? How much energy does a button use over its lifetime, vs a checkbox on a LED screen?

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#126

Post by adwww »

usa-name wrote: post #103
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 think car manufacturers will ultimately move towards voice assistants for these sort of tasks.

Which is useless when you have regional non-us accents, or have the windows open, or a crying baby.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#127

Post by mateo1 »

wiz21c wrote: post #33

Maybe it just costs less to build LED screen cars than those with knobs ?

Unfortunately that's true. These days it's just cheaper and easier to place everything on a screen rather than using anything physical. Imagine that voice recognition gets even better, then it would be even cheaper to have nothing but a speaker and a microphone. Touchscreens and capacitive buttons have a number of issues that physical controls don't, but (unfortunately?) they're usually cheaper, last longer and are much more convenient for the manufacturers so they're not going anywhere. Tactile feedback, a fixed spatial position and being "always on" are now luxuries.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#128

Post by pkorzeniewski »

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 despise touch controls in almost everything, from cars to home appliance, in my opinion the only reason they're replaced physical controls is because it's simply cheaper to make and people just got used to them because manufacturers convinced them through marketing "it's the future! be modern!". For example an induction hob at my wife's parents home - recently my mother-in-law couldn't turn it on because some cryptic key icon was flashing, I had to look into the manual to find out it's a children protection mode that is turned on and off by holding the key icon for 3 seconds, I didn't even know you can press it and it's so easy in general to accidentally press various things when cooking, sometimes you don't even notice that you have accidently changed the temperature.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#129

Post by Zak »

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

Last time I had to buy a microwave, I intentionally sought out one with two knobs: time and power. It would be very hard to improve on the UX that provides.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#130

Post by kube-system »

spaniard89277 wrote: post #57
nkrisc wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The touch screens are the only thing keeping me on dino juice cars. I want to go electric, but they all have these awful touchscreens! I don’t want to navigate a menu to change the temperature or turn on a seat warmer. I’m just not buying an EV until there’s one that doesn’t rely on a giant touch screen for everything or I can’t buy an ICE vehicle anymore.

Some korean brand was moving to physical buttons again, but I can't find which.

Hyundai/Kia have had some horrible interfaces lately.

https://youtu.be/EREg2XtohTg?t=7m

Post reply on HN