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

141–150 of 410 posts

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#141

Post by nicbou »

The most important lesson I learned in engineering school: define the problem then look for a solution.

Most people have a solution in mind before they even look at the problem, and that solution is usually "build an app", or "slap a screen on it". With bureaucracy, it's "put the form on the internet".

There are a few low tech devices I much prefer:

- A kitchen timer vs. my phone. I don't need to unlock the phone and navigate to the timer app. I just twist the knob until I see the desired number. Hell, it's probably set to 3 minutes already, because I mostly use it to make tea.

- My microwave has one knob for time, and one knob for intensity. Best microwave interface ever. It doesn't tell time, so I never need to adjust it. I had microwaves so complicated that I turned to social networks for help.

- Stoves. I refuse to buy a stove without knobs. I have hated every stove without knobs I've ever used. Touch-sensitive buttons don't work with oven mitts, but get triggered by a wet rag, steam and spilled spaghetti sauce.

- Car infotainment. Each knob controls one thing. It's always in the same place, and I can find it while keeping my eyes on the road.

- Wired audio. This device is paired to the device it's physically connected to.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#142

Post by zippergz »

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 don't consider more frequent updates to be a good thing, either. Yes, of course, I want things to be fixed if they're broken. But when automakers take the route of smartphone apps, where they're updating once a month or more, changing UI, moving things around, adding unnecessary features, it's really not what I want in a car. I don't want touch screen control at all, but if I must have it, I REALLY want the UI to stay the same and the controls to stay in the same place. I don't want some random over the air update to be able to break what little muscle memory I might have built up to use the touch screen interface effectively.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#143

Post by CivBase »

> Many consumers judge product qualities based on superficial impressions and studies have shown that these impressions can cause users to perceive a product as less usable than it actually is.

I'm genuinely amazed that touch screens are still seen as "high tech" by so many people. They've been common for a decade and most people should be very familiar with their flaws. They're harder to use, more susceptible to defects, provide little or no feedback, and add expense to the product. The only real advantage touch screens have is that they are dynamic, so you can cram multiple interfaces into a small physical footprint - at the cost of only being able to display interface at a time. And I guess you could theoretically update the interface after sale... but I don't know if I've ever seen that done in practice other than to fix bugs.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#144

Post by the_gipsy »

pkorzeniewski wrote: post #128
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 crypt…

Touch controls are also cheaper to iterate, soft-update, or reuse across models.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#145

Post by nicbou »

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.

I had a similar experience with accounting software recently. The ugly software is built for someone entering 20 invoices in a row, and automates as much of it as it can. The shiny startup software was designed by a very skilled designer who never had to do accounting.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#146

Post by nicbou »

amelius wrote: post #116

All the laser printers I have used have a low-tech user interface, with an LCD screen and a bunch of buttons. The problem is that the buttons that the user can press (the "active" buttons) are dependent on context. Imho it would be much better if laser printers had a smartphone-style interface (touchscreen). Same for office phones (which have a plethora of buttons e.g. for conference calls that are not useful in many…

I used a few office printers with touch screens, and they were much better.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#147

Post by user_7832 »

vortico wrote: post #41

Reminded me of my favorite article. http://worrydream.com/ABriefRantOnTheFutureOfInteractionDesi... I'm willing to pay extra to avoid touch screens in my cars, washing machines, door locks, and personal computers. I can't be the only one!

Thanks for that article, it was a great read.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#148

Post by _notathrowaway »

adwww wrote: post #126
usa-name wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thank you, voice recognition systems suck when you have an accent or too much background noise.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#149

Post by DoingIsLearning »

30944836 wrote: post #139
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.

>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 understand this concern and opinion. I just wish that people who had this opinion realized that their car has a very modern voice interface that can reliably understand commands for temperature changes. I know, I know, it's not the buttons you…

In my opinion all voice interfaces I have used (with the exception of very especialized software like Dragon Naturally Speaking) seem to have terrible locale settings for anything other than American English.

So sure if you are willing to talk to your car like you're a CNN news anchor, then yes voice interfaces are great and far safer than touch screens.

Post reply on HN