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

191–200 of 410 posts

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#191

Post by izacus »

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 suppose this allows for more frequent updates, but in my experience it just leads to more bugs and more painful factory updates.

What is allows for is: cost cutting. Not having to install a mask, a button, wire harness and QA everything is a massive manufacturing cost saving. It speeds up production and lowers the amount of components that need to be sourced, installed and later made available for replacement as part of a service.

This is the same situation as with Electron apps - the savings aren't for YOU the USER, the savings are for person MAKING the thing. They get all the benefit at the cost of your user experience.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#192

Post by vel0city »

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…

> the touch controls never bring any new features to the table.

1. Far easier to clean (you even mention this despite saying it brings no features...)

2. Easier for a lock function to help prevent kids/accidental turning on of the stove

3. Take up less space, makes the stove top a flush surface making it more reusable as a counter top

There are pros and cons to knobs vs capacitive buttons on a stove. In my kitchen I do not have a lot of spare counter space, so having the entire stove practically flush with the rest of the counter with absolutely nothing protruding is a big positive feature to me. I've never personally encountered any misunderstandings of the on/off or up/down buttons, and I've never had issues with boil overs or something triggering buttons unwantingly or been unable to make adjustments while cooking. So for me, the flush capacitive buttons are a huge selling point; having knobs would be worse in my use case.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#193

Post by Macha »

marssaxman wrote: post #120
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

The best microwave I've ever used lived in the break room at my last job. It had one big knob, which worked like a standard kitchen timer: you would just twist it right until it pointed at the amount of time you want, then let it tick back down to the left until cooking was done. Want more? Just twist it right a little more, and let it keep ticking. I have no idea why domestic microwaves come with a maze of buttons w…

Yeah, I've got a cheapo microwave, but honestly it's UI is pretty good as appliances go.

Turn the knob for time, hit ok, get power prompt, hit ok again for 100% (or adjust using the knob for less), microwaving starts.

There is also specific program functionality to tell it you have 200g of mince meat to defrost or whatever and it figures out the time/power setting, but I personally never use them.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#194

Post by joezydeco »

TacticalCoder wrote: post #77

To anyone designing low-tech user interfaces: I'm all for something simple but please, oh please, use something with a better feedback than the membrane "keyboard" shown in the article. Membrane keys are the absolute shittiest piece of shit ever produced. I use three everyday: my safe has one. My projector's remote control and my LED strip light (I use a LED strip to give a "home cinema" feel to the room) has one. Th…

So your complaint isn't really about the membrane itself but the lack of haptic or other feedback that comes with a press.

I worked on controls with one company and their solution was to put a membrane overlay on the panel but place low-travel physical buttons behind it. You had the advantages of a membrane overlay (sealed from dust/moisture, better artwork on top) and the higher reliability of the button. And if the overlay tore or wore off the system still worked.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#195

Post by lloeki »

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…

You don't even have to touch them, water (even slightest amounts), metal, or anything like that can trigger a "press". It's like the thing hasn't even been field-tested in an actual kitchen.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#196

Post by martin_a »

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.

> using a touchscreen to adjust the temperature while driving

I've read this argument again and again but I wonder: How often do you people change the temperature in your car? Mine is set to 21°C since two years, never felt the need to change it.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#197

Post by marcosdumay »

nicbou wrote: post #141

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…

> My microwave has one knob for time, and one knob for intensity.

I don't think a knob is the optimal interface for time. In microwaves you need to input both low values of ~10s and very high values of ~600s with good precision on both cases. Sure, a logarithmic knob will give you that, but I don't think it's what you would expect.

For power it's good. It's even a much better interface for the power level than the usual. But then, anything is a much better interface than the usual microwave power level one.

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

There used to exist those wireless speakers with two pieces, one you physically connected to the audio output on the device, the other had the speaker. The transmission was analog and sucked due to noise, but it was much more reliable and had less lag than bluetooth.

For some reason, instead of fixing it into a digital transmission, everybody just stopped manufacturing the device.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#198

Post by elliottkember »

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 did a car stereo design question during a job interview once. "Design your ideal car stereo" was the prompt. I said that all I wanted was a bluetooth button and a volume knob. They pressed me for details, and I said the volume knob needed to have a minimum and maximum threshold. I guess that worked, because I got the job.

I ended up giving this exercise to a lot of candidates. About 30% said they would project the UI onto the windshield.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#199

Post by jansan »

2143 wrote: post #185
jansan wrote: post #9

OT: I have never before read the word "aughts" and had to look it up. Turns out this describes the first decade of the 21st century (or of any century?), i.e. the years 2000 to 2009. The British seem to use the word "noughties".

I too learnt of "noughties" recently. Never heard "aughts" before. But then again, English isn't my first language. Now that I think about it, I've heard people here say, for example, "1 nought 1", "1 nought 2", "1 nought 3" etc for 101, 102, 103, and so on. Of course, I always thought they said "1 'not' 1", and not "1 'nought' 1", and didn't ponder too much into it, even though neither of them made sense to me.

Here is some advanced stuff from Monty PythonÄs Flying Circus:

"Good afternoon and welcome to Lords on the second day of the first test. So far today we've had five hours batting from England and already they're nought for nought. Cowdrey is not out nought. Naughton is not in. Knott is in and is nought for not out. Naughton of Northants got a nasty knock on the nut in the nets last night but it's nothing of note. Next in is Nat Newton of Notts. Not Nutring - Nutting's at nine, er, Nutring knocked neatie nighty knock knock..."

Here at timestamp 0:32 https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6dl8og

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#200

Post by Macha »

corobo wrote: post #132
cbm-vic-20 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like these stoves could use an "oh shit" / "Big Red Button" that's easily accessible when this happens.

Is there not the switch on the mains where you are? In the UK we have a quick-off* toggle switch for electric ovens. Usually near the oven but could be elsewhere in a bigger kitchen That'd be my go-to panic resolve anyway * For folks unfamiliar by this I mean it takes almost zero effort to turn the switch off, but takes a little bit of force to switch back on

I have a isolation switches near my oven (and also for my fridge, and a combined one for my washing machine and dryer) here in Ireland, which I believe are required on new or newly renovated properties by planning laws, but there's nothing asymmetric about the force required, it's just a relatively stiff switch whether turning on or off.
Post reply on HN