The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces • Hacker News Board

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#321

Post by m463 » Wed, May 25, 2022, 6:38 PM UTC

CogitoCogito wrote: post #316

m463 wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always hope these kinds of situations would lead to a market opportunity for someone to come in and do it right... but it rarely does.

I think what really is needed is for these displays and interfaces to be replaceable like old car stereo decks.

Speaking of car stereos, I've always thought they should be rack mount and then they went away completely.

I wonder if someday we'll have an open-source car, sort of like the framework laptop. I think it would be amazing. Think of the robust market that has cropped up around custom PCs and custom bicycles.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#322

Post by Melatonic » Wed, May 25, 2022, 6:41 PM UTC

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.

Yeah I hate this. Part of the reason I do not like the interior of all Tesla vehicles. I test drove one and asked the salesmen what happens if the screen breaks - he told me that it actually happened to his Tesla and that because of parts shortages it took months and months to get it fixed. When this happens all you can do is drive the car and open and close the windows essentially - no sunroof, no AC, nothing.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#323

Post by kingrazor » Wed, May 25, 2022, 6:51 PM UTC

sfink wrote: post #286

This article strangely undersells the advantages of low tech. It's true that they're not better for everything, but they have advantages well beyond the basic things mentioned. A tactile button has far fewer accuracy issues with positioning: if you can feel the button, you won't start pressing 2/3 off and then get further and further off until you're triggering something else, as happens all the time on touchscreens.…

I can't count how often my left or down swipe has been interpreted as a left or right swipe on touchscreens

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#324

Post by burnished » Wed, May 25, 2022, 6:58 PM UTC

bobthepanda wrote: post #259

speedgoose wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand your critics against touchscreens and they are justified. Your car doesn’t have a good touchscreen interface from what you say and also from my experience when I drove the corollas from the car pool. However it’s not because many cars are bad that the technology is bad. A touchscreen from an 20 years old Archos MP3 player is extremely bad while an iPad Pro M1 is very good.

Some tools are just not good for the job. At least to me, I haven‘t seen a compelling reasons that touchscreens replacing analog car controls isn‘t a square peg going into a circle hole.

I'm wondering if part of that is that the companies producing these awful interfaces don't see themselves as 'software' companies, so they put these things in but no one has the time or passion or interest to make it a better experience.

Not saying they'd definitely be good if only some one loved 'em, but judging from the car touch screens I've used I believe no one has tried yet.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#325

Post by joe_the_user » Wed, May 25, 2022, 6:59 PM UTC

sfink wrote: post #286

This article strangely undersells the advantages of low tech. It's true that they're not better for everything, but they have advantages well beyond the basic things mentioned. A tactile button has far fewer accuracy issues with positioning: if you can feel the button, you won't start pressing 2/3 off and then get further and further off until you're triggering something else, as happens all the time on touchscreens.…

I agree with you but in response to:

A tactile button has far fewer accuracy issues with positioning: if you can feel the button, you won't start pressing 2/3 off and then get further and further off until you're triggering something else, as happens all the time on touchscreens.

I gotta mention that I have a circa 2000 Japanese luxury car and the dials that control the stereo and the air conditioning are actually remarkably unpredictable. Turning the knob at all quickly will disorient the system and you can have a large increase in value or no-increase-at all (it seems to be an artifact of the knob changing a digital value). If you look carefully and move slowly they work but they essentially have all the drawbacks you describe with a touch screen - except you can't do something else entirely, thankfully. Obviously, better design would fix this so one does have to say "properly designed knobs are better".

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#326

Post by kylehotchkiss » Wed, May 25, 2022, 7:04 PM UTC

Today I was running some errands in my car. The AC was too cold. Without taking my eyes off the road, I felt around for the temperature knob. My car has large, grippy knobs. It's an off-roading focused model and the knobs were made to be usable while driving on bumpy roads. I found the temperature knob, I figured where it was set with the easy-to-feel tactile indicator, and I adjusted it down, all without having to use my eyes. I love tech but never want to lose my big, rubbery AC knobs in the car. There's enough distracted drivers on the road to watch out for, I don't want to be another one.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#327

Post by jrussino » Wed, May 25, 2022, 7:11 PM UTC

wcfields wrote: post #250

potatochup wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My chevy bolt is a nice mix I find. It has physical buttons for: climate controls, cruise control, media volume, media channel, lane keep assist, sport mode, gear selection, park brake. There are also voice commands, which I use for selecting navigation destinations. Touchscreen for other things: android auto, apple car play (which provide maps) and more complicated user settings (such as whether you want the lights…

I fully agree, the 2019-2021 Bolt [1] has been my gold standard for the right combo of touch and tactile. Climate and radio preset buttons fully separate and easy to see/touch. It's a shame they went more "slick" with the 2022 refresh, still tactile, but just more flush and less accessible without a glance. [2] [1] https://cdn.motor1.com/images/mgl/OYAqe/s1/2020-chevy-bolt-e... [2] https://electrek.co/wp-content/uplo…

Wow, I'm jealous of the control panel in your first link. In contrast, my 2014 Chevy Volt-with-a-"V" has an absolutely aweful interface. It's a combination of small, laggy touchscreen and a bunch of also-laggy, haphazardly-arranged touch-sensitive buttons:

https://www.automotiveaddicts.com/25445/2012-chevrolet-volt-...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x73W4jZpkf0

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#328

Post by sfink » Wed, May 25, 2022, 7:14 PM UTC

joe_the_user wrote: post #325

sfink wrote: post #286

This article strangely undersells the advantages of low tech. It's true that they're not better for everything, but they have advantages well beyond the basic things mentioned. A tactile button has far fewer accuracy issues with positioning: if you can feel the button, you won't start pressing 2/3 off and then get further and further off until you're triggering something else, as happens all the time on touchscreens.…

I agree with you but in response to: A tactile button has far fewer accuracy issues with positioning: if you can feel the button, you won't start pressing 2/3 off and then get further and further off until you're triggering something else, as happens all the time on touchscreens. I gotta mention that I have a circa 2000 Japanese luxury car and the dials that control the stereo and the air conditioning are actually re…

I agree! I could rant endlessly about all the bad physical interfaces I've used. My house is full of them. All the new appliances come with the flat buttons—are they capacitive or something?—they may or may not register when you press them, that often don't work when poked with a gloved elbow, etc. And dials like you describe that change random amounts or aren't debounced or whatever. There are probably more possible ways for physical things to go wrong than the small but common set of problems with touchscreens. It's more that they can go more right, too. (Or at least have their problems and benefits better matched to a task.)

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#329

Post by kingrazor » Wed, May 25, 2022, 7:14 PM UTC

martin_a wrote: post #196

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.

Constantly.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#330

Post by joe_the_user » Wed, May 25, 2022, 7:18 PM UTC

zepearl wrote: post #307

izacus wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. I tend to have the same opinion, but at the same time I'm not convinced: - I bought 1 year ago a new car for 80k…

we have ~100 buttons that all work reliably on our keyboards, which are connected to our PCs/notebooks with just a single cable => I admit that in a car there is the extra challenge of temperature variance

I wanted to mention that. Sure, the way auto electronics were traditionally installed was expensive but a keyboard is $20 by itself, a midi music keyboard designed for wear and having buttons and knobs is ~$150. A modular system of instruments and controls that fits around the steering wheel and has a single cable coming out could not be that expensive.

Changing to something like would require a lot of adjustment of electronics processes - different chips and voltages to allow the modularity and single cable, I would guess. But touch-screens also need this I would imagine.