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

331–340 of 410 posts

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#331

Post by Animats »

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.

Screens are not the real issue. The real issue is whether you have to look at it to set it.

There are annoying devices which have a very small number of tactile buttons, and overload them with multiple functions. Monitors, watches, and clocks tend to be especially bad, because the user interface is not used much. So you get some tiny unlabeled buttons, and have to consult the manual to find out when you need a short press, a long press, a press and hold, a two button press, or a paper clip.

Another class of annoying devices is point of sale systems. Some say they're ready for your card but really aren't - the store's system and the credit card terminal are not sufficiently aware of each other's state. Some have a RFID sensor, but it's not clear where the sensor is. Or when it's listening. Some are just really slow. Probably because they're doing too much in a busy "cloud". However, POS systems do work better today. I haven't had a transaction totally fail to be completed in several years.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#332

Post by bombela »

meristem wrote: post #225
h3mb3 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also imagine this trend is bad from the ergonomics / RSI perspective. For generations, we've been using various kinds of per-appliance controls, with various shapes, sizes and stiffnesses. Since the past 10 years almost all of them have been replaced by a flat piece of glass. People are increasingly doing only a couple of motions with their hands throughout the day without any variety (tap/drag without any tactile…

I recall a Car Talk episode many years ago where the discussion about BMW’s big knob for multiple functions was filled with negative statements. Tactile feedback and navigation were issues.

I have a 20y old BMW with the idrive knob. I find it excellent. This is because the knob contains a motor to simulate various detent and other virtual stops. So you actually have a really fine tactile feedback. You can navigate menus without looking the screen.

It can act as a spring, a rotary encoder, a joystick, small detent, big detent, etc.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#333

Post by 99_00 »

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.

>Modern cars seem to be moving towards all controls on a touch screen somewhere

They aren't. Your car may be a poorly designed exception.

The things you need to use need to do while driving can usually be done with controls on the steering wheel.

If you need visual feedback while using your steering wheel controls you can glance at the dashboard screen.

>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

Your car is poorly designed. You can adjust the temp on MANY new cars without the touch screen with simple up down buttons and very clear temperature with its own always on display.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#334

Post by aimor »

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 remember when my phone updated to Android 10 and soon after I received a call and, well, there's a video that shows pretty much exactly how things went:

https://youtu.be/UzpEHwZ-s-M?t=9

I can't believe we're asking software developers to recreate the world on a screen. It's an incredible amount of work that never gets done, leaving us with unintuitive interfaces.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#335

Post by Pasorrijer »

Spivak wrote: post #306
Pasorrijer wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny you should mention the Honda Civic... I had a 2017 Honda Civic Hatchback. First year of the new model design, it had a touch sensitive volume control... After that, I think it was the 2019 and up all Honda's came with a volume knob AS A DIFFERENTIATOR because the UX was so bad without it.

Right but that's a different market force! Customer feedback is really effective at redressing provably bad UX but it's a lot harder for that same change to happen in response to a competing manufacturer because in aggregate such a small thing isn't enough to get someone to switch away from Honda entirely.

I mean, it's the driving cause behind me selling the car and moving to a VW...

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#336

Post by digisign »

ThunderSizzle wrote: post #245
tomxor wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Made me check that one out, it's actually not an insane price, it competes with most new normal-person petrol cars... I mean I still wouldn't buy one new, and that's still a bit of a dodgy range, but maybe in ten years there will finally be an affordable 2nd hand market and some infra to make it reliable. In the mean time I will continue to run my petrol car into the ground like a good holistic environmentalist.

Would anyone trust a 2nd hand market for an EV when the battery is basically guaranteed to be dead long before more affordable ICE vehicles?

They are replaceable, are they not?

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#337

Post by bombela »

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.

Probably because you have an expensive enough car, that actually does a good job at regulating the cabine temperature.

In my cheap pickup I have to constantly adjust temperature and fan speed. In my old German "ultimate driving machine", it's set and forget.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#338

Post by tablespoon »

_jal wrote: post #318
tablespoon wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> That's not a solution - you have to look at market of brand new cars, as whateber is avaliable now will replace all the used cars. > Of course it is a solution. I end up with a car that doesn't have a touch screen. The point is that solution is only a band-aid. Cars wear out. New cars turn into used cars, which turn into "classic cars", which then turn into museum pieces. Especially with the later two steps, suppl…

And my point is, humans wear out. They stop driving cars and eventually die. There is a reasonable chance I won't buy another vehicle, so I don't care what the rest of the market does.

> There is a reasonable chance I won't buy another vehicle, so I don't care what the rest of the market does.

Good for you, but why do you feel you need to weigh in on the new car market when you have no intention of ever participating?

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#339

Post by ratww »

dmckeon wrote: post #293
ratww wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really wonder if the possibility of updates alone can make software worse. Because you don't have to "get it right" on the first try. And the updates always contain something more than bug and security fixes, which often help keeping the quality of the experience low, despite fixed bugs. All the smart TVs I ever had lasted a long long time physically, but after a couple years they invariably started being noticeabl…

> patches became somewhat slower after update. Could this be a form of assisted obsolescence, in which a user who has owned a device for a few years is being subliminally urged to buy a new model?

In this specific case I think it was just incompetence, but at the same time, one of the selling points of the device was “lasting longer” because it was able to receive updates.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#340

Post by _jal »

tablespoon wrote: post #338
_jal wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And my point is, humans wear out. They stop driving cars and eventually die. There is a reasonable chance I won't buy another vehicle, so I don't care what the rest of the market does.

> There is a reasonable chance I won't buy another vehicle, so I don't care what the rest of the market does. Good for you, but why do you feel you need to weigh in on the new car market when you have no intention of ever participating?

Why do you feel the need to play conversation-cop?
Post reply on HN