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

391–400 of 410 posts

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#391

Post by daniel-cussen »

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.…

> A knob provides a richer communication path between your brain and the device. With touchscreens, you can basically just poke and swipe, with some unintuitive nuances like long press or multi-fingered gestures. With a knob, you're using separate muscles and so can associate muscle memory based on the size, texture, and granularity of "click" feedback as you turn. We also have the ability to finely modulate the rate of twisting something—compare that to tapping frantically on a touchscreen left/right icon to control a quantity.

That gives me an idea, which I credit to you sfink. To make a product with knobs, buy knobs of slightly different makes with variations that feel slightly different, slightly different texture, different roughness, different give, despite being all of them supposedly the same jelly bean part. This helps muscle memory because despite appearing basically the same the muscles and spine know the difference right away, secretly.

What that means is for a 6-knob device you need 6 suppliers. What that means is there's room in the market for many companies, and less economies of scale, despite being formally a commodity. What that then means is there's more diversity in the marketplace, and more companies that can each stay afloat, competition is less cutthroat. The other thing that then means is American and Chinese companies can coexist in what is otherwise a bitter-fought market. In fact, one good way of getting subtly different knob feels is in fact making them in different countries with different regulatory environments dictating how not to make the knob.

And what that all means is we reduce the final stage of economies of scale--wars and empires.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#392

Post by analog31 »

vel0city wrote: post #251
eddieroger wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a 2017 Honda Civic. That particular model year, they chose to remove the volume knob for a capacitive little slider thing (in addition to the buttons on the wheel). The very next year, they put it back. Turns out it's pretty useful to be able to control the volume of your stereo without taking your eyes off the road when operating a car. They did a similar thing for the air controls, except they left some of t…

> Turns out it's pretty useful to be able to control the volume of your stereo without taking your eyes off the road when operating a car. I do agree the volume slider is a terrible choice of interface, but TBF there is a tactile, physical volume control on your car within reach of your hands while they're on the wheel. There is a volume adjustment on your steering wheel, so theoretically you shouldn't even have to u…

I still prefer the knob. Among the myriad of buttons, levers, and paddles on the steering wheel, with tiny symbols on them, I have to look down and figure out which ones are the volume control. It's much better on the other car where there are fewer buttons.

The slider is a bad idea because the car is bouncing up and down, so your hand isn't stable unless you pin it down with your thumb or something like that, and you have to look away from the road. The car doesn't roll as much, so a knob is inherently more stable, and can be found by peripheral vision plus feel.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#393

Post by fomine3 »

meristem wrote: post #220
zwirbl wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess it was Mazda, so Japanese instead of Korean https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1121372_why-mazda-is-pur... Though I don't know if they followed through

Between 2019 and 2022 Mazda improved the truly atrocious latency linked to screen operations. All operations are physical, but you still need menus to find what you want. The latency was quite impressive. The 2022 has less latency and seemingly different menu trees to go with the ultrawide ( but narrow height) screen. HVAC is screen-independent. So is volume, thankfully.

Except MX-30. They use touchscreen for AC for unknown reason. Maybe because the car is designed to be weird on their lineup?

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#394

Post by fomine3 »

analog31 wrote: post #392
vel0city wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Turns out it's pretty useful to be able to control the volume of your stereo without taking your eyes off the road when operating a car. I do agree the volume slider is a terrible choice of interface, but TBF there is a tactile, physical volume control on your car within reach of your hands while they're on the wheel. There is a volume adjustment on your steering wheel, so theoretically you shouldn't even have to u…

I still prefer the knob. Among the myriad of buttons, levers, and paddles on the steering wheel, with tiny symbols on them, I have to look down and figure out which ones are the volume control. It's much better on the other car where there are fewer buttons. The slider is a bad idea because the car is bouncing up and down, so your hand isn't stable unless you pin it down with your thumb or something like that, and yo…

I'd like to have volume knob for a rental car because I don't remember everything at once, but I think button on steering is fine for my own car.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#395

Post by Too »

vel0city wrote: post #192
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…

Never seen a stove with knobs on top of the stovetop. They are usually on the front of the bench. Removing point 1 and 3.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#396

Post by Too »

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 worst model of this i used only had a single set of + and - buttons. Then a single selector-button for which area of the stove you wanted them to control.

Have fun cooking with 2 zones, any time you need to adjust the heat of the next zone you need to press select 3 times to circle the whole stove and then adjust several times with plus or minus. Add the mandatory touch-delay to each action and by the time you reach desired temperature your food is burnt already. How can anyone think this is a good idea?!

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#397

Post by Too »

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…

Such knobs should be the most obvious interface but sadly most of the analogue models on the market lack a lot of accuracy. Some times even up to 30s-1min range. Enough to be the difference between cold or over-cooked food.

The best are often a big knob controlling a digital LCD timer. Started with a single start button doubling as +30s.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#398

Post by Too »

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…

We got a new fancy coffee machine at work. Obviously with a big shiny touch screen attached. Best case, it requires 3 touch actions to get a standard coffee. One modal to select drink, one modal to select strength, one modal to confirm start. Some times, even more if it went into presentation mode where it brags about how good coffee it produces, requiring yet another touch to dismiss.

The old model. One physical button for coffee, one for cappuccino, one for espresso, one for tea water. Single press instantly gives you want you want. For more custom mixes you can optionally change the strength with another button on top before making your choice.

How is this progress? I don't want "engagement" with my coffee machine. I just want it to give me coffee with as little effort as possible. It's exactly like you say, someone was given the task to solve a coffee app, instead of looking at the actual problem first.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#399

Post by Too »

bandie91 wrote: post #39
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…

> change the clock on their oven it's really easy. grab the clock. turn the hands to the desired position. optionally wind it up. put back on the oven. the only thing i dont understand why would anybody put his clock on the oven?

How else would you know if the clock on the micro is not correct if you don't have the oven to use as reference?

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#400

Post by vel0city »

analog31 wrote: post #392
vel0city wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Turns out it's pretty useful to be able to control the volume of your stereo without taking your eyes off the road when operating a car. I do agree the volume slider is a terrible choice of interface, but TBF there is a tactile, physical volume control on your car within reach of your hands while they're on the wheel. There is a volume adjustment on your steering wheel, so theoretically you shouldn't even have to u…

I still prefer the knob. Among the myriad of buttons, levers, and paddles on the steering wheel, with tiny symbols on them, I have to look down and figure out which ones are the volume control. It's much better on the other car where there are fewer buttons. The slider is a bad idea because the car is bouncing up and down, so your hand isn't stable unless you pin it down with your thumb or something like that, and yo…

Why is it a collection of physical controls literally in front of you all the time while in the driver's seat somehow impossible to remember but a collection of physical controls further away from you easier to remember? I would think the controls you're literally holding constantly would be easier to remember than the controls further away and farther from your normal vision when driving.

Why would you have to look down at the wheel but not the dashboard?

Post reply on HN