Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 458 posts

Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers

#141

Post by elihu »

jakear wrote: post #5
rossdavidh wrote: post #2

You know, I think touchscreens are not preferable unless you need/want to be able to have controls for many different systems in the same space (e.g. a smartphone with multiple apps). If you are needing a dedicated control for a high-stakes system, the fact that it's a more modern-looking interface should not matter. Touchscreens are inherently inferior to a mechanical interface, if it's a single-system (i.e. doesn't…

This is why I detest touchscreens for most car functions. Specifically AC, with old fashioned knobs I have full control over AC without taking my eyes off the road, but nowadays everyone wants to put it on their infotainment system, hidden beneath 4 other buttons.

For what it's worth, Mazda recently decided that it doesn't want touchscreens in its cars anymore because they're a safety hazard.

"Mazda is purging touchscreens from its vehicles"

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20200335

Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers

#142

Post by jimmaswell »

IgorPartola wrote: post #129
leetcrew wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

on the other hand, AC is one of the only electronic features that causes a meaningful hit to fuel economy (and available power, if you have a weak engine). I very much prefer to decide for myself when it turns on.

Your car likely already turns off the AC when you accelerate hard. Most of them do that.

The difference is so minute that I don't see what the point could be.

Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers

#144

Post by sizzzzlerz »

octorian wrote: post #13
situational87 wrote: post #4

I'm having trouble visualizing exactly how this works from the text, but it sounds like a total nightmare. Some sort of complicated list of steps for transferring control screens between different stations on the ship, and it's not clear why or when you do this at all. I'm guessing the Navy doesn't spend a lot of time on UI/UX, which is ironic since these long, high-stress shifts with lives on the line is exactly whe…

In my own experience, any software developed under government contract has horrendous UI/UX. Probably because it's hard to specify "don't suck and be pleasant to use" in terms of formal system requirements.

In my 40 years designing and building signal processing equipment for the US government, during design reviews, there is absolutely nothing as contentious as when the UI is presented. Literally, everyone has an opinion about how it should work, what kind of widgets should be used, how menus should be organized down to the type of font and background color selection. It is no wonder the UIs are horrendous given their many parents. As the old joke goes, an elephant is a mouse designed by committee.

Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers

#145

Post by pbhjpbhj »

IgorPartola wrote: post #128
dantillberg wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but could we maybe get a decent approximation of the windshield temperature from interior temperature, exterior temperature, and speed? Combined with interior/exterior humidity (maybe these gauges might be the expensive/finicky part of this project?), we could calculate a probability of window fogging. It doesn't have to be perfect -- we can have it just turn on the defrost whenever the probability of window fog…

You could do one of two things. First, a heated windshield like I believe some Landrovers have. It’s about $5000 to replace, last I heard, but it works. Second, a double pane windshield like house windows or some motorcycle helmet face shields. These work 100% of the time, but would definitely be more expensive as well.

Best car I had for window defrosting/demisting was a Ford Mondeo which had a fine-mesh heating element embedded. Super fast clearing. More expensive than regular glass but not $5000 by a long shot.

Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers

#146

Post by yeutterg »

mhandley wrote: post #18
jakear wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I detest touchscreens for most car functions. Specifically AC, with old fashioned knobs I have full control over AC without taking my eyes off the road, but nowadays everyone wants to put it on their infotainment system, hidden beneath 4 other buttons.

Yesterday I was driving back from Scotland to England, doing 70ish, when we ran into a really heavy thunderstorm. Went from good visibility to almost zero in seconds, and the only thing I could properly see was the crash barrier alongside the lane. I found myself desperately trying to see where the road was, simultaneously trying not to get rear-ended as I slowed up, switch on the rear fog lamps and hazards, max wipe…

Rear fog lights: something more cars should have in the US for this exact situation.

Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers

#147

Post by bborud »

meddlepal wrote: post #60

> and that many were fatigued, with an average of 4.9 hours of sleep between the 14 crew members present. I suspect this played more of a role than any of the controls or procedures did. I had a friend in the Navy and he once explained the shifts he did to me and how utterly insane they were. I suspect leadership doesn't want to (or cant) fix the root cause (fatigue) and is happy to spend tax dollars to replace the s…

Military equipment has a tendency to be used under stressful conditions by people of average intelligence. Even conditions where operators suffer under cognitive and physical impairment.

One might want to take this into account when designing user interfaces.

Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers

#148

Post by sneak »

In somewhat related news, I am kicking around the idea of a modular hardware project to be able to add physical knobs, buttons, and switches to a computer interface, sort of how those magnetic modular midi controllers work, but for more than just MIDI, and with a wider range of input types and a spec for a frame/rack/bus so that you can screw them together (sort of like a modular synth, but probably with landscape orientation instead of portrait) into a console panel.

I want my computer to have a lot more backlit LCD 2x16 dot matrix displays and blinky lights and heavy metal clunk switches and good knobs.

Email me if you have ideas or feedback or want to get involved.

Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers

#149

Post by tonyarkles »

dantillberg wrote: post #92
Someone1234 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't caused by any specific humidity levels. While it is depositing water droplets on to the glass surface, that same water is normally suspended harmlessly in the air (it is effectively de-humidifying the air onto the cold windows). It is caused by the glass's surface temperature being much lower than the air temperature inside the car. Humans are warm. The air we breath is warm. We're heating up the interior of…

Yes, but could we maybe get a decent approximation of the windshield temperature from interior temperature, exterior temperature, and speed? Combined with interior/exterior humidity (maybe these gauges might be the expensive/finicky part of this project?), we could calculate a probability of window fogging. It doesn't have to be perfect -- we can have it just turn on the defrost whenever the probability of window fog…

Could glue/epoxy a sensor right behind the centre mirror I’d think. It’s far enough from the defroster vents that it wouldn’t heat up quickly from the hot air.

Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers

#150

Post by elboru »

rossdavidh wrote: post #2

You know, I think touchscreens are not preferable unless you need/want to be able to have controls for many different systems in the same space (e.g. a smartphone with multiple apps). If you are needing a dedicated control for a high-stakes system, the fact that it's a more modern-looking interface should not matter. Touchscreens are inherently inferior to a mechanical interface, if it's a single-system (i.e. doesn't…

Then we have the “touch buttons”, which doesn’t have any of the benefits of touchscreens (mutability) nor the benefits of regular buttons (touch feedback).
Post reply on HN