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

151–160 of 410 posts

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#151

Post by gompertz »

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.

Cadillac driver here (2021 model). I believe it's one of the very few new vehicles that have a physical button for every feature. Granted there is a lot of buttons, it's very nice you don't even have to use the touchscreen ever if you don't want. I theorize this could be due to the age demographic of majority of their buyers, that they have retained all physical buttons.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#152

Post by musesum »

baobob wrote: post #134
nkrisc wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The touch screens are the only thing keeping me on dino juice cars. I want to go electric, but they all have these awful touchscreens! I don’t want to navigate a menu to change the temperature or turn on a seat warmer. I’m just not buying an EV until there’s one that doesn’t rely on a giant touch screen for everything or I can’t buy an ICE vehicle anymore.

Luckily the tide seems to be turning: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/23/opinion/touch-screens-car...

This! Was fiddling with a Tesla touch screen to do something basic. During those few seconds, autopilot decided to steer me off the road - with no shoulder - at 80 MPH (it was during a sunset). Fortunately, I caught it in time.

After the panic subsided, I decided to learn the voice commands. It seems that each device, now, has its own language, which we have to learn in order to function. A modern tower of Babel.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#153

Post by thomastjeffery »

eddieroger wrote: post #101
analog31 wrote: post #97

A few days ago in these very pages, I dissed the UI of an oscilloscope. But using one yesterday, I realized an advantage: I could operate it with one hand while holding the probe with the other. Even software interfaces for instrumentation, that use the keyboard and mouse, are physically awkward and your computer has to be positioned just right. A couple more advantages: * A small interface makes small things small.…

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…

The volume knob is gone as early as the 2015 model, at least in the EX-L variant; but the steering wheel buttons are still there.

If I didn't have physical buttons on the steering wheel to press, I wouldn't bother using the stereo at all.

Driving is the absolute worst environment for touch screens. Not only am I unable to look at where I am touching at the same moment I want to touch, the whole car is moving unpredictably in relation to my finger.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#155

Post by bombcar »

reacharavindh wrote: post #71

The place where I feel this the most is cars. I drove a Tesla Model 3 that belongs to a friend and had used a rented VW Golf mark 8. The touch screen and touch sensitive panels with haptic feedback were horrible. I now appreciate my VW Golf Mark 7 even more. It is glorious to have knobs, physical buttons, and levers for all things that needs to be controlled while driving. It's intuitive, and I can use them without l…

Touchscreens look great on spec sheets and to those who buy them, not necessarily to those who have to use them.

And those that buy them are loathe to admit they suck until after they've sold it off (because admitting it sucks means admitting you made a bad purchase).

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#156

Post by bombcar »

couchand wrote: post #80
ratww wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a great point about "modes". Even 40 years people already joked about the alarm clock you mentioned: everyone knew how to use VCRs, but the damn clock was never adjusted. Since it was neither intuitive, nor something a user would memorize how to do, most VCRs just sat there saying 12:00 or 00:00 forever. For the alarm clock, of course, we had to learn since it was its main function. I see this in music equipme…

That's a great point about looking to music equipment for UX ideas. If you want to see what happens when a design team puts serious effort into building a satisfying and effective interface, look at electronic music devices.

Those mixer boards you see are horribly complicated, but with the thousands of knobs and buttons most anyone can figure out how to mute a microphone in a few minutes or less.

The touchscreen versions can be more complicated - but since they also have the ability to change the knobs to presets they may be more useful to actual sound engineers.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#157

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#158

Post by grayclhn »

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…

TBH, a “child protection mode” does seem like legitimately new functionality, even if it was unwelcome for your in-laws.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#159

Post by incahoots »

Biggest offender are automakers. A giant touch screen that replaces physical knobs and switches is incredibly backwards thinking.

The ability to make quick changes to HVAC, radio, or heating/cooling settings is now requiring drivers to take their eyes off the road to drag a greasy finger across a virtual dial, it's pretty inane all things considered.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#160

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN