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

161–170 of 458 posts

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

#161

Post by mhandley »

blackflame7000 wrote: post #75
mhandley wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You know, when you take your drivers test in the US, you have to demonstrate your ability to know where all those functions are before you even pull away to start your test.

The real question, as I found yesterday, is can you switch on high-speed wipers, rear fog lights, hazard lights, and max-demist, in a few seconds, while you're devoting 99% of your brainpower to not crashing into an unseen vehicle slowing in front, not veering out of the lane that you can't really see, and glancing repeatedly in the mirror in case you're about to be rear-ended.

The question is not whether you can operate the controls under normal circumstances. It's whether you can do it when task-saturated with more important tasks. Under such circumstances, I simply wouldn't have had any attention left for glancing at a touchscreen, but I did know and could hit all the manual controls rapidly without looking.

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

#162

Post by agumonkey »

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.

Plus GUIs are random in temrs of response time...

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

#163

Post by appleflaxen »

vinay427 wrote: post #103
blackflame7000 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because it's not on your test doesn't mean you shouldn't know how to operate your car properly. There's a lot not covered in each test that is still a requirement to operate a vehicle. In California, it is a requirement and all the roads are connected. Blaming a change in weather is unsafe. This is why we have so many accidents when it rains. Do you freak out when it gets dark because there are 4 touchscreen but…

Hmm, this doesn't seem to be a response to what I said. Maybe you accidentally replied to the wrong comment?

> you have to demonstrate your ability to know where all those functions are before you even pull away to start your test

if only s/he had to pass the same threshold to post on HN!

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

#164

Post by arkh »

tempguy9999 wrote: post #96
Iv wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really think that nowadays touchscreens are becoming the cheap option. To me when I see a machine with custom designed button I know they had to do some mechanical design, whereas a flat touch screen just says "we slapped a tablet there and hacked an interface on android".

Which is ironic because I'd happily pay more not to have one. I bought a replacement for my 10+ year old MP3 player. The new thing is so cool and slick and flat and sophisticated and plain complex, and it's horrible to use. It demands your attention for everything. My old MP3 player with its physical buttons and weird control lever, well, I could work it by touch and muscle memory.

It's why I like my Up!: they decided everyone already has their own touchscreen with infotainment. So you have a dock for your phone, a USB charger and a bluetooth enabled sound system. The rest uses mechanical controls.

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

#165

Post by fyfy18 »

reilly3000 wrote: post #113
cletus wrote: post #110

Great. If only monitor manufacturers would do the same thing. I have a monitor with exactly 2 inputs (1 DP, 1 HDMI). What do I need to do to switch between them? 1. Press the Menu button 2. Move the option to Input Source 3. Select Input Source 4. Move from one to the other 5. Press Select Some monitor will compress 1-3 into a single Input Source option. Still, 3 presses? Why does literally NO ONE make a monitor with…

Amen! Why can't that be software? I'd be happy to hook up a second cable or a BT connection to send control signals. If not that, how about a simple Dpad at least!?

It is, and your monitor probably supports it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_Data_Channel

https://clickmonitorddc.bplaced.net/

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

#166

Post by cfv »

What even was the point of putting them there in the first place? It's a freaking gunboat.

You want this things to have a single clear mode of operation. You're using this to kill people, not play games. Clarity and intent of use are paramount here, over sweet transitions and looks

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

#167

Post by rossdavidh »

Someone1234 wrote: post #48
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question: Why don't modern cars yet monitor humidity in and outside the car and make the correct decisions to keep your windows clear? Why are we focusing on self-driving cars while our cars are too dumb to do this much on their own?

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…

But, figuring out if visibility is good through the windshield is still manifestly a much easier problem to solve than self-driving cars.

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

#168

Post by swagasaurus-rex »

joemaller1 wrote: post #133

If the controls were exclusively gaming mice/keyboards and Xbox/PlayStation controllers, they'd be the most agile, fearsome fleet in history.

Guitar hero guitars and rock band drums.

Really, we should be hiring twitch streamers to pilot these multimillion dollar vessels.

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

#169

Post by Rebelgecko »

joemaller1 wrote: post #133

If the controls were exclusively gaming mice/keyboards and Xbox/PlayStation controllers, they'd be the most agile, fearsome fleet in history.

The Navy has tested using Xbox controllers for controlling periscopes. It's saves tens of thousands of dollars each over the fancy custom joysticks they used to use. If one breaks, it's easy to replace. It also helps a lot for training--the old ones took a few hours of training to get new users comfortable, but since a lot of the users are dudes in their 20s and 30s the Xbox controller is a lot more intuitive

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

#170

Post by bmurphy1976 »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #31
mhandley wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Honest question: Why don't modern cars yet monitor humidity in and outside the car and make the correct decisions to keep your windows clear? Why are we focusing on self-driving cars while our cars are too dumb to do this much on their own?

Why don't cars have 2 batteries? One for starting the car, and the other for all the crap that tends to kill the battery when you most need it?

Probably because it costs more money and nobody will pay for it. That's the best guess I have.

Post reply on HN