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).
US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers
171–180 of 458 posts
Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers
#172Flying in bumpy weather, the touch screens can be tricky to do precision presses. End up having to balance your finger on the edge of the Garmin and then touch. I can imagine rough seas being a similar issue.
Rough roads too.
Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers
#173Buttons are amazing interfaces for changing a single state of a machine.
Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers
#174Earlier 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.
Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers
#175Duh. Especially if an EMP hit.
Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers
#176I'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…
I work at a Navy research center. We don't try to be profitable but take DoD clients to cover costs, trying to break even yearly. The point there is we are mission or tax funded but work for customers. The projects in my department take customer data, process/develop it in some way, and push it back out. Since we don't deal with the display at the end, there is a constant push for slides, demos, etc., from management…
Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers
#177Earlier 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.
Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers
#178Earlier 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…
What if the glass had some small heating applied to it constantly?
Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers
#179Earlier 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?
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.
Re: US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers
#180Except this is 7th fleet, so operational tempo and deferred maintenance means those new throttles will be variously broken. So now absence of force sometimes means no conflict, and sometimes doesn't. And position sometimes indicates setting, and sometimes doesn't. You just need to keep track of what maintenance state each throttle of each pair is in. But don't worry, mechanical inputs for continuous variables reduces cognitive load.
And maybe instead of a mechanically complex positioner, we'll put a more reliable indicator next to the throttle. I know, it could be screen. Or even better, let's have both!
And ... oh, never mind.
Just two observations.
First, apropos unilateral transfer of control.
"In addition to the coordinated procedure, a unilateral procedure, in which one station could take control of thrust from another station by action of only one station, was also available. However, the unilateral procedure is not relevant to the accident and will not be discussed further in this report." Page 6 (pdf's 16).
"Considering the speed and timing of the control transfer, the NTSB concludes that the unintended shift in steering control from the helm to the lee helm station on the John S McCain was likely a unilateral transfer initiated from the lee helm station. [...] and contributed to the errors that led to the accident." Page 26 (36). Reflected in Findings 7 and 8.
Second, apropos the big red button.
"According to the John S McCain’s emergency procedures and other written directives, the helmsman’s first action in response to a loss of steering was to press the emergency-override-to-manual button. This action would have shifted steering to the helm station in the backup manual mode. However, the helmsman told investigators that, during the accident, he did not press the emergency-override-to-manual button because he believed that this sent steering control to aft steering (an opinion shared by other bridge watch standers interviewed by investigators)"
It seems the accident might have been avoided if the single big red button in the middle of the console, ambiguously labeled "EMERGENCY OVERRIDE TO MANUAL", had been sharpied with "Get manual helm control".