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

181–190 of 458 posts

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

#181

Post by smacktoward »

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…

> i.e. doesn't need to morph into a different and back again

The UX terminology for what you're describing is a modal interface: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_(user_interface)

... which is to say, an interface that works differently depending on what "mode" the interface is in.

A classic example of a modal interface is vi/vim, where you have to explicitly switch into "editing" mode in order to actually insert text into the document. And a classic demonstration of why modal interfaces are undesirable can be produced simply by taking someone who's never used vi/vim before, sitting them down in front of it, and telling them to enter a line of text. They will start typing, and immediately become confused when the words they typed don't actually show up anywhere. (Or worse, when they happen to have typed a keystroke that corresponds to a vi command and weird stuff they didn't expect starts happening.)

As you note, modal interfaces are particularly bad in situations where the user needs to operate the system under pressure -- such as (say) on a warship, where the life of the operator may literally depend on them being able to accomplish tasks quickly and accurately. Modal interfaces force the operator to first orient themselves as to what mode the system is currently in before they can do anything, which slows down even experienced operators, and pull away attention that could otherwise be applied elsewhere.

What does all that have to do with touchscreens? Because how a touchscreen operates can be modified with only some programming, they tend to lure developers into building modal interfaces in an effort to cram as many features into them as possible. From a feature-checklist perspective that's great, but from a usability perspective it's a disaster. Anyone who's experienced a modern car infotainment system will understand why -- paging through menu screens to find the one mode with the feature you want while piloting a two-ton hunk of metal at 75mph is a bad combination.

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

#182

Post by hrktb »

BurningFrog wrote: post #122
hrktb wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As with everything it depends. Throwing a whole category of input under the bus because it failed when we tried in some uses would be short-sighted. Especially as we’ve had touchscreens for less than a few decades. > inherently inferior / single-system From the top of my head, maps work better on touchscreens. Navigating document trees. Making elements link together, group them. And there must be hundreds of uses not…

Right. For anything dynamic , an interface that can redraw itself in milliseconds has enormous advantages over mechanical knobs and levers. For managing permanent properties, I think mechanical interfaces are the best option, though of course vastly more costly.

You are right, but I think it goes beyond that.

Any control interface is by definition acting on something dynamic, so even pushing a physical button, we expect the some status to reflect the result instantly.

I think touchscreen could be best used as a step above joysticks, when an action cannot just be summed by a on/off (or +/-) state, or a vector in one direction.

Imagine in a military setting if you need to open a communication channel with 4 teams moving close to each other to warn them of a nearby enemy. Would you prefer to switch the “open communication” lever, check the team numbers, push the buttons 1, 5, 6, 12 and the “open channel” button. Or circle them directly on the map and click “open communication” on the right side panel?

I also think that a lot of touchscreen interface are immature and ill thought, but it would be the same issue with stupid buttons like we can find in so many cars for instance (why would the parking brake switch be next to the A/C on/off ?)

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

#183

Post by Keyframe »

elihu wrote: post #141
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.

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

Old Panamera and new Panamera. Disgusting and disorienting touch controls. I honestly can’t tell why would anyone prefer touch controls. I also can’t honestly tell how is Tesla’s screen street legal.

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

#184

Post by toxik »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #177
tempguy9999 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 interesting that despite Apple's no-buttons obsession, even the latest iPhone still has a physical silent-mode switch and volume buttons.

I don’t think Apple is against buttons, just not on the screen. Gotta say I think it’s pretty weird they have a silent mode button, and a Do Not Disturb mode hidden in the controls? What is that duplication about?

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

#185

Post by seanmcdirmid »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #176
watwatinthewat wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

From what I have read, a major source of error is lack of sleep. With 4 hours of sleep, it doesn’t matter what the UI/X is...

UI/UX does matter, actually, especially on 4 hours of sleep. It is much easier to get confused with a complex interface on less sleep than more.

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

#186

Post by reilly3000 »

fyfy18 wrote: post #165
reilly3000 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/

OOO that is fantastic, thanks for sharing!

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

#187

Post by bagacrap »

smacktoward wrote: post #181
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…

> i.e. doesn't need to morph into a different and back again The UX terminology for what you're describing is a modal interface : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_(user_interface) ... which is to say, an interface that works differently depending on what "mode" the interface is in. A classic example of a modal interface is vi/vim, where you have to explicitly switch into "editing" mode in order to actually insert t…

I don't think you can call modal interfaces inherently bad. I suppose Gmail is a modal interface because if you pull it up and start typing you'll be issuing commands instead of composing an email, until you enter "composition" mode. But what is the alternative? Have every button on the keyboard do the exact same thing regardless of what application or part of an application is currently in use? It's fine if you don't like vim but you don't have to pitch it as an objective universal truth that emacs > vim.

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

#188

Post by rkagerer »

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.

I'm going to repeat a comment I made a couple times before as I think it's relevant:

In one of the talks at Google I/O a few years ago a VP from Audi (or Volvo?) spoke in a thick and lofty German accent about how "ve haf completely oferhauled ze driver exzperienze". He played a sexy video clip showcasing their new Android infotainment system (something like https://youtu.be/h_7_fKJ0PNs), and the first thing I noticed is how they'd taken away my traditional temperature knobs and replaced them with digital touchscreen ones. They looked just like physical ones, and were in the exact same place you would expect (https://9to5google.com/2017/05/15/android-cars-audi/). So, I've gained absolutely nothing, and now I have to take my eyes off the road and look down at the stupid console just to change the temperature.

TLDR: Tacticle feedback is a Good Thing(tm) and designers should cultivate - not fight - muscle memory.

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

#189

Post by indigochill »

adestefan wrote: post #12
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.

I have knobs on the climate control on my car, but I still need to look at the screen. The problem is the knobs have no stops so I still need to look down to figure out what they're set to after they update the electronic display. On my old vehicle I knew the whole way to the left was fan blowing on feet, whole way to the right was defroster, and the 2 or 3 clicks in between were different settings of those extremes.…

I'm not sure why dials have stopped clicking. Maybe it had some direct mechanical function at one point, but even if that's no longer necessary, the haptic feedback of the click seems just as important.

In fact, even on touchscreens there will often be some sort of audiovisual "click" effect, whether that's an icon lighting up, expanding, or making an audible click noise.

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

#190

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

toxik wrote: post #184
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting that despite Apple's no-buttons obsession, even the latest iPhone still has a physical silent-mode switch and volume buttons.

I don’t think Apple is against buttons, just not on the screen. Gotta say I think it’s pretty weird they have a silent mode button, and a Do Not Disturb mode hidden in the controls? What is that duplication about?

Do not disturb is not the same as silent. The former mutes all notifications so they don't wake up the phone nor produce sound or vibration, the latter disables UI sounds and uses vibrations instead of sounds for notifications. They are completely independent.
Post reply on HN