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

"Flick to tv" represents everything wrong with product design today

fuckjetpacks.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 35 posts

Re: "Flick to tv" represents everything wrong with product design today

#21

Post by Evbn »

ripperdoc wrote: post #19

He is simply listing the challenges any designer would face to make a simple yet obvious feature that just works. It is NOT describing a reason to "go back to buttons" or do something in the traditional way. This is where home electronics need to go - where you can interact with them directly instead through some button interface. If I direct my phone at the TV, both the phone and the TV should know that this is happ…

What is wrong with having the user say what they want? My microwave doesn't popup open the door and grab what I am holding whenever I pass food in front of it, and that is fine.

Re: "Flick to tv" represents everything wrong with product design today

#24

Post by qq66 »

garrettlarson wrote: post #14
smartkids wrote: post #9

Solution: Let these interface gimmicks be the stuff of tech conventions and demos, and never part of any mass-produced product. But maybe some marketing folks, seeing the success of Apple, have reasoned that these gimmicks can sell products in the short-term, at least until consumers discover the problems with them. At the end of this era of tapping and rubbing little screens with our fat, dirty fingers, we may be re…

It takes two hands to hold a device and a stylus.

I think this is important, and the other important factor is that removing the stylus and reattaching it adds at least 3-4 seconds to an interaction with one's phone. My interactions with my phone today are often under 10 seconds which means that a stylus would add 30-40% friction to those interactions.

Re: "Flick to tv" represents everything wrong with product design today

#25

Post by Indyan »

uptown wrote: post #12
RossDM wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure how this relates to the real world experience, but there's a Samsung Phone TV ad that shows a businessman flicking his presentation onto the conference screen.

Samsung has two commercials airing currently with new forms of interaction ... might be the Galaxy S3 (I'm not sure). One example shows the user dismissing a call by speaking to the phone while a call is coming in. The other commercial shows that you can take a screen-shot by waving your hand over the device whenever - kind of ironic since screenshots from Android devices was always a pain back when I owned one. Mayb…

I have an S3, and the screenshot thing is actually very neat and handy. It is a bit wonky when you try to capture apps with scrollable windows, but it never misfires. You have to basically press the side of your palm on the screen and move it from left to right.

Re: "Flick to tv" represents everything wrong with product design today

#26

Post by rayiner »

Evbn wrote: post #21
ripperdoc wrote: post #19

He is simply listing the challenges any designer would face to make a simple yet obvious feature that just works. It is NOT describing a reason to "go back to buttons" or do something in the traditional way. This is where home electronics need to go - where you can interact with them directly instead through some button interface. If I direct my phone at the TV, both the phone and the TV should know that this is happ…

What is wrong with having the user say what they want? My microwave doesn't popup open the door and grab what I am holding whenever I pass food in front of it, and that is fine.

If the gesture is intuitive and simple, it can be much more efficient than a button and reduce cognitive load by eliminating symbolic abstraction.

A great example is browsing in Safari. Scrolling, zooming, and going back/forward with gestures is far more efficient than explicitly pressing buttons to do the same actions.

Re: "Flick to tv" represents everything wrong with product design today

#28

Post by vetler »

I'm struck by the negativity of the post. While the arguments listed are valid user interface design points, the "flick to TV" just works (assuming you have the right hardware), and it's pretty simple. If you wanted to get everything correct, you'd probably end up with a more normal user interface with buttons and whatnot, plus you'd spend more time developing it to get it right according to how you're supposed to be doing it.

Instead, they went out and developed a neat little feature that yes, has its problems, but it works and it's a little more innovative than a button-based interface.

Re: "Flick to tv" represents everything wrong with product design today

#29

Post by FixThisPOSSite »

vetler wrote: post #28

I'm struck by the negativity of the post. While the arguments listed are valid user interface design points, the "flick to TV" just works (assuming you have the right hardware), and it's pretty simple. If you wanted to get everything correct, you'd probably end up with a more normal user interface with buttons and whatnot, plus you'd spend more time developing it to get it right according to how you're supposed to be…

obscure != innovative

Re: "Flick to tv" represents everything wrong with product design today

#30

Post by shahidhussain »

vetler wrote: post #28

I'm struck by the negativity of the post. While the arguments listed are valid user interface design points, the "flick to TV" just works (assuming you have the right hardware), and it's pretty simple. If you wanted to get everything correct, you'd probably end up with a more normal user interface with buttons and whatnot, plus you'd spend more time developing it to get it right according to how you're supposed to be…

Unless you're busy making or avoiding patents, I'd argue that the innovativeness of a feature shouldn't be a factor unless it works better than the normal solution.
Post reply on HN