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

201–210 of 458 posts

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

#201

Post by azernik »

Justsignedup wrote: post #198

Wait. Let me get this straight. Touchscreens, which are ideal for representing multiple user unterfaces in an intuitive way, but requiring constant visual contact are being replaced by a physical user interface that can be used by both touch, and memory? Why was touchscreen ever even a consideration for controls you're not looking at? Touchscreen is great for phones. It is awful for keyboards (see macbook pro). And i…

They were useful because they can be reconfigured on-demand to different interfaces - e.g. you can route helmsman's responsibilities to a different bridge station in case of hardware damage or human casualties.

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

#202

Post by azernik »

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…

Modal interfaces can work very well, if used wisely:

- with experienced users, e.g. people who are used to vim

- with a sharply limited number of modes, e.g. the three modes that vim has

It's just really easy to get carried away when you have the enormous number of combinations that touchscreens allow.

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

#203

Post by hanniabu »

mrweasel wrote: post #99
meddlepal wrote: post #60

> and that many were fatigued, with an average of 4.9 hours of sleep between the 14 crew members present. I suspect this played more of a role than any of the controls or procedures did. I had a friend in the Navy and he once explained the shifts he did to me and how utterly insane they were. I suspect leadership doesn't want to (or cant) fix the root cause (fatigue) and is happy to spend tax dollars to replace the s…

I'm not going to argue that the navy should be allow insane schedule, if it's due to budget or poor planing, but in case of a real war maybe you can't expect the grew to get a full 8 hour sleep. A warship need to be able to operate under the worst of circumstances. In that case every move you make needs to be reflex, and I can imagine that touchscreens aren't ideal for quick precise motions, done by reflex, after onl…

This would totally be understandable and every expected if this lack of sleep were part of stress weeks meant to mentality prepare you for real world operation conditions, but I take it from the parent comment that it seems it's part of normal operating procedure, which is detrimental.

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

#204

Post by vvillena »

azernik wrote: post #201
Justsignedup wrote: post #198

Wait. Let me get this straight. Touchscreens, which are ideal for representing multiple user unterfaces in an intuitive way, but requiring constant visual contact are being replaced by a physical user interface that can be used by both touch, and memory? Why was touchscreen ever even a consideration for controls you're not looking at? Touchscreen is great for phones. It is awful for keyboards (see macbook pro). And i…

They were useful because they can be reconfigured on-demand to different interfaces - e.g. you can route helmsman's responsibilities to a different bridge station in case of hardware damage or human casualties.

That's also possible with a common set of hardware controller devices. Just like multiple games are played with the same controller on a console, or the way we use personal computers with a keyboard and mouse.

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

#205

Post by atoav »

azernik wrote: post #201
Justsignedup wrote: post #198

Wait. Let me get this straight. Touchscreens, which are ideal for representing multiple user unterfaces in an intuitive way, but requiring constant visual contact are being replaced by a physical user interface that can be used by both touch, and memory? Why was touchscreen ever even a consideration for controls you're not looking at? Touchscreen is great for phones. It is awful for keyboards (see macbook pro). And i…

They were useful because they can be reconfigured on-demand to different interfaces - e.g. you can route helmsman's responsibilities to a different bridge station in case of hardware damage or human casualties.

As someone who designs ans builds modular synthesizer modules: so can mechanical interfaces if designed appropriately.

Add labels on the display and use a set of generic controls and boom, you can use the same hardware for a ton of functions given the right abstractions.

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

#207

Post by ivanhoe »

Justsignedup wrote: post #198

Wait. Let me get this straight. Touchscreens, which are ideal for representing multiple user unterfaces in an intuitive way, but requiring constant visual contact are being replaced by a physical user interface that can be used by both touch, and memory? Why was touchscreen ever even a consideration for controls you're not looking at? Touchscreen is great for phones. It is awful for keyboards (see macbook pro). And i…

On one project for automotive industry we had a huge problem with touchscreen interface because mechanics often have grease and dirt on their hands and the touch screens we used would get all confused with the residue left on the screen. We first tried to fix it in the software, but quickly realized it's much easier to switch to custom control board with specialized buttons and keyboard, just wrap them in plastic bags so you don't have to clean them, and it all works like a charm. Unexpectedly, it turned out to be faster for users too.

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

#209

Post by dsego »

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.

Sony had one of the best mp3 players imo, nw series, the ones shaped like a bic lighter. There was a rotary knob to switch between tracks, very intuitive to use without looking at it. But the main problem was it required their custom software to transfer files. The later models got turned into ipod imitations, with an lcd screen and buttons, such a shame.

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

#210

Post by bsder »

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/

And my familiarity with DDC is mostly finding the wonky app that overrides EDID information because the monitor and the computer can't seem to agree today.
Post reply on HN