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

211–220 of 458 posts

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

#211

Post by tinco »

atoav wrote: post #205
azernik wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

With the added benefit of having your control stations look like the bridge of Star Trek space ships.

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

#212

Post by smacktoward »

bagacrap wrote: post #187
smacktoward wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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'…

I didn't say anything about emacs. emacs has plenty of problems of its own.

> But what is the alternative?

It takes some outside-the-box thinking. Here's an article by Larry Tesler, of Xerox PARC and original-Macintosh-team fame, on how his desire to build a modeless text editor led to the invention of copy-and-paste: http://worrydream.com/refs/Tesler%20-%20A%20Personal%20Histo...

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

#213

Post by Thorentis »

da_chicken wrote: post #118
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…

> Some monitor will compress 1-3 into a single Input Source option. Still, 3 presses? Why does literally NO ONE make a monitor with hardware input source buttons? WHY? Because they want to use essentially the same chassis case when they have 2 inputs or 20, and they have dozens of models over the life of the tooling to support. It's much easier to swap out the die for the backplate or to use a snap in backplate than…

Uh, just have a single input source button that cycles through them. No need for an OSD menu, and usable for any number of inputs.

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

#214

Post by reificator »

ivanhoe wrote: post #207
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 bag…

> Unexpectedly, it turned out to be faster for users too.

I'm not anti-touchscreen by any measure, but did you really find that surprising? It seems common knowledge to me that keyboard shortcuts are faster than touchscreens for most tasks.

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

#215

Post by bsder »

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…

> but in case of a real war maybe you can't expect the grew to get a full 8 hour sleep.

True, but even Navy Seals don't run sleep deprived continuously. In between those training times when they are sleep deprived, they are expected to have normal sleep cycles.

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

#217

Post by acdha »

wbl wrote: post #158
acdha wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is like the arguments that C programmers just need to be more careful about errors. We know that people make mistakes, get distracted, and get older. Real engineering is about designing systems which work well in actual conditions, not some unrealistic ideal case assuming perfect conditions. It’s also simply wrong: in California, I had to show use of turn signals – not anything else – and no other place I’ve dri…

I always wondered if Californians know what turn signals are.

About as well as the rest of the country, with the possible exception of Maryland, where they’re used to decoy people by indicating the turn required by the lane you’re in as opposed to the turn three lanes over you’re actually going to make.

I actually wonder whether google maps / Waze integration would be a worthwhile improvement: self-driving cars are a good ways off but simply signaling the direction which the driver was just told to turn would be nice, and a majority of drivers seem to be using mapping apps these days.

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

#218

Post by ajflores1604 »

ivanhoe wrote: post #207
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 bag…

A buddy of mine who has a shop briefly considered a Leap Motion controller to get around the 'greasy hands' problem. I'm not sure if he ever followed thru with it.

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

#219

Post by userbinator »

johnbrodie wrote: post #140
droithomme wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I detest touchscreens for most car functions Agreed. I consider them dangerous, a threat to public safety, they should be banned by the NTSB, and some cars that use them should be under recall to retrofit them with mechanical controls. Many states are now passing hands free laws that criminalize the use of phones or any other devices that use your hands while driving. The states provide exceptions for car touch scr…

For the life of me I can't understand why touch screens built in to a car are considered "different" than phones. Cities and states are finally waking up and making it a crime to use your phone while driving, how in the world are car touch screens any different?

I suspect it's more because using your phone is almost definitely not controlling the car, while using a touchscreen that is part of the car's controls is still technically considered "operating the vehicle" and thus not a distraction, regardless of how difficult it is to actually operate.

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

#220

Post by smacktoward »

azernik wrote: post #202
smacktoward wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The main problem with

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

... though, is that it basically represents a surrender on the idea that UX is important at all. Given enough time and commitment on the part of the user, any interface can be learned well enough to be adequately useful. You could build an interface out of loaded guns and rotating knives, and a sufficiently committed user could eventually learn how to operate it without killing themselves. The challenge is that most users' time and commitment are not unlimited.

A stronger argument in favor of modal interfaces is that they enable the creation of complex interfaces that wouldn't be possible without modes. This is part of what appeals to so many vim users about vim -- once you've climbed the learning cliff it presents, you can do some things much more efficiently than you could in, say, a WYSIWYG editor. I personally don't agree with that tradeoff, but I recognize that a number of people see it as worthwhile.

Post reply on HN