We need physical audio kill switches • Hacker News Board

Re: We need physical audio kill switches

#251

Post by yholio » Sun, Sep 20, 2020, 9:13 PM UTC

pbourke wrote: post #220

Symbiote wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My rented apartment has switches that presumably use radio to turn on and off the lights. There is no further integration, or smart app etc. I can't see which light switch is on or off, so even after years living here I mix up some of the switches. Sometimes the radio pulse doesn't register, so I have to go back to the switch and press it again. After pressing the switch, there's a perceivable, variable delay for the…

These kinds of switches are perfectly analogous to technical debt. Doing things the right/straightforward way involves costs that we don’t want to pay (holes in the wall/labour to run a new circuit) so we shoehorn a complex hack using some new tech (RF control). The cost savings are moderate and the price paid is amortized over every further use of the system.

A few years down the road, the radio switch transmitter breaks down and is no longer manufactured. The receivers, wires and the mechanical switches blocked in the ON position are hidden somewhere under multiple layers of drywall.

But the functionality of the switch can be emulated with with a software defined radio attached to a 1GHz Raspberry Pi running Linux. It works great, but an out of date kernel enables a virus that spreads from light-switch to light switch and performs a light show on the evening of 4th of July in any calendar year.

Re: We need physical audio kill switches

#252

Post by neilpanchal » Sun, Sep 20, 2020, 9:14 PM UTC

slowmovintarget wrote: post #244

systemvoltage wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why people find novelty of touchscreens appealing. We've got to do a better job of educating consumers. The marketing behind touchscreens is so powerful that it is unanimously considered as a feature, something you must have. I get angry just thinking about the amount of marketing bullshit around touchscreens. Just go to Garmin Aviation website and now a lot of operation in airplane cockpits is off…

Very high-end or professional ovens will not have this. These are gimmicks for people with too much money, and too little sense. I don't want my toaster posting on Facebook. I don't want to link my refrigerator with my Google account. And no, I do not expect my microwave to post pics of my food to Instagram. I want a toaster that toasts properly and can be cleaned. I want a refrigerator that runs forever, doesn't lea…

We have the ability to design things better. SV folks should get toghether and start a startup in this space - it is ripe with many opportunities. One company comes in uses the truthful marketing to change the tune of GE/Haier/Samsung and others.

Unfortunately, we're battling vicious hardware market forces and whatever you do - it won't beat the cost of existing players who cheapout in parts and UI, especially when mass produced in China. Hardware requires serious funding to get started and ME/EE skills are disappearing from the west.

Physical controls are getting more and more expensive due to dwindling demand. Many encoders from ALPS have been EOL'ed.

I don't think we're gonna get out of this horrible UX/UI rut.

Re: We need physical audio kill switches

#253

Post by bitwize » Sun, Sep 20, 2020, 9:14 PM UTC

kempbellt wrote: post #196

moe wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then how would you know it's really off!

I sense sarcasm, but I'll answer anyway. A power indicator light would do the trick... But in all seriousness, your bluetooth headphones should have a sim card built in and be an IoT slave to the cloud. So that when you turn them off, they send a message to Alexa, Google, and Siri, so that all of your devices can tell you "YOUR HEADPHONES ARE NOW OFF" at the same time. Like a tiny choir of angels informing you of the…

𝕐𝕆𝕌ℝ 𝕁𝔸ℂ𝕂𝔼𝕋 𝕀𝕊 ℕ𝕆𝕎 𝔻ℝ𝕐

Re: We need physical audio kill switches

#254

Post by pilsetnieks » Sun, Sep 20, 2020, 9:17 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #169

vidanay wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Our old office had a $5k fancy coffee maker with touch screen. Nobody knew what the hell all the icons meant, and nobody cleaned the milk siphon so it went moldy and was thrown out after two weeks. I insisted that we keep the old Bunn that had an advanced UI with a red illuminated On-Off switch. Six months later, it was the only one coffee maker still in use.

> Nobody knew what the hell all the icons meant Still can't figure out how to turn on the defroster in a new car. My old truck was simple - turn the knob to "DEFROST". My cat feeder invented all its own icons, trying to get it set up is a nightmare. I keep the instruction manual next to it. I hate Steve Jobs for convincing the world that written words are bad and random cute pictures are cool. Please, bring back "DEL…

Did Steve Jobs really do that? Unless you mean going from a text based CLI to a graphic UI but even those had plenty of words, especially those well thought out.

When Jobs had to choose a washing machine for his family, he chose a Miele with plenty of words on it:

https://9to5mac.com/2011/03/07/how-steve-jobs-picks-a-washer...

Re: We need physical audio kill switches

#255

Post by ummonk » Sun, Sep 20, 2020, 9:18 PM UTC

onion-soup wrote: post #11

Nothing will ever come close to convenience of analogue volume knobs. They give both immediate action and infinite granular control. Same goes for kitchen stoves. All the modern touch controls with step-based control is the absolute nightmare in terms of UI.

The one thing I like about the Touch Bar is sliding rather than step based controls for volume and brightness. Still woefully inferior to tactile knobs / wheels though.

Re: We need physical audio kill switches

#256

Post by systemvoltage » Sun, Sep 20, 2020, 9:19 PM UTC

combatentropy wrote: post #222

systemvoltage wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They look like this: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/RZawxJ6TLuY/maxresdefault.jpg The amber boxes are required fields and ---- are optional. The bottom line is a scratch pad. You first punch in the data there and push one of the index switches on the side to insert it in place. Yea its not beautiful to most people (I disagree) but it is very clear in the way it works. Here is the new one: https://www.aviationpros.com/tools-e…

Got it. Thanks! > its not beautiful to most people I think the same could be said about audio mixing boards, for example. I've found that interfaces for professionals often look ugly to the uninitiated. I've said many times that you should give an interface two weeks, not two seconds. Interfaces that you love after two seconds, you may come to hate after using it every day. Interfaces that are intimidating on the fir…

> Interfaces that you love after two seconds, you may come to hate after using it every day

I wish more people knew this tradeoff.

Re: We need physical audio kill switches

#257

Post by swimfar » Sun, Sep 20, 2020, 9:19 PM UTC

rv-de wrote: post #245

onion-soup wrote: post #11

Nothing will ever come close to convenience of analogue volume knobs. They give both immediate action and infinite granular control. Same goes for kitchen stoves. All the modern touch controls with step-based control is the absolute nightmare in terms of UI.

Talking about knobs on stoves and UX - I never understood why American stoves have the knobs on a panel at the back of the stove instead of at the front. Isn't it inconvenient having to reach over hot, frying, steaming pots and pans?

Most likely for safety reasons. They are less likely for children to play with them or people to bump into them.

But ovens with controls in the front are definitely available in the US. So you can have whatever style you want.

Re: We need physical audio kill switches

#258

Post by GoToRO » Sun, Sep 20, 2020, 9:19 PM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #191

mindslight wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest problem with "modern" digital controls, the lag, is completely avoidable. One can easily design a system using a microcontroller that responds within 10ms, which gives the appearance of being instantaneous. It's all just shoddy software engineering using bloated frameworks and poor languages, and consumers that don't know any better. Somehow we've had this problem going on a decade, and nobody has seen fi…

What languages and frameworks are people using in consumer electronics?

Autosar for automotive. The delay is a requirement and not really due to the framework.

Re: We need physical audio kill switches

#259

Post by jng » Sun, Sep 20, 2020, 9:20 PM UTC

coretx wrote: post #179

If you physically cut a audio signal, one end of the cable turns into a broadcasting radio antenna. Reality isn't as simple as presented.

A low-power 20kHz signal on a PCB track not designed to radiate is not going to be a problem at all - plus you can always switch to terminating with a resistor in the unlikely case it is a problem. Also the author mentions connecting directly to the DAC, most DACs, and definitely all DACs I have studied the datasheet for have a CE (Chip Enable) signal, or some more advanced way to control audio output with a command (using an SPI or similar interface), no need to cut the audio connections. Reality isn't as simple as applying basic physical knowledge without the required context.

Re: We need physical audio kill switches

#260

Post by nexuist » Sun, Sep 20, 2020, 9:21 PM UTC

serf wrote: post #246

nexuist wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree wholeheartedly that cockpit touchscreens (as a concept) are worse than physical knobs and switches. What are you doing in an FMC that requires you to split focus between operating the plane and operating the FMC? In what scenario are you going to need to create a new flight plan while pulling stunt maneuvers? When are you going to need to do anything involving navigation if you do not first have control (i…

>It costs Tesla $0 per vehicle to add a new button to their cars. It costs millions for everyone else. This is not a useless capability; it makes a difference every single day. Complaint #1 about Teslas' from owners that I have spoken to is that the UI/UX requires total re-learning as opposed to other cars, and then when the re-learning phase is complete, it's still difficult to operate without full attention. Sure,…

> but try convincing normal commuters that they should pull over to adjust the volume on their stereo.

But they don't have to. On a Tesla you can adjust the volume using the physical knob on the steering wheel; similarly you can activate or deactivate turn signals using the stalks. This is an example of touchscreens and physical controls working together, just like it would be outlandish to expect pilots to touch-and-drag on a screen rather than using a joystick.

> Using a touch screen telephone is not an eyes off exercises, but dialing and talking to someone on any of my old flip phones or Nokias was

Is it not? Can't you use Siri or Google Assistant to call a contact, or in the case of Tesla the on board voice control? Of course the voice control may suck; but that again can be fixed with software updates just as we've seen in the mobile phone space.

> Mercedes/BMW/Audi went away from buttons just to find themselves crawling back...

Because their implementations sucked. Try using an iPad vs whatever you found in their cars; why is the iPad so much better? It doesn't have to be. You could very well have had an iPad-like experience with your car's touchscreen if the manufacturer actually put in the effort to refine it. Instead we got menus in menus in menus: a horrible experience.

In the aviation world, one of the most popular apps is ForeFlight, which enables you to navigate and perform common tasks on an iPad:

https://www.foreflight.com/products/foreflight-mobile/

It is popular precisely because you can interact with information on the iPad, rather than having to deal with the shitty UX on your on board GPS or weather instrument. ForeFlight is an example of touch done right, as opposed to doing touch for the sake of touch.