Live data from Hacker News

The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

uxdesign.cc

251–260 of 410 posts

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#251

A few days ago in these very pages, I dissed the UI of an oscilloscope. But using one yesterday, I realized an advantage: I could operate it with one hand while holding the probe with the other. Even software interfaces for instrumentation, that use the keyboard and mouse, are physically awkward and your computer has to be positioned just right. A couple more advantages: * A small interface makes small things small.…

I have a 2017 Honda Civic. That particular model year, they chose to remove the volume knob for a capacitive little slider thing (in addition to the buttons on the wheel). The very next year, they put it back. Turns out it's pretty useful to be able to control the volume of your stereo without taking your eyes off the road when operating a car. They did a similar thing for the air controls, except they left some of t…

> Turns out it's pretty useful to be able to control the volume of your stereo without taking your eyes off the road when operating a car.

I do agree the volume slider is a terrible choice of interface, but TBF there is a tactile, physical volume control on your car within reach of your hands while they're on the wheel. There is a volume adjustment on your steering wheel, so theoretically you shouldn't even have to use the volume control on the stereo while you're driving.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#252

One of the best low-tech interfaces is the honeywell round thermostat. Change the dial to point to the temperature you want and the internal indicator shows you the current temperature. All without requiring any transistors. Go shop for a thermostat, look at other options, and be amazed at how complex the layers of technology can make things.

So how to I set my away temperature? How do I set the return temperature? How do I set the sleep temperature? How do I set the wake temperature?

How can I make it change based on my schedule, as I'm home most of the day on the weekends while I'm often out during the week?

Seems like its not that great of a UI given the requirements I have.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#253
post #169
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The touch screens are the only thing keeping me on dino juice cars. I want to go electric, but they all have these awful touchscreens! I don’t want to navigate a menu to change the temperature or turn on a seat warmer. I’m just not buying an EV until there’s one that doesn’t rely on a giant touch screen for everything or I can’t buy an ICE vehicle anymore.

I think that's true only as long as the only electric cars you have driven are Teslas. The BMW i3 has pretty much resisted this tendency. Ok, it's already a pretty old design at this point and getting phased out, but it has lots of physical buttons (even for the seat warmer!). And I don't think electric cars that are variants of existing petrol cars (which are more and more common) will eliminate the physical control…

Musk created a battery tech company and used it to power giant cellphones on wheels.

I don't want to drive—or negotiate with AI to drive—a giant cellphone on wheels.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I really wonder if the possibility of updates alone can make software worse. Absolutely does. You see this in console video games. As soon as online updates became possible, game-breaking bugs at launch became practically the norm, instead of incredibly rare ( minor bugs were common enough before ["I AM ERROR"], sure, but game-breaking ones, while not unheard of, were rare). Charging $60 for a late-alpha-quality pr…

I agree with what you are saying, except that "I AM ERROR" isn't actually a bug. The character is intentionally named that in Zelda II, even in the original Japanese.

Huh, TIL. I even had the game back in the day, and had no idea that wasn't an actual oversight.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of my friends say their stove touch buttons are great. They are not just unintuitive, most implementations are painfully slow. (my own pet peeve though are microwaves - they are a positive monstrosity of horrible interface bearing no connection to actual typical usage. I'd like one with a massive "add 30s and start button", and anything else is a nice optional extra for me :-D

The best microwave I've ever used lived in the break room at my last job. It had one big knob, which worked like a standard kitchen timer: you would just twist it right until it pointed at the amount of time you want, then let it tick back down to the left until cooking was done. Want more? Just twist it right a little more, and let it keep ticking. I have no idea why domestic microwaves come with a maze of buttons w…

Samsung Solo Microwaves are one knob for time + start immediately. One knob for power (that you use once a year): https://www.samsung.com/uk/microwave-ovens/solo/mw3000am-ms2...

They iterate over the design bits (black knobs on black microwave -> silver knobs on black microwave -> current design), but the microwave remains the same

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#256
post #5

Modern cars seem to be moving towards all controls on a touch screen somewhere. I suppose this allows for more frequent updates, but in my experience it just leads to more bugs and more painful factory updates. Not to mention using a touchscreen to adjust the temperature while driving is incredibly dangerous compared to a dial you can feel for without taking your eyes off the road.

My toyota Corolla has a touch screen for interacting with audio. It has the following delightful features: - latency - it has a boot procedure when you turn the car on. While this happens, the controls have quite substantial latency. However the first thing that happens is it begins playing audio. - there is a knob for adjusting volume, but it's still part of the same system as the rest of it. There is still substant…

I understand your critics against touchscreens and they are justified. Your car doesn’t have a good touchscreen interface from what you say and also from my experience when I drove the corollas from the car pool. However it’s not because many cars are bad that the technology is bad.

A touchscreen from an 20 years old Archos MP3 player is extremely bad while an iPad Pro M1 is very good.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I really wonder if the possibility of updates alone can make software worse. Absolutely does. You see this in console video games. As soon as online updates became possible, game-breaking bugs at launch became practically the norm, instead of incredibly rare ( minor bugs were common enough before ["I AM ERROR"], sure, but game-breaking ones, while not unheard of, were rare). Charging $60 for a late-alpha-quality pr…

I agree with what you are saying, except that "I AM ERROR" isn't actually a bug. The character is intentionally named that in Zelda II, even in the original Japanese.

And "Bagu" is mistranslated; his name is supposed to be "Bug".

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#258
post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I regularly drive a variety of electric cars (renault, smart, bmw, ford, VW) and besides the Smart For* series, which is cost-down so much that it doesn't even have a touchscreen, all of the cars have at least one feature available exclusively through the touchscreen. One of the most infuriating is Reanult's ZOË, which has really good physical controls for absolutely everything, except volume. That's the one not-driv…

The Tesla Model S has a physical volume control on the steering wheel. I’m not sure about the other Tesla models.

The Model 3 and the Model Y has one two. I would expect the Model X to have one as well. I’m not sure about the old roadster but the lotus interior was not high tech.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My toyota Corolla has a touch screen for interacting with audio. It has the following delightful features: - latency - it has a boot procedure when you turn the car on. While this happens, the controls have quite substantial latency. However the first thing that happens is it begins playing audio. - there is a knob for adjusting volume, but it's still part of the same system as the rest of it. There is still substant…

I understand your critics against touchscreens and they are justified. Your car doesn’t have a good touchscreen interface from what you say and also from my experience when I drove the corollas from the car pool. However it’s not because many cars are bad that the technology is bad. A touchscreen from an 20 years old Archos MP3 player is extremely bad while an iPad Pro M1 is very good.

Some tools are just not good for the job.

At least to me, I haven‘t seen a compelling reasons that touchscreens replacing analog car controls isn‘t a square peg going into a circle hole.

Re: The benefits of “low tech” user interfaces

#260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with what you are saying, except that "I AM ERROR" isn't actually a bug. The character is intentionally named that in Zelda II, even in the original Japanese.

Huh, TIL. I even had the game back in the day, and had no idea that wasn't an actual oversight.

Programmer joke. See my sibling comment to yours.
Post reply on HN