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

271–280 of 458 posts

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

#271

Post by p2t2p »

tfha wrote: post #197
jakear wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I detest touchscreens for most car functions. Specifically AC, with old fashioned knobs I have full control over AC without taking my eyes off the road, but nowadays everyone wants to put it on their infotainment system, hidden beneath 4 other buttons.

The emergency brake. I really need that to be a mechanical lever and not an electrical one. If something is going wrong on the road I need a backup brake that takes me under a second to activate while in a state of panic with my eyes glued to the road and it had better be functional.

That’s the worst thing you could do. You block your wheels and you totally loose control over the vehicle. ABS enabled bakes do stop you quicker while maintaining control over the vehicle.

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

#272

Post by mcswell »

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…

My Prius has manual controls for the A/C, but I get confused anyway...and, I think, for good reason.

What I have: There's one button that toggles A/C on/off; when it's on, a green LED glows in the button (the button is flush at all times). There's an up/down lever that increases/ decreases the fan speed: hold it up, and the fan speed increases by a notch every second or two, and similarly for down. When you let go, the lever reverts to the middle position. The fan speed shows in a series of bars in a tiny display above that switch. There's another up/down lever that controls the temp setting, although exactly what that does depends on whether the A/C is on (I think). Its current setting shows as numbers above that switch. There's another controller that determines whether the air goes to the front seat only, or the front + back; the setting for that appears on the main console screen, but only for a few seconds after you change it--after that, the main console reverts to showing engine status or something, depending on how that's set. Whether it goes to the driver only, or to the driver + front seat passenger, is determined by whether the car thinks there's a passenger (which it determines by weight on the seat). There are two other controls that determine whether the defrosters are on; I can't remember how you tell what they're set for.

What I wish: two knobs to control temp and fan settings; clockwise would be higher/ faster. A lever to determine air to the front/back seats. A toggle switch to turn the A/C on/off; up is on. Toggle switches for the front/rear defrosters.

What I'm glad I don't have: touch screen controls for all this.

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

#273

Post by o-__-o »

bonestamp2 wrote: post #222
yeutterg wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rear fog lights: something more cars should have in the US for this exact situation.

Or fewer. The only time I ever see them on is when it's a clear night and I'm getting blinded by the person in front of me. That said, they are pretty useful for more than fog... They're good for flashing at people behind you who don't have their headlights on.

...a rear fog light is an additional parking light on the rear driver side of your car to help other cars identify the width of your car in foggy or other incline to weather situations. They are not brighter than any other light that would regularly be present on that car. If it is brighter and blinding as you say, rest assured the car has been illegally modified and is subject to constant harassment by police in all other jurisdictions!

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

#274

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #95
liability wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Manual works just fine. I just drove clear across the Trans-Canadian Highway, east to west, in a car with manual controls and it all worked great. Your eyes stay on the road because sober people can reach out and grab objects, like knobs or buttons, without looking. If the matter of defrosting confuses you then maybe you should sit down in your car for five minutes and learn how the multi-ton machine works before att…

One: I think we can discuss this without condescension for anyone who doesn't agree with you. Two: You are making a false choice: Automatic settings need not replace manual ones. Essentially what we are talking about is a spot on the dial that says "auto" which you are free to not use, much like headlight controls on higher end cars.

But cars already have this. My 2014 Ford Edge has front/rear defrost/defog buttons and they work just fine. As "liability" said, the answer is warm, dry air which happily works for both the defrost and the defog requests.

Well, they worked fine, but my A/C just went out, so getting dehumidified air is a problem these days.

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

#275

Post by [deleted] »

brewdad wrote: post #137
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…

I had this discussion with my teenage child this week and neither of us are sure. Our state requires handsfree phone use but has the car touchscreen exception. Would operating Android Auto or CarPlay be illegal or does it fall under the allowed exceptions?

[deleted]

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

#277

Post by HeyLaughingBoy »

mhandley wrote: post #161
blackflame7000 wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know, when you take your drivers test in the US, you have to demonstrate your ability to know where all those functions are before you even pull away to start your test.

The real question, as I found yesterday, is can you switch on high-speed wipers, rear fog lights, hazard lights, and max-demist, in a few seconds, while you're devoting 99% of your brainpower to not crashing into an unseen vehicle slowing in front, not veering out of the lane that you can't really see, and glancing repeatedly in the mirror in case you're about to be rear-ended. The question is not whether you can ope…

The answer is you focus on dealing with what's in front of you, so turn on wipers and demist. If all the drivers do that, then no one needs to worry about what's happening behind them. After you take care of being able to see and control the car, then you worry about rear fogs and hazards.

And if it's really, really bad, pull over. Don't be like those idiots who decide to stop in the middle of a highway with 75mph traffic around them, under an overpass to protect themselves from a hailstorm.

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

#278

Post by other_herbert »

hrktb wrote: post #182
BurningFrog wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. For anything dynamic , an interface that can redraw itself in milliseconds has enormous advantages over mechanical knobs and levers. For managing permanent properties, I think mechanical interfaces are the best option, though of course vastly more costly.

You are right, but I think it goes beyond that. Any control interface is by definition acting on something dynamic, so even pushing a physical button, we expect the some status to reflect the result instantly. I think touchscreen could be best used as a step above joysticks, when an action cannot just be summed by a on/off (or +/-) state, or a vector in one direction. Imagine in a military setting if you need to open…

I think you just talked me into making some sort of huge steampunk button controller for slack... Have a label with the contact name, an incandescent lamp for new message status then a button to chose that to go to the conversation... Hmmm now all I need to find is some time

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

#279

Post by bigiain »

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…

> Has nobody researched this before spending a few hundred million dollars?

Of _course_ they did.

But nobody listens to the UX/HCI researchers and academics, when the touchscreen vendor's sales team are inviting them to fully catered lunches on a tropical golf course...

Business as usual.

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

#280

Post by haser_au »

bmurphy1976 wrote: post #170
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honest question: Why don't modern cars yet monitor humidity in and outside the car and make the correct decisions to keep your windows clear? Why are we focusing on self-driving cars while our cars are too dumb to do this much on their own?

Why don't cars have 2 batteries? One for starting the car, and the other for all the crap that tends to kill the battery when you most need it? Probably because it costs more money and nobody will pay for it. That's the best guess I have.

It's an add-on you can choose for cars, if you want to. A lot of service vehicles in Australia have 2 batteries for this reason. 1 for the vehicle, the second for chargers (USB, DC, etc), routers, fridges, cameras, etc.
Post reply on HN