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

31–40 of 458 posts

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

#31

Post by ocdtrekkie »

mhandley wrote: post #18
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.

Yesterday I was driving back from Scotland to England, doing 70ish, when we ran into a really heavy thunderstorm. Went from good visibility to almost zero in seconds, and the only thing I could properly see was the crash barrier alongside the lane. I found myself desperately trying to see where the road was, simultaneously trying not to get rear-ended as I slowed up, switch on the rear fog lamps and hazards, max wipe…

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?

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

#32

Post by jbay808 »

octorian wrote: post #13
situational87 wrote: post #4

I'm having trouble visualizing exactly how this works from the text, but it sounds like a total nightmare. Some sort of complicated list of steps for transferring control screens between different stations on the ship, and it's not clear why or when you do this at all. I'm guessing the Navy doesn't spend a lot of time on UI/UX, which is ironic since these long, high-stress shifts with lives on the line is exactly whe…

In my own experience, any software developed under government contract has horrendous UI/UX. Probably because it's hard to specify "don't suck and be pleasant to use" in terms of formal system requirements.

I've had hits and misses. I think in general it's easy to not notice good UI because it just blends into your expectations, while bad UI stands out.

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

#34

Post by hrktb »

gorbot wrote: post #9

Man for something like the main controls you would expect it to be manual. Picture Boeing moving plane controls to touchscreen - I thing it would be disastrous. I bet the navy had contractors up selling touchscreen tech like crazy. So many more points of failure for touchscreens it seems crazy

At this point is “manual” even accurate, as these controls are gradually not linked to anything ? (thus allowing to move control around, or input adjustement for instance)

Also (from 2016): http://www.boeing.com/777x/reveal/touchscreens-come-to-777x-...

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

#35

Post by Someone1234 »

jakear wrote: post #5
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…

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.

This is often repeated but not the complete picture.

Modern, knob based, vehicle climate control systems actually bury a lot of functionality. For example Toyota's "automatic" AC you can either pick between fully automatic or a subset of manual controls. That's because they ran out of space/complexity headroom for more controls.

Touch screen climate control integrates better with voice (which you should be using while driving), offers better fine-grain control, more information (like CURRENT interior temp rather than just outside/target temp), and can offer new functionality (like profiles/pre-sets, additional automatic modes, memory climate, linked seat heat & cool/positional vents, etc).

I dislike several touch screen based climate control systems I've used. But that's because they're BAD. Car manufacturers are bad at making touch screen systems. But let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater. There's a lot of good reasons to go that direction, car manufacturers just need to work on UX a lot.

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

#36

Post by everybodyknows »

>That setting meant that any crew member at another station could take over steering operations, and when the crew tried to regain control of the ship from multiple stations, control “shifted from the lee helm, to aft steering, to the helm, and back to aft steering.”

There's some parallel here to Air France 447, where crew fed opposing inputs to flight controls, with reportedly zero tactile feedback, as it pancaked into the ocean.

>https://news.aviation-safety.net/2012/07/09/bea-issues-final...

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

#37

Post by liability »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #31
mhandley wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yesterday I was driving back from Scotland to England, doing 70ish, when we ran into a really heavy thunderstorm. Went from good visibility to almost zero in seconds, and the only thing I could properly see was the crash barrier alongside the lane. I found myself desperately trying to see where the road was, simultaneously trying not to get rear-ended as I slowed up, switch on the rear fog lamps and hazards, max wipe…

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?

Because when the sensor goes screwy I don't want my car to start flipping shit like the defroster on when it's not needed? Because manual controls make such automation totally unnecessary? Because even if the automated system were designed to be "fail safe", the state that's 'safe' is actually context dependent, therefore manual controls will be necessary anyway?

It ain't broke, so stop trying to 'fix' it.

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

#38

Post by ocdtrekkie »

Someone1234 wrote: post #35
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.

This is often repeated but not the complete picture. Modern, knob based, vehicle climate control systems actually bury a lot of functionality. For example Toyota's "automatic" AC you can either pick between fully automatic or a subset of manual controls. That's because they ran out of space/complexity headroom for more controls. Touch screen climate control integrates better with voice (which you should be using whil…

I feel like you're making some very false choices between smarts/voice compatibility and physical controls. Physical buttons and dials for users to interact with that still can be changed by the system are wholly possible. For instance, a rocker switch that sits in the middle can be used to issue on and off commands, while being separate from say, a status light that lets you know whether the device is on or off.

Which is to say, I think you're significantly limiting what you believe is possible with physical UX.

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

#39

Post by flowless »

Quequau wrote: post #26

Recently I've taken up metal machining as a semi-serious hobby. Fully automated CNC machines don't entirely fit my use-cases but for a couple of them LinuxCNC works fine. The primary UI for LinuxCNC is a touchscreen and frankly it's a frustrating limitation. LCD Touchscreens are just not well suited for that sort of environment. Legit OEM CNC controls are better but honestly every time I use one I can't but feel like…

LinuxCNC (at least Axis) can be controlled by keyboard - F1 is especially handy to stop the job in progress if anything goes wrong. Arrow keys can be used for jogging, with shift it uses max travel speeds but dedicated CNC pendant for jogging is on my TODO list as well as standalone DRO with 7 segment displays.

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

#40

Post by pg_is_a_butt »

Someone1234 wrote: post #35
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.

This is often repeated but not the complete picture. Modern, knob based, vehicle climate control systems actually bury a lot of functionality. For example Toyota's "automatic" AC you can either pick between fully automatic or a subset of manual controls. That's because they ran out of space/complexity headroom for more controls. Touch screen climate control integrates better with voice (which you should be using whil…

[flagged]
Post reply on HN