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

351–360 of 458 posts

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

#351

Post by octorian »

Nextgrid wrote: post #15
octorian wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also because the people paying for the system aren’t the ones that will end up using it day to day. The system looks nice enough for the bean counters to approve it based on looks without soliciting actual user feedback (partly because those users are way lower down the food chain but also because of the mindset of the bean counters - they see it looks nice from their perspective but aren’t aware of the benefit of us…

This complete separation of "customer" and "user" is one reason I disliked working in the gov't contracting world.

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

#352

Post by TomK32 »

Izkata wrote: post #230
MisterTea wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it worked on Star Trek. Then again, that was addressed in a Voyager episode when Tom Paris designs the helm in their new runabout with old fashioned buttons and switches because he wanted to actually feel the controls much to Tuvok's dismay. Though, on a serious note, I work in industrial automation and user interfaces, aka HMI's have been touch oriented for quite some time. It was and still is common to see gr…

Star Trek's bridge controls can be reconfigured, but there's a standard static configuration that doesn't change while they're in use. This is also referenced at a different point in Voyager when Tuvok is annoyed by how Tom Paris uses a nonstandard configuration. So that at least reduces the need for constant visual contact.

It's it true that the whole bridge section can be separated and replaced from the saucer, which of course can also be separated from that thing with the engines?

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

#353

Post by octorian »

moksly wrote: post #86
octorian wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s complicated because it’s political. You have managers, politicians, project owners, project managers, business process consultants and the actual workers all influence decisions, and often the decision becomes some sort of compromise where everyone gets something because it’s, well political. At the same time, the public sector doesn’t operate like the tech sector. We may have 2500 employees who spend 37 hours a…

> it’s probably never going to compete with the private sector where you need great UI/UX if your competitors have it.

That's another problem with the gov't sector. You don't actually have competitors. Or more specifically, the competition is to get the contract, not to sell the product.

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

#354

Post by TomK32 »

MisterTea wrote: post #224
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…

Well, it worked on Star Trek. Then again, that was addressed in a Voyager episode when Tom Paris designs the helm in their new runabout with old fashioned buttons and switches because he wanted to actually feel the controls much to Tuvok's dismay. Though, on a serious note, I work in industrial automation and user interfaces, aka HMI's have been touch oriented for quite some time. It was and still is common to see gr…

Last year I had great fun trying out a new know that a local industrial company KEBA is working on/producing. The whole know is configureable. It can do resistances of any strength and direction, make the output run fast if you turn it fasst and then finetune slowly like you did on old radio. You can make it turn just one way or both, or limit it to part of the 360 degrees. You can give it that click feel to separate the 360 degrees into 10 positions, or even 11!

video in german https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJjp-P9jZCk

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

#355

Post by hutzlibu »

jimmaswell wrote: post #139
Someone1234 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't caused by any specific humidity levels. While it is depositing water droplets on to the glass surface, that same water is normally suspended harmlessly in the air (it is effectively de-humidifying the air onto the cold windows). It is caused by the glass's surface temperature being much lower than the air temperature inside the car. Humans are warm. The air we breath is warm. We're heating up the interior of…

What if the glass had some small heating applied to it constantly?

Complete waste of energy? Additional energy required for AC when it is hot?

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

#356

Post by reilly3000 »

o-__-o wrote: post #253
reilly3000 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting this patent literally just expired today: https://patents.google.com/patent/US5412296

Expired in 2012, buddy.

oops, read that last line incorrectly, its more of a status than an event.

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

#357

Post by StillBored »

devnulloverflow wrote: post #245
reificator wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Ever since mouses and GUIs were invented it was common knowledge that "ordinary" users don't bother to learn keyboard shortcuts. That common knowledge is wrong, but it comes from an important truth: brand new users who are not yet committed to your product will get frustrated if the thing they need to do is hidden away as a key-binding or command-line command. So successful products optimise for the UX of a user who…

This is something that has irritated me since windows/mac's started hiding the UI/shortcut hinting in favor of a "cleaner" interface. UI discoverability was a huge part of human/computer interaction research in the late 70's/80's.

If you look at the menu's in win3.1 for example you will see that nearly every menu item has both the alt-menu, keystroke, shortcut as well as the global keyboard shortcut to the right of the menu entry. AKA alt-f, s was save, but some applications might have also put another keyboard shortcut to the right say 'ctr-s' or something.

This means that your average user who kept clicking the file->save menu could see that alt-f,s (via the underlines) would perform the same function without the mouse, or just that there was a simple shortcut.

Windows gradually removed this, and in the xp timeframe you only saw the shortcuts when the alt key was pressed while the menus were active. This of course defeats the purpose of sticking the shortcut in the users face everytime they click the menu, and the concept has stuck around to the point where in win10 google is pretty much the only way to discover shortcuts if the even exist (which is hardly rare). This is part of the reason I stick to the classic interface in win7, with the right tweaks its still puts the keyboard shortcuts in your face.

I only wish that modern UI designers spent a day or two actually reading the human/computer guidelines/research before calling themselves experts..

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

#359

Post by hvidgaard »

IgorPartola wrote: post #128
dantillberg wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but could we maybe get a decent approximation of the windshield temperature from interior temperature, exterior temperature, and speed? Combined with interior/exterior humidity (maybe these gauges might be the expensive/finicky part of this project?), we could calculate a probability of window fogging. It doesn't have to be perfect -- we can have it just turn on the defrost whenever the probability of window fog…

You could do one of two things. First, a heated windshield like I believe some Landrovers have. It’s about $5000 to replace, last I heard, but it works. Second, a double pane windshield like house windows or some motorcycle helmet face shields. These work 100% of the time, but would definitely be more expensive as well.

You can get it for most Fords. It's one of my favorite features, and any car maker that caters to the more northern people should have that option.

When it's sort of cold, but not "ice on the car" cold, it works great as defogging. Way faster than waiting for the car to heat up. When there is ice on the car, you turn on the heaters and within a minute or two you can simply use your wipers to clear the window of ice.

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

#360

Post by DonHopkins »

starsinspace wrote: post #239
MisterTea wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it worked on Star Trek. Then again, that was addressed in a Voyager episode when Tom Paris designs the helm in their new runabout with old fashioned buttons and switches because he wanted to actually feel the controls much to Tuvok's dismay. Though, on a serious note, I work in industrial automation and user interfaces, aka HMI's have been touch oriented for quite some time. It was and still is common to see gr…

> Well, it worked on Star Trek. IIRC the official explanation from the makers of Star Trek is that the displays look like simple touch screens, but they are actually overlaid with structured force fields, so for the users it feels like a physical button press.

I saw a touch screen for controlling AV equipment at Sun decades ago that had a single solenoid underneath the glass that could thunk to provide tactile feedback as you pressed buttons and dragged sliders.
Post reply on HN