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

421–430 of 458 posts

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

#421

Post by Shorel »

Aser wrote: post #382
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…

I totally agree that a combination of physical controls and touchscreen is the way to go. However there are ways to improve the design for touchscreen. Virtual knobs in my experience are pretty difficult to use on a screen, however sliders work reasonably well in their place. Most industrial touchscreens I've seen are resistive which makes them much more difficult to use, especially for dragging motions, so that may…

I have a Kobo Glo HD with what I think is one or more IR sensors for the touchscreen. It is very sensitive, even a fly walking on the screen will activate it.

I bought an origami cover for the reader, so it can be put at an angle on the desk.

The combination of both mean that I need to turn it off, otherwise it would randomly switch pages when it is in my pocket.

I miss my first Kindle with its physical page turning buttons.

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

#422

Post by LambdaComplex »

ubermonkey wrote: post #396
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…

>It is awful for keyboards (see macbook pro) I've never seen a MacBook Pro with a touchscreen keyboard. Can you point me at one?

Probably referring to the Touch Bar: https://assets.pcmag.com/media/images/548053-touch-bar.jpg?t...

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

#423

Post by Shorel »

yoz-y wrote: post #380
kokx wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you mean that you have physical keys which you can remap, such as the Optimus Maximus keyboard concept [1], that would indeed be a great idea. However, I would not be certain if I could type well on a full-touch screen keyboard such as the Optimus Tactus [2]. I do my typing blindly, having a touch screen would constantly require me to find the correct position for my fingers by look. While on a normal keyboard tha…

I wonder how much would it be possible to touch-type on a touchscreen. I don't look at my phone keyboard anymore and type quite fast on it.

Shorthand writing should also work very fast on modern phone screens.

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

#424

Post by Shorel »

Razengan wrote: post #341
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…

Having an input system with haptic feedback but also context-based controls and customizable layouts is still the Holy Grail. Apple could still make it happen with a future version of their Taptic Engine. Preferably with hover haptic feedback, where you feel a "tingle" or something before touching the screen.

So, the closest we have to the Holy grail of input systems is the Steam Controller?

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

#425

Post by aloer »

itsyogesh wrote: post #330
gugagore wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine the star trek interact can really apply arbitrary forces. So you can simulate a knob for example. Not just a tactile sensation when you're already in (near) contact with the interface.

Isn't this what Project Soli [0] was trying to achieve. [0] https://atap.google.com/soli/

Afaik soli is the recognition part (through radar).

Something that creates physical feedback is for example that Disney VR project where they use air to create the feeling of resistance

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

#426

Post by ssully »

SmellyGeekBoy wrote: post #410
coldpie wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I loved how my XBox would turn on and do its 60 second boot sequence every time I dusted it. What a nice feature.

Or when a cat brushes past, in our case.

My dog intentionally turns on my PS4 in the morning. When she turns on the PS4 it automatically turns on the TV and will play the soothing main menu music. We aren't sure if she does it for the music, the light from the TV, or the beeping noise from when you first press the button, but she has been doing it almost every morning for the last year and a half.

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

#427

Post by CharlesColeman »

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…

> Why was touchscreen ever even a consideration for controls you're not looking at?

Touchscreens are the future™

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

#428

Post by wolf550e »

crooked-v wrote: post #260
mrweasel wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not going to argue that the navy should be allow insane schedule, if it's due to budget or poor planing, but in case of a real war maybe you can't expect the grew to get a full 8 hour sleep. A warship need to be able to operate under the worst of circumstances. In that case every move you make needs to be reflex, and I can imagine that touchscreens aren't ideal for quick precise motions, done by reflex, after onl…

This is less than 5 hours of sleep in peacetime, though. How much sleep do you think they'd actually get with a war on?

Their daily task list will change. They might cancel some kinds of training and some kinds of cleaning during wartime.

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

#429

Post by magduf »

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…

>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.

I didn't watch Voyager much, and never saw that episode, but this is extremely disappointing. The ST:TNG Technical Manual (which came out before VOY) clearly addressed this issue, way way back in the early 90s. You can actually feel touchscreen controls, because they have miniature force fields/tractor beams that provide the same tactile sensation you get with mechanical controls. Didn't the writers of VOY ever read the TNG Tech Manual?

It's of course even more disappointing that a sci-fi TV show in the 80s/90s was able to address this important HMI issue in a book meant just for geeky fans, yet 25 years later people in the industry still don't get it. Of course, we don't have tractor beams or force fields to implement what they wrote about in the tech manual, but it does show the show's technical consultants were thinking about and aware of this issue back then, 15 years before slate-style smartphones were even invented, and that maybe we should not be using touchscreens for certain controls until we do have force fields or some other workaround.

>and I mean HATED the touch screen when it came to virtual potentiometers (one operator got up and walked away saying "this screen is a fucking piece of shit")

That operator was correct. Virtual potentiometers on a touchscreen are a horrible idea and miserable to use.

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

#430

Post by magduf »

amiga-workbench wrote: post #386
TomK32 wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The bridge modules can be fairly easily swapped out in drydock, but I don't believe that can be done while underway. The Galaxy class was the first class of ship with a saucer separation system that could be re-attached while in flight. I believe the Constitution class did have the ability to separate its saucer, but that was accomplished with explosive bolts and it couldn't re-attach without being in drydock.

That galaxy-class saucer separation thing was honestly not a great idea, and it was somewhat annoying when they used it in the episodes. The problem with it is that only the "stardrive" section has warp capability, so what good is it to be able to separate except for using the saucer as a last-resort escape pod in case of warp engine failure? The saucer is simply too slow to go anywhere in a reasonable amount of time without a warp engine: at sublight speeds, it would take years just to get to the closest star system. This is probably one of the most annoying things about Star Trek: they completely ignored speed-of-light issues like this too often. Using "warp drive" as a plot device to get the characters from system to system in a week or less at FTL speeds is fine, but if you're going to do that, don't fall back on sublight "impulse drive" as something that's actually useful for anything except getting into and out of orbit.
Post reply on HN