Slashdot Log In
Death of the Button? Analog vs. Digital
Posted by
Zonk
on Fri Mar 30, 2007 04:27 PM
from the long-live-the-knob dept.
from the long-live-the-knob dept.
mattnyc99 writes "Instapundit's Glenn Reynolds is sick of navigating menus to turn up the heat—while he's trying to drive. His take in the article (as well as a a no-holds-barred podcast) is that modern tech product designers should get back to analog controls before iPhone users get sick of looking down at their touchscreen everytime they dial without a dial. It may be up to you: Whither dangerous auto technology, or long live the touchscreen?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Death of the Button? Analog vs. Digital
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 329 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Why is the IDrive confusing? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.vino2vino.com/)
The author complains about BMW's idrive control [wikipedia.org] (more info here [bmwusa.com]), but I think it is a good solution to this problem. It's a universal control that gives you a tactile interface without tons of buttons and knobs. Once you get used to it, it's actually pretty easy to use.
The problem with analog controls is that you can't add/remove them easily once a device is made. BMW, for example, updates the software in their vehicles periodically, adding and removing features. Without some sort of universal control system this is much more difficult to do.
Re:Why is the IDrive confusing? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why is the IDrive confusing? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why is the IDrive confusing? (Score:4, Funny)
I tried the same thing on my Prius, but it replied "Wouldn't you prefer a nice game of chess?"
Re:Why is the IDrive confusing? (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Wednesday July 11, @08:27PM)
Re:Why is the IDrive confusing? (Score:4, Funny)
(http://conceptjunkie.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Monday August 25 2003, @10:22PM)
Voice control is great as long as it doesn't get the Temperature and Cruise Control commands confused.
"Honest officer, I couldn't have been doing 75 in a 35 zone, I set the cruise control. You say there's frost on the outside of my windows?!"
That's a manufacturing "problem". (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a manufacturing "problem".
Consumers are concerned with control.
Making it easy for the manufacturer to crank out more units or less expensive units or whatever isn't important when the consumer has more difficulty USING those devices.
Apple did great with the iPod. Most companies aren't as focused on the customers.
Re:Why is the IDrive confusing? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.ccimackay.com/~dgriffith | Last Journal: Tuesday May 31 2005, @01:29AM)
In my car, I have a number of buttons and knobs, some on the dash, on the steering column, on the wheel itself. Each one can be operated without looking at it and each one does some specific function. Indeed, the most useful buttons on the stereo can be used even on the most potholed streets by putting your hand on the gearstick and using your index finger without drama.
But a display-that-changes-with-knob is a solution that is also a problem: The display changes, allowing more controls to occupy the same space. Good, for getting more functionality, bad for having to navigate through it all.
So, I want to access some function. I need to :
- Look at the screen and determine "where I am" in the menu system.
- I have to navigate to the selection I want, from where I was before. This may involve going up a few menu layers and then back down.
- Which takes a varying amount of rotation/clicks/whatever, depending on where I was. Each step generally requires visual confirmation that you're actually heading in the right direction to get where you want to be in the system.
Every time I do this, I am temporarily distracted from my main task, which is driving the car safely.
Re:Why is the IDrive confusing? (Score:5, Insightful)
And the problem with "digital", or maybe more appropriately, "soft", controls is that you can't feel them. Like they say: "'iDrive', you work this thing." There are many situations where it's safer, better or more appropriate to locate a control by feel. If you can't feel it, you're losing some sensory input.
A self-deforming input device that could form itself into buttons or whatever would be a neat solution to reconfiguring your input device. Too bad I have no idea of how that could be accomplished.
Re:Why is the IDrive confusing? (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.intelligentblogger.com/ | Last Journal: Monday August 27, @11:47AM)
Place actuators behind a flexible display device. With a large enough array of them, you could describe nearly any raised shape.
The simplest form would be to assume that the buttons will conform to a set division of the screen space. e.g. 5x5 blocks that can be actuated up and down. A more complex form would look like those pin tables where you can push on the arrays of pins to outline your hand. This could easy give resolutions as high as 50x50 pins.
Contextual Menus are Evil (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Wednesday February 21 2007, @08:20AM)
Heck, you can probably make an 80/20 rule for it:
1) 80% of the time, users are interacting on 20% of the function.
Come to think of it, it's simpler than that:
2) 80% of the time, users want one of four functions. Oh yeah, and might as well throw in
3) with a button interface, users can "spatially remember" three distinct buttons without looking (or training).
and
4) with a dial, that "spatial memory" becomes 5 discrete positions, and a whole mess of sweet intension/remission levels (=volume, tuning have much higher response times).
So design-wise, you want 5 dials maximum. Of those dials, four are fixed in function, and one changes the paradigm (and presumably some of the other dials' function). The main things anyone would want to do are there, and they're there at the first level.
If you wanted to have a similar arrangement with keys, you'd need between 10 and 25 keys. It would not make sense.
Re:Why is the IDrive confusing? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.stormcenter.net/ | Last Journal: Friday January 16 2004, @11:14PM)
Why?
It sucks.
The concept wasn't bad. The implementation blew chunks.
(I understand the latest versions don't suck so bad, and I admit to not having worked with one on a couple of years.)
As for analog controls, in a vehicle at least, not having them change is kind of the point. Do you really want to activate the wrong thing because the manufacturer moved it? Or, worse, plow into another vehicle because you were reading the new menu rather than watching the road?
As for adding analog controls, it's trivial. Most modern cars have several places already available to add new switches as needed. Even when they don't, there's pre-fab mounting systems available. It's even possible to modify the existing ones in a lot of cases.
Sorry. Touch screens and the like are awesome for PDA's, phones, media remotes, and a bazillion other devices. They do not belong in a vehicle's control system. There is a reason that aircraft flap levers and landing gear controls -feel- like little flaps and wheels on the end. You don't need to look at them to know you've got the right control. Where you find touch screens is in the controls and devices that aren't used in situations where the operator's attention needs to be on the vehicle. (HoTaS, anyone?) Same thing goes for ground vehicles. If you've got to take your eyes off the road to operate the control it's a bad idea. Period.
Mostly isn't good enough (Score:5, Insightful)
but after a week or two I could navigate the menus quickly and without fuss, and while mostly keeping my eyes on the road
As someone who drives near vehicles that might be BMWs, I have a problem with that 'mostly' bit. Any system that requires you to not look at the road to use it is broken.
Thirdly, about the criticisms that it's unsafe to use while driving? No shit sherlock. Neither is your cell phone. Or putting on makeup. Or shaving. Or eating lunch. But people do those without blaming the manufacturers or restaurants or stores that sell the necessary equipment.
Slight problem with that analogy: cell phones, makup and lunch are generally designed to be used in places that AREN'T CARS. Your iDrive isn't. There is a 100% chance that the driver is actually in the car while using it. Therefore, it should be designed to be used without looking.
Re:Why is the IDrive confusing? (Score:4, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Monday November 07 2005, @10:05AM)
Why would I want the controls in my car to change?? It's confusing enough when my husband decides to reprogram the radio buttons so that the stations are in numerical order. When I'm driving, I want to be able to control the heat, radio, wipers, etc with no more than a cursory glance downward to be sure I'm aiming in the right general direction, if that. I don't want to push what I think is the A/C button and have my headlights turn off.
Re:Why is the IDrive confusing? (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.splatterfish.com/)
The iDrive is typical German engineering BS. Some asshole in Munich decided that the hundred year old system of analogue controls wasn't the "right" way to do it, and decided to invent a "right" way. What they came up with was a beautifully thought out, near-perfect solution. Problem? IT ONLY MAKES SENSE TO A GERMAN ENGINEER. Anyone who has worked on a VW/Audi/Porsche/MB/BMW knows what I'm talking about. Anyone who has worked on German industrial equipment (leistritz, anyone?) also knows what I'm talking about.
German engineers are arrogant bastards. They know what's best and don't give a crap about what anyone else thinks. Nothing is designed around the user, who probably doesn't want to use the product in the right way after all. "Cupholders in a car?! PSHHHHH! You shouldn't be eating in the car!" It's all designed around some magical ideal existing in some engineer's brain. It leads to some very nice products that are _awful_ to work with. When JD Powers (or consumer reports?) came out with the latest reliability ratings, BMW was tied with Toyota for fewest initial defects in their products. But, because their cars were so insanely confusing for the car buying public, BMW had more dealership visits than just about any other car company. People would bring in their cars thinking their radios were broken, only to find out that no, everything is working correctly, but they hadn't gotten to page 267 of the manual where it describes how to change stations.
In my mind, new features are pointless if they're not highly usable. My mom, god bless her technophobic soul, can pick up an iPod and use it right away. Put her in front of an iDrive and she'd spend two weeks trying to figure it out. Meanwhile, she could jump into just about any car made before the 00's and be perfectly at home. Sure, there might be a new button or two, but for gods sake, she'd at least be able to turn on the radio! "The users are ignorant and should read the manual" is no excuse. If 90% of your customers are horribly confused, you have NOT done your job.
The knob? (Score:4, Funny)
from the long-live-the-knob dept.
Well, there's a sentiment we don't see every day.
Voice recognition (Score:4, Insightful)
"car, turn up the air conditioning and close the windows."
Oh, and gags to keep the kids quiet.
Re:Voice recognition (Score:5, Funny)
I'm sorry, Dave, I can't do it.
Re:Voice recognition (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Voice recognition (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Voice recognition (Score:5, Insightful)
Touchscreen phones (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Thursday November 08, @06:56PM)
My futuristic moon man technology is called a "Treo 650". You guys arent advanced enough to pronounce that correctly, but trust me, it's a complete rip off of the iPhone in every way. In my time only the richest kings of the undersea realm of europe can afford a true iPhone.
This device I speak of, has a touch screen, and dialing with it requires you to look directly at it.
However, it is fortunate I am so poor and underprivileged, as this device also has an analog keypad, with numbers affixed to some of the keys. The central of these numbers is marked with a little nib, enabling my advanced moon man fingers to dial by my tactile sense alone.
I wish you great success with your iPhone, this is a new technological age for humanity. You are about to behold the awesome power of "a phone that can play mp3s and also has a camera in it".
I pray you use this technology wisely.
Good example (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://www.mobydisk.com/)
My mom was an amatuer photographer who used a fully manual camera in the 70's. I bought her a very easy to use Canon Powershot with the same features, and she was completely lost. Imagine this: She wants to set the f-stop, aperture, and exposure time. On her old Miranda [geocities.com] that was a switch, a knob, and a slider (or something like that). Now, it's switch to "M" mode, then arrow left to one setting, then arrow up and down, then arrow right, then repeat for the next setting... it takes 10 times longer, and the buttons are much smaller and harder to push. She can't just go by feel while looking at the screen or viewfinder.
Buttons are not the universal replacement for all settings for the same reason that the mouse cannot replace a keyboard and vice-versa. There are multi-modal input devices which map better to some things than others. Use the most appropriate input for each setting. It actually makes it easier.
Oh, and more buttons isn't the answer.
Re:Good example (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://nedwolf.com/ | Last Journal: Friday September 30 2005, @01:10PM)
Pre-digital photographers had at minimum a basic understanding of film speed, depth of field, aperture size, and shutter speed. If you knew these four things, you could take any SLR manufactured before 1990 and use it immediately. Now, every camera has to be figured out. Every camera has a different interface. And I'm talking about the point and shoots.
The worst thing is when they are in some useless "mode" like "sepia/old fashioned" or "birthday candle" and you are missing a great shot because you can't figure out how to turn it off.
Rant. Rant. Rant. Young whippersnappers. Etc.
Re:Good example (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://goat.cexx.org/)
Re:Good example (Score:5, Informative)
My parent's 1970's Canon is soooooooo much easier to use, it has knobs for the settings, it has a field-of-view diagram on the lens (I have to guess with mine), a split for perfecting focus on what you want in focus (I have to trust the autofocus or just eyeball it) and I know it's been dropped onto rocks in a flowing stream at least once and survived (I have not tested that with mine).
My camera's interface is a tiny LCD and microscopic buttons. You can see the settings more clearly when you look through the viewfinder, but then you can't see the tiny buttons you need to press. And the worst part: if stop pressing buttons long enough to arrange your shot (10 or so seconds) the camera times out and deletes all the settings you spent the last 5 minutes perfecting.
Re:Good example (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://www.doofus.org/)
The best part is I can work most of these settings without having to take my eye off of the viewfinder. Same thing with a car. I should not have to take my eyes off of the road to change the radio station, adjust the volume, change the temperature, etc. In my case, my car has both menus and a touch screen as well as all of the common controls as individual buttons on the steering wheel, and each button has a different feel so I don't need to look down. It took a bit of learning where all of the controls are, but now it's second nature. Once in a while I need to use the menus, but not very often. And there are many other functions that I can control by voice. I.e. if I don't want to take my eyes off the road to see what the temperature setting is, I just press a button and say "temperature 72 degrees" and it just does it. Or with the navigation system I say "address" and speak the address. If I'm low on gas, just say "gas stations", etc.
Re:Good example (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the problem is the designers are out-thinking themselves.
They are interested in making the simplest, cleanest, and (they think) easiest to use controls. The problem is that these may actually be contradictory. Consider the control setup for a car, for instance: In my car there are buttons, and switches, and sliders, and knobs. Also levers, levers with buttons, and levers with knobs. Also knobs with buttons. And a D-pad with a switch in it. Not to mention the wheel, which is like a giant knob, which additionally holds buttons and switches. Furthermore, there are large analog force feedback buttons, that you control with your feet.
Looking at it out of context, it sounds fiendishly abstruse. If you proposed this interface for anything out of the blue, I'm sure your average designer would be up in arms, "That's way to complicated! How is the customer going to learn all that? How will they find all of it? Why don't we use a nice contextual menu instead?"
What they forget is that humans have strong spatial memory, and are quite adept at using a number of different control types. In many cases having a different control type actually helps the user by making that operation distinct, and providing unique feedback. In their drive for simplicity, they underestimate the human element, and end up inadvertently stunting the flow of information between device and user.
There's a simple way to get what he wants (Score:3, Funny)
Fund a study of these things as a driving distraction. If they're equally as or more distracting than cell phones, you should be able to lobby a bunch of key, high-income municipalities into instituting an eventual ban on operating touchscreens while driving. Voila, the engineers of taste rediscover analog charm.
OK, maybe it's not that simple. It's still possible.
Money (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
What we need is tactile touch screens (Score:5, Interesting)
the folly of youth (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://microsoft.toddverbeek.com/)
Anyone notice what the main control on the iPod is? It's fundamentally a knob (implemented digitally). And that's no small part of the product's success.
pinnacle of analog controls? (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the design goals was that the user should be able to operate the unit in complete darkness going only by feel. To that end, controls were placed far apart, on a couple different planes of the unit, had distinct shapes, and switched in different directions. Stateful controls changed position enough that you could feel what state it was in without looking. There were no status lights (other than the VU meter) to look at as I recall.
Here's a picture:
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue16/advent.h
Anyway, ever since then I've always felt that user interfaces should be tactile and show their state in a physical sense. You should be able to make changes even with the power off, and you shouldn't have to look at indicator lights to figure out what's going on.
While a lot of appliances don't require this level of UI "analogness", it is something that should be carefully considered for automotive instrument panel design, since that is definitely a "must be operable in total darkness" situation.
Digital Cameras (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://guillem.cantallops.net/)
Digital Cameras, Pro or Semi-Pro (i.e. not the point & shoot ones) with...
Why? Well, you don't need to look at the controls to operate them. That's good.
car menu (Score:4, Funny)
a: Accelerator (30%)
b: Breaks (0%)
c: Steering (+23 degrees)
d: Extra menu
Please select a control: [abcd]
When was the last time (Score:3, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Tuesday May 15, @04:19PM)