4 ms·
> where someone has to physically press a button, there are no moving parts, thus it must be software controlled. If the microphone uses an amplifier, you coul
by kinsomo 8y ago
> where someone has to physically press a button, there are no moving parts, thus it must be software controlled.
If the microphone uses an amplifier, you could wire an LED to light when power is supplied to the amp. The indicator light is physically part of the circuit, so its operation cannot be modified by software. There are probably other, better, ways to do it, I'm not an electronics guy.
- DiabloD3 8y agoDue to watchword detection, the microphone amp would always be on.
- kinsomo 8y ago> Due to watchword detection, the microphone amp would always be on. I don't think that would be a bad thing; especially if there's a switch to disable the mic. When you turn it off, you'll get reliable feedback to know it's actually off. I think it's important that these kinds of devices have simple feedback and control mechanisms that can be independently verified and reasoned about. Software is too opaque and too untrustworthy.
- jclardy 8y agoI don't disagree, but the light ring is also important to know that it actually heard your command. Having it on all the time would make the UX much worse. Unless it was a separate light.
- kinsomo 8y ago> I don't disagree, but the light ring is also important to know that it actually heard your command. Having it on all the time would make the UX much worse. Unless it was a separate light. I see that, I think it would be best as a separate light. I think product UX has drifted too far towards blank monoliths; I know I wouldn't mind a few more blinkenlights :)
- EpicEng 8y agoYeah, except for the fact that I have one in my room and I haven't desired a night light for about 30 years.