6 ms·

"It would almost certainly not have a keyboard, but would use swipe commands on a touch screen. If that were not possible, due to having to wear gloves, the int

"It would almost certainly not have a keyboard, but would use swipe commands on a touch screen. If that were not possible, due to having to wear gloves, the interface might be through gestures, eye movement or some other intuitive interface." I'm not quite sure, it was only recently here on HN that we discussed Mazda taking out touchscreens from cars[0]. I don't see any problems with keyboards or other mechanical input devices; experience and discourse shows it might even be preferable. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20200335 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20200335

reallydude 7y ago
There are special gloves, that I have, which allow for gestures on my phone. It uses some sort of special mesh on the outside.
sillyquiet 7y ago
Yeah to add to this - I think physical knobs and switches and dials will be the preferred inputs for the mission critical controls of a space craft (and probably, anywhere, really). I think all the movies and tv shows that showcase the fancy future touch screens and minority-report style gesture displays will feel as quaint and dated in the next couple decades as Star Trek TOS's incandescent bulb arrays and paper readouts are to us now.
- naavis 7y ago
  Agreed. I think touchscreens are gaining popularity in consumer devices for a large part because they are cheap compared to mechanical inputs. Mechanical switches, dials and buttons are surprisingly expensive. But when it comes to spacecraft and such, the relative price of these components is insignificant.
  - bluGill 7y ago
    There will be a mix. Touch screens are cheap and light compared to mechanical switches. However mechanical switches have a large usability edge. Anything critical or used often will get a mechanical control. However for things that are not critical AND not accessed often a touch screen is cheap and flexible.
  - gargravarr 7y ago
    Touchscreens are ideal for consumer devices because it means not having to commit to a single UI design - you can move buttons around onscreen as needed, overhaul the software to put things in a new place as you like, and not having to worry that the dial the user turns is tied to a value box that is now on the opposite side of the screen. Not only is it cheaper from a component perspective, but it's cheaper from a design perspective - you don't have to finalise the design for the UI before it goes to manufacturing, just tell the factory to stick a large enough touchscreen in the centre and the UI can be added later, after the various teams have finished arguing. What they are not, however, is intuitive, much as designers like to say they are - there is zero consistency in the UX between devices, buttons all look different, sometimes between updates, and half the time you open an app, it's a dice roll whether it's going to work the same it did last time. There is also no inherent tactile feedback - phones have haptic vibrators to simulate a button press, but there is no other feedback, and you can't feel the buttons with your fingertips before pushing them. You have to be looking directly at the screen to find the control you need - when the device is primarily designed to be in your hand, it's kind of acceptable, but when it's a control panel for something vital, this simply won't work; your eyes are supposed to be fixed on what the control panel is controlling. These reasons are why Mazda has backed out of using them for cars - your eyes need to be on the road. You can change fan and temperature settings by touch alone once you know where the controls are. In Apollo 13, if Jim Lovell had to keep looking at a touchscreen to make sure he was actually pushing the thrust control in the right direction while keeping his visual fix on the Moon, there's a great chance he'd have sent the stack spinning off into space.
    - seeker61 7y ago
      I agree with this 100.000 percent. UX people in general have crawled up their own stacks and died.
shartshooter 7y ago
The redesign of the F-35 cockpit is going to include touchscreens[0]. I agree that I would prefer physical knobs/dials/buttons to a touch screen but it looks like that's not the direction flight systems are going so I'd have to assume space flight systems will follow suit. [0] https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2017-07-19/elbit-awarded-contract-develop-f-35-display-replacement https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2017-07-19/e...
- deathtrap 7y ago
  Holy shit. The F-35 is now officially a disposable death trap. I might have defended the concept of a versatile supersonic stealth VTOL, years ago. But military systems should possess degrees of mechanical redundancy. If you're sitting inside an airframe that's 100% fly by wire, and the glass cockpit is all touchscreens, you have to figure there's no expectation that despite the price tag, they are viewed as disposable and most likely not equipped to survive electromagnetic pulses. Any pilot can only trust that they're a passenger in a drone with a bubble dome, and little else.

reallydude 7y ago

There are special gloves, that I have, which allow for gestures on my phone. It uses some sort of special mesh on the outside.

sillyquiet 7y ago

Yeah to add to this - I think physical knobs and switches and dials will be the preferred inputs for the mission critical controls of a space craft (and probably, anywhere, really). I think all the movies and tv shows that showcase the fancy future touch screens and minority-report style gesture displays will feel as quaint and dated in the next couple decades as Star Trek TOS's incandescent bulb arrays and paper readouts are to us now.

naavis 7y ago
Agreed. I think touchscreens are gaining popularity in consumer devices for a large part because they are cheap compared to mechanical inputs. Mechanical switches, dials and buttons are surprisingly expensive. But when it comes to spacecraft and such, the relative price of these components is insignificant.
- bluGill 7y ago
  There will be a mix. Touch screens are cheap and light compared to mechanical switches. However mechanical switches have a large usability edge. Anything critical or used often will get a mechanical control. However for things that are not critical AND not accessed often a touch screen is cheap and flexible.
- gargravarr 7y ago
  Touchscreens are ideal for consumer devices because it means not having to commit to a single UI design - you can move buttons around onscreen as needed, overhaul the software to put things in a new place as you like, and not having to worry that the dial the user turns is tied to a value box that is now on the opposite side of the screen. Not only is it cheaper from a component perspective, but it's cheaper from a design perspective - you don't have to finalise the design for the UI before it goes to manufacturing, just tell the factory to stick a large enough touchscreen in the centre and the UI can be added later, after the various teams have finished arguing. What they are not, however, is intuitive, much as designers like to say they are - there is zero consistency in the UX between devices, buttons all look different, sometimes between updates, and half the time you open an app, it's a dice roll whether it's going to work the same it did last time. There is also no inherent tactile feedback - phones have haptic vibrators to simulate a button press, but there is no other feedback, and you can't feel the buttons with your fingertips before pushing them. You have to be looking directly at the screen to find the control you need - when the device is primarily designed to be in your hand, it's kind of acceptable, but when it's a control panel for something vital, this simply won't work; your eyes are supposed to be fixed on what the control panel is controlling. These reasons are why Mazda has backed out of using them for cars - your eyes need to be on the road. You can change fan and temperature settings by touch alone once you know where the controls are. In Apollo 13, if Jim Lovell had to keep looking at a touchscreen to make sure he was actually pushing the thrust control in the right direction while keeping his visual fix on the Moon, there's a great chance he'd have sent the stack spinning off into space.
  - seeker61 7y ago
    I agree with this 100.000 percent. UX people in general have crawled up their own stacks and died.

shartshooter 7y ago

The redesign of the F-35 cockpit is going to include touchscreens[0]. I agree that I would prefer physical knobs/dials/buttons to a touch screen but it looks like that's not the direction flight systems are going so I'd have to assume space flight systems will follow suit. [0] https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2017-07-19/elbit-awarded-contract-develop-f-35-display-replacement https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2017-07-19/e...

deathtrap 7y ago
Holy shit. The F-35 is now officially a disposable death trap. I might have defended the concept of a versatile supersonic stealth VTOL, years ago. But military systems should possess degrees of mechanical redundancy. If you're sitting inside an airframe that's 100% fly by wire, and the glass cockpit is all touchscreens, you have to figure there's no expectation that despite the price tag, they are viewed as disposable and most likely not equipped to survive electromagnetic pulses. Any pilot can only trust that they're a passenger in a drone with a bubble dome, and little else.