4 ms·

The US Navy says no to touchscreens–maybe automakers should too

8 points by benryon 7y ago

davismwfl 7y ago
I disagree that the failure here was having touchscreen controls, but don't disagree that hydraulic or fly-by-wire controls would improve reliability for ships. But in this case it was really just poorly designed software and a bad UX. If you can take an action in a vital software application that is not clear then that software/UX design has failed. It also seems reasonable that it was also a lack of training like a number of articles have stated, but it should still be obvious in the UX where control is for all vital functions at all times. So the idea that cars can't have a quality solution in touch screens is not valid IMO. Ships are manned by multiple teams of people that require coordination and communication. Propulsion and steering is just one example. But this is not analogous to a car in anyway today, not even to a bus, tractor trailer or even train. A single person controls these vehicles (even trains for the most part), so as long as the UX is not poor it won't become the same type of problem. Of course a horrible UX could still cause problems, but a car systems will not reach the complexity of ship level systems.
- kgwxd 7y ago
  "A single person controls these vehicles" Who's eyes should be on the road 100% percent of the time. Lack of tactile feedback is automatically poor UX so there is no such thing as a quality solution when it comes to touchscreens in cars. I can't believe it's even an argument to be had, it's such an obvious bad choice, no one should have even attempted it in the first place.
  - davismwfl 7y ago
    I don't necessarily disagree that tactile feedback is important in many applications, but in a ship borne system tactile feedback is almost all manufactured and not real if it exists at all. A team of 10 people couldn't turn a rudder on a large ship with mechanical means only, it requires power of some sort, typically electric or hydraulic with a fly-by-wire interface. And feedback is not as usable in a ship based platform as it is in say a small car or boat. Even in cars today, steering is already being adjusted as to feel and responsiveness by the computer in most newer vehicles, typically to help prevent drivers from oversteering. So again, it goes to the right UX for the right job, and I agree not a one size fits all. To be clear, no where did I say that the UX should solely be touch screen all the time, just that in this case I do not think the failure was the touch screen type interface as much as the UX it provided. For example, most modern yachts and super yachts have more than one helm station. And to take control at one station over another you need to push a button (or possibly a couple) to take control. So if you run out to a starboard station and forget to mash the control button and start trying to turn you are shit outta luck, no different than the touchscreen the Navy was using overall (and there are lockouts etc on these). The advantage is in the yacht systems it is generally really obvious really fast you don't have control, whereas in a very large ship it takes significantly longer for the correction to take hold, exception being an all stop or powered stop where the ship will feel quite different. But a simple turn is not as obvious since it isn't like a car, especially in dark, dusk or fog. You have to watch your instruments to see if you are really turning and what the rudder position is etc, as well as what the power is at each screw etc, so the touchscreen interface in this case isn't out of line in my view and is more informative in many ways. And for automobiles, the UX may require a joystick or steering wheel for the foreseeable future, but that doesn't mean we should ditch touch screens for all the other functions which can be properly designed and laid out to reduce driver distractions. And who knows, maybe we find a new style of interface that works better for automobiles in the future. To me saying there is no quality solution in a touchscreen for cars is a ridiculous statement. There are probably certain functions that may be better left to traditional controls for now based on our current methods, that seems reasonable, but absolutes don't make sense here.

8 points by benryon 7y ago

I disagree that the failure here was having touchscreen controls, but don't disagree that hydraulic or fly-by-wire controls would improve reliability for ships. But in this case it was really just poorly designed software and a bad UX. If you can take an action in a vital software application that is not clear then that software/UX design has failed. It also seems reasonable that it was also a lack of training like a number of articles have stated, but it should still be obvious in the UX where control is for all vital functions at all times. So the idea that cars can't have a quality solution in touch screens is not valid IMO. Ships are manned by multiple teams of people that require coordination and communication. Propulsion and steering is just one example. But this is not analogous to a car in anyway today, not even to a bus, tractor trailer or even train. A single person controls these vehicles (even trains for the most part), so as long as the UX is not poor it won't become the same type of problem. Of course a horrible UX could still cause problems, but a car systems will not reach the complexity of ship level systems.

kgwxd 7y ago
"A single person controls these vehicles" Who's eyes should be on the road 100% percent of the time. Lack of tactile feedback is automatically poor UX so there is no such thing as a quality solution when it comes to touchscreens in cars. I can't believe it's even an argument to be had, it's such an obvious bad choice, no one should have even attempted it in the first place.
- davismwfl 7y ago
  I don't necessarily disagree that tactile feedback is important in many applications, but in a ship borne system tactile feedback is almost all manufactured and not real if it exists at all. A team of 10 people couldn't turn a rudder on a large ship with mechanical means only, it requires power of some sort, typically electric or hydraulic with a fly-by-wire interface. And feedback is not as usable in a ship based platform as it is in say a small car or boat. Even in cars today, steering is already being adjusted as to feel and responsiveness by the computer in most newer vehicles, typically to help prevent drivers from oversteering. So again, it goes to the right UX for the right job, and I agree not a one size fits all. To be clear, no where did I say that the UX should solely be touch screen all the time, just that in this case I do not think the failure was the touch screen type interface as much as the UX it provided. For example, most modern yachts and super yachts have more than one helm station. And to take control at one station over another you need to push a button (or possibly a couple) to take control. So if you run out to a starboard station and forget to mash the control button and start trying to turn you are shit outta luck, no different than the touchscreen the Navy was using overall (and there are lockouts etc on these). The advantage is in the yacht systems it is generally really obvious really fast you don't have control, whereas in a very large ship it takes significantly longer for the correction to take hold, exception being an all stop or powered stop where the ship will feel quite different. But a simple turn is not as obvious since it isn't like a car, especially in dark, dusk or fog. You have to watch your instruments to see if you are really turning and what the rudder position is etc, as well as what the power is at each screw etc, so the touchscreen interface in this case isn't out of line in my view and is more informative in many ways. And for automobiles, the UX may require a joystick or steering wheel for the foreseeable future, but that doesn't mean we should ditch touch screens for all the other functions which can be properly designed and laid out to reduce driver distractions. And who knows, maybe we find a new style of interface that works better for automobiles in the future. To me saying there is no quality solution in a touchscreen for cars is a ridiculous statement. There are probably certain functions that may be better left to traditional controls for now based on our current methods, that seems reasonable, but absolutes don't make sense here.