2 ms·

compared to applicance controls? The limited hardware almost guarantees a poor experience, and of course no consistency whatsoever across appliances. Sure

compared to applicance controls? The limited hardware almost guarantees a poor experience, and of course no consistency whatsoever across appliances. Sure, 3 buttons is ok just to set the time perhaps, but quickly becomes unusable with more complex requirements - and then you get crappy lcd screens, and custom menu systems, etc. even bad apps are usually better.

freeone3000 7y ago
It's a clock. You only need three buttons. Heck, my watch gets away with one. If you need more buttons, add more buttons - the clock won't get new features, so just add whatever buttons you need for the features it has.
- jacknews 7y ago
  It's not "just a clock" if it has wifi. If he just wantted a 3-button dumb clock that's what he should buy. I'm generalising to more complex appliances, but no, just adding buttons doesn't do it (quite apart from more points of failure), even for a clock - how would you set multiple alarms, say one for you, one for your partner, with different times each day of the week. do you have 2 buttons for each day, or what? Of course, in reality you end up with modes, and menus , and a crappy custom UI. Multiply this by every gadget in the house, and a full UI remote (be it phone, tablet or specialised wireless touch-screen remote) becomes an attractive option.
darkmighty 7y ago
I get what you're implying, and I think it's a valid approach (connected). But so is the converse (unconnected). The connected can be controlled by apps or heck, APIs, perhaps offers full flexibility etc. However, what guarantees the controlling app is going to keep being updated? What if there's a wi-fi vulnerability in a few years? What if there are calls to company servers that go offline? What if you phone is off and you want to quickly set the time? The unconnected can be controlled by a physical unchanging interface. It offers few extra features, its buttons will wear and break, etc. But it probably will function just fine in 10 years time, is probably extremely easy -- and less time consuming in total to set. I disagree the experience will be poor or inconsistent -- those products usually obey a common language of household appliances that works well enough. Physical buttons are usually very responsive and easy to use. There is not much to go wrong. The ultimate measures here are probably net productivity (time wasted on clock and setting time), cognitive load, and robustness. If you have specific timing requirements maybe the networked clock is for you, but for most people I'd say the good old digital clock is probably still easily best. Maybe in the future the digital infrastructure will be standardized and simplified enough that more appliances will become connected, but the real value of 'iot-enabling' is still quite low for most objects. Remember, newer or more flexible isn't necessarily better (even for very complex systems: see UNIX philosophy).
JohnFen 7y ago
> compared to applicance controls? Well, it depends on the appliance. Some really are terrible. But on the whole, I think appliance controls tend to be more usable than smartphone interfaces.

freeone3000 7y ago

It's a clock. You only need three buttons. Heck, my watch gets away with one. If you need more buttons, add more buttons - the clock won't get new features, so just add whatever buttons you need for the features it has.

jacknews 7y ago
It's not "just a clock" if it has wifi. If he just wantted a 3-button dumb clock that's what he should buy. I'm generalising to more complex appliances, but no, just adding buttons doesn't do it (quite apart from more points of failure), even for a clock - how would you set multiple alarms, say one for you, one for your partner, with different times each day of the week. do you have 2 buttons for each day, or what? Of course, in reality you end up with modes, and menus , and a crappy custom UI. Multiply this by every gadget in the house, and a full UI remote (be it phone, tablet or specialised wireless touch-screen remote) becomes an attractive option.

darkmighty 7y ago

I get what you're implying, and I think it's a valid approach (connected). But so is the converse (unconnected). The connected can be controlled by apps or heck, APIs, perhaps offers full flexibility etc. However, what guarantees the controlling app is going to keep being updated? What if there's a wi-fi vulnerability in a few years? What if there are calls to company servers that go offline? What if you phone is off and you want to quickly set the time? The unconnected can be controlled by a physical unchanging interface. It offers few extra features, its buttons will wear and break, etc. But it probably will function just fine in 10 years time, is probably extremely easy -- and less time consuming in total to set. I disagree the experience will be poor or inconsistent -- those products usually obey a common language of household appliances that works well enough. Physical buttons are usually very responsive and easy to use. There is not much to go wrong. The ultimate measures here are probably net productivity (time wasted on clock and setting time), cognitive load, and robustness. If you have specific timing requirements maybe the networked clock is for you, but for most people I'd say the good old digital clock is probably still easily best. Maybe in the future the digital infrastructure will be standardized and simplified enough that more appliances will become connected, but the real value of 'iot-enabling' is still quite low for most objects. Remember, newer or more flexible isn't necessarily better (even for very complex systems: see UNIX philosophy).

JohnFen 7y ago

> compared to applicance controls? Well, it depends on the appliance. Some really are terrible. But on the whole, I think appliance controls tend to be more usable than smartphone interfaces.