5 ms·

In a panic people get tunnel vision. When you design HMI's for a living you have to consider. If my brother, sister, grandmother was using this system during an

In a panic people get tunnel vision. When you design HMI's for a living you have to consider. If my brother, sister, grandmother was using this system during an emergency could we guide them to make the right decisions. The fact that the prop controls could be split but the UI would not gray out the sliders on the screens that did not have control is a poor user interface design choice. If the controls only appeared "active" on the screen they were transferred too this could have made things much more simple. The fact that the mushroom button for emergency steering yanked control to wherever it was pressed- this should have displayed a red on black box. Emergency Override called from X Station. The issues with the navigation system are a whole other bag of worms- who knows what the mess was there. Disclosure, I have done HMI design and install in production systems for manufacturing, chemical and warehousing operations. I have never built anything for a ship or vehicle. So I may be speaking total stupid to someone in that industry. I would love to hear someone from that market sector drop in and talk about how or why the HMI was setup like this. Sounds like this system was sub-contracted to the lowest bidder and pushed out without enough testing.

rwmurrayVT 7y ago
Integrated bridges are being installed all across USN ships, including Mt. Whitney with MSC right now. They're filled with a hodgepodge of HMIs that are all linked to a control system filled with gyros, ECDIS, RADAR, propulsion, etc. etc. System integration is complex and the design work is done by contracted companies. You don't have the first party vendor doing the integration work. It's a recipe for disaster.
- jandrese 7y ago
  > You don't have the first party vendor doing the integration work. The only reason this should be true is if the Navy is directly providing this service instead. If nobody is coordinating integration, then that's absolute insanity. Integration is the most important job in a distributed system like this, also probably the hardest. Knowing the military they probably thought they could avoid needing an integrator by writing out tens of thousands of pages of specs, never stopping to consider that the specs themselves may be incorrect or unworkable or that they would be so complex that no vendor could ever deliver a product that exactly meets the specs.
- magduf 7y ago
  This is pretty typical of military contracts. They like to spread the work around, so different vendors provide different pieces of the system, and it ends up being a hodgepodge that doesn't integrate well and doesn't work well.
  - lonelappde 7y ago
    The Navy doesn't like to spread the wolk around. Congressmembers like to spread it around to get a piece of the pork.
- jki275 7y ago
  Integrated bridge systems have been on Navy ships for decades. This is not new.
userbinator 7y ago
The fact that the prop controls could be split but the UI would not gray out the sliders on the screens that did not have control is a poor user interface design choice. If the controls only appeared "active" on the screen they were transferred too this could have made things much more simple. This reminds me of the Airbus control sticks, where the systemd averages the two inputs if e.g. one pilot pushes forward while the other pulls back. There is a warning but it can be easily ignored, as happened on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447 . Also, I suspect there may have been at least one person who raised the idea of disabling/graying out the controls if they're inactive, but it was not listened to or even actively opposed because "it's not in the spec" and the one who brought it up didn't have the power to do anything about it. I've worked in environments like that (thankfully not for long) enough to know that these big and highly bureaucratic projects will tend to have lots of "lack of common sense" problems, either because no one bothers to actually think about what they're trying to do, or the division of labour was so fine that no one could. Lots of process, lots of specification meetings, lots of cargo-culting dogma, but no real thought put into anything. The fact that such developer positions are treated as disposable and easily replaceable probably adds to the problem too.
- stallmanite 7y ago
  > This reminds me of the Airbus control sticks, where the systemd averages the two inputs Now I’m starting to understand the hostility towards systemd.
  - arminiusreturns 7y ago
    As someone who has been on both sides of the systemd debate, I heartily guffawed at this. Thanks. As for the topic at hand, at a 30k ft view, having seen the inside of DoD stuff from a ground troop level, and later from DC itself, I mostly blame the good-old-boy network from being too established and greedy. I figure it's always been this way and technology complicating things has just pulled the curtain back, but essentially they do DC/Virginia back-room dealing to get bids and then under-perform in the delivery but don't really care because DoD's budget is massive and they keep throwing money at them. This matters much less while we engage countries that can't engage back like Iraq and Afghanistan, but as we shift more towards the return of the tri-polar world and DoD has to start planning for more peer level agitation, these problems need to be fixed ASAP or people are going to die. There is a reason a handful of counties in Virginia had the highest growth of millionares in America post-9/11. I'm tired of contractors wasting money while the real military gets shite, and while maybe some of that is bias from my Marine Corps days (The Corps was notorious for "hand-me" down equipment and small budgets compared to Army, etc), I still say it's about time we financially body checked the good old boys and gave our boots on the ground better treatment. Hell, how about just not having boots on the ground in the first place in unconstitutional bullshit wars, but I digress.
dredmorbius 7y ago
Split controls, in this case, of the rudder, played a major role in an earlier landmark shipping accident, the 1967 wreck of the Torrey Canyon, the first of the modern age of major supertanker oil spills. Tim Harford covers this in his new podcast series, "Cautionary Tales", episod "DANGER: Rocks Ahead!": https://traffic.megaphone.fm/CAD1539409189.mp3?updated=1573817080 https://traffic.megaphone.fm/CAD1539409189.mp3?updated=15738.... As described in the episode, there were a number of contributing factors: tight schedule, miscommunications and assumptions between captain and helm, changes of watch, sleep, limited visibility, and the unexpected presence of other traffic. But at a critical moment, rudder inputs failed to change the ship's course because authority had been transferred to the other set of helm controls.
magduf 7y ago
The thing you're completely missing here is that these systems are built by military contractors, so it really shouldn't be too surprising that they have such awful UI. These companies do not make any commercial products (except Boeing). Their real strength in the marketplace is being really skilled at acquiring valuable government contracts, and being a big enough company (thanks to history and inertia) to actually win these contracts and deliver on them (even if it's late and the product is poor, though it meets all the specs). These companies would not survive if they had to sell their products to consumers. The negative reviews on Amazon would kill them quickly. >I have never built anything for a ship or vehicle. So I may be speaking total stupid to someone in that industry. You don't need to have experience building ship control systems to know this stuff is stupid. You probably drive a car, right? Can you imagine a car with UIs anything like this? If military contractors were doing car UIs, the roads would be a bloodbath.
- userbinator 7y ago
  Can you imagine a car with UIs anything like this? If military contractors were doing car UIs, the roads would be a bloodbath. Unfortunately, car UIs have also declined in usability thanks to the touchscreen fad, and very poor software behind them too. At least there's still some choice, but I suspect the majority of new buyers were taken in by a flashly salesman presentation and only later discovered all the problems. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20190902 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20190902
  - smacktoward 7y ago
    Indeed, and some of the worst offenders are among the most trendy car companies (looking at you, Tesla).
- tdfx 7y ago
  It's also worth pointing out that there's a serious lack of talent in the defense contracting industry (not universal -- but certainly on average). The pay is typically not very impressive, the working conditions tend to be stressful (constant cost over-runs, impossible deadlines) and inflexible working arrangements (good luck with WFH). Talented people generally gravitate elsewhere with better pay and perks.
donarb 7y ago
> If the controls only appeared "active" on the screen they were transferred too this could have made things much more simple. But the system was designed so that control of steering or thrust could be taken over from any "inactive" side. If an interface appeared inactive, how would you easily take control from that side?
- userbinator 7y ago
  All the controls would be inactive except for one "take control" button, which when pressed activates all the other controls and disables itself and the controls at the other stations.
mannykannot 7y ago
looking at these touch controls, I am wondering how one can possibly operate them with any precision in a heavy sea, and avoid clicking the wrong thing. We evolved hands to grasp, push, pull and twist, not to point and tap a glassy surface.
- jki275 7y ago
  Totally agree. Touch screens are terrible UI for these things.
jki275 7y ago
You'd be amazed at who built this system. I suspect it's easy enough to find out, but I won't throw it out there in case. I was one of the very early maintenance techs on the system in the 90s. No one with even a foggy understanding of HMI has ever been allowed to touch its design. The issues called out in the article barely scratch the surface.
duxup 7y ago
I'm just a noob front end guy and even I know if the control is disabled...to indicate it. The idea that this thing behaved that way and made it through a bunch of people is mind boggling to me.
WalterBright 7y ago
In a sad irony, the article web page itself is a horrible disaster of a user interface.

rwmurrayVT 7y ago

Integrated bridges are being installed all across USN ships, including Mt. Whitney with MSC right now. They're filled with a hodgepodge of HMIs that are all linked to a control system filled with gyros, ECDIS, RADAR, propulsion, etc. etc. System integration is complex and the design work is done by contracted companies. You don't have the first party vendor doing the integration work. It's a recipe for disaster.

jandrese 7y ago
> You don't have the first party vendor doing the integration work. The only reason this should be true is if the Navy is directly providing this service instead. If nobody is coordinating integration, then that's absolute insanity. Integration is the most important job in a distributed system like this, also probably the hardest. Knowing the military they probably thought they could avoid needing an integrator by writing out tens of thousands of pages of specs, never stopping to consider that the specs themselves may be incorrect or unworkable or that they would be so complex that no vendor could ever deliver a product that exactly meets the specs.
magduf 7y ago
This is pretty typical of military contracts. They like to spread the work around, so different vendors provide different pieces of the system, and it ends up being a hodgepodge that doesn't integrate well and doesn't work well.
- lonelappde 7y ago
  The Navy doesn't like to spread the wolk around. Congressmembers like to spread it around to get a piece of the pork.
jki275 7y ago
Integrated bridge systems have been on Navy ships for decades. This is not new.

userbinator 7y ago

The fact that the prop controls could be split but the UI would not gray out the sliders on the screens that did not have control is a poor user interface design choice. If the controls only appeared "active" on the screen they were transferred too this could have made things much more simple. This reminds me of the Airbus control sticks, where the systemd averages the two inputs if e.g. one pilot pushes forward while the other pulls back. There is a warning but it can be easily ignored, as happened on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447 . Also, I suspect there may have been at least one person who raised the idea of disabling/graying out the controls if they're inactive, but it was not listened to or even actively opposed because "it's not in the spec" and the one who brought it up didn't have the power to do anything about it. I've worked in environments like that (thankfully not for long) enough to know that these big and highly bureaucratic projects will tend to have lots of "lack of common sense" problems, either because no one bothers to actually think about what they're trying to do, or the division of labour was so fine that no one could. Lots of process, lots of specification meetings, lots of cargo-culting dogma, but no real thought put into anything. The fact that such developer positions are treated as disposable and easily replaceable probably adds to the problem too.

stallmanite 7y ago
> This reminds me of the Airbus control sticks, where the systemd averages the two inputs Now I’m starting to understand the hostility towards systemd.
- arminiusreturns 7y ago
  As someone who has been on both sides of the systemd debate, I heartily guffawed at this. Thanks. As for the topic at hand, at a 30k ft view, having seen the inside of DoD stuff from a ground troop level, and later from DC itself, I mostly blame the good-old-boy network from being too established and greedy. I figure it's always been this way and technology complicating things has just pulled the curtain back, but essentially they do DC/Virginia back-room dealing to get bids and then under-perform in the delivery but don't really care because DoD's budget is massive and they keep throwing money at them. This matters much less while we engage countries that can't engage back like Iraq and Afghanistan, but as we shift more towards the return of the tri-polar world and DoD has to start planning for more peer level agitation, these problems need to be fixed ASAP or people are going to die. There is a reason a handful of counties in Virginia had the highest growth of millionares in America post-9/11. I'm tired of contractors wasting money while the real military gets shite, and while maybe some of that is bias from my Marine Corps days (The Corps was notorious for "hand-me" down equipment and small budgets compared to Army, etc), I still say it's about time we financially body checked the good old boys and gave our boots on the ground better treatment. Hell, how about just not having boots on the ground in the first place in unconstitutional bullshit wars, but I digress.

dredmorbius 7y ago

Split controls, in this case, of the rudder, played a major role in an earlier landmark shipping accident, the 1967 wreck of the Torrey Canyon, the first of the modern age of major supertanker oil spills. Tim Harford covers this in his new podcast series, "Cautionary Tales", episod "DANGER: Rocks Ahead!": https://traffic.megaphone.fm/CAD1539409189.mp3?updated=1573817080 https://traffic.megaphone.fm/CAD1539409189.mp3?updated=15738.... As described in the episode, there were a number of contributing factors: tight schedule, miscommunications and assumptions between captain and helm, changes of watch, sleep, limited visibility, and the unexpected presence of other traffic. But at a critical moment, rudder inputs failed to change the ship's course because authority had been transferred to the other set of helm controls.

magduf 7y ago

The thing you're completely missing here is that these systems are built by military contractors, so it really shouldn't be too surprising that they have such awful UI. These companies do not make any commercial products (except Boeing). Their real strength in the marketplace is being really skilled at acquiring valuable government contracts, and being a big enough company (thanks to history and inertia) to actually win these contracts and deliver on them (even if it's late and the product is poor, though it meets all the specs). These companies would not survive if they had to sell their products to consumers. The negative reviews on Amazon would kill them quickly. >I have never built anything for a ship or vehicle. So I may be speaking total stupid to someone in that industry. You don't need to have experience building ship control systems to know this stuff is stupid. You probably drive a car, right? Can you imagine a car with UIs anything like this? If military contractors were doing car UIs, the roads would be a bloodbath.

userbinator 7y ago
Can you imagine a car with UIs anything like this? If military contractors were doing car UIs, the roads would be a bloodbath. Unfortunately, car UIs have also declined in usability thanks to the touchscreen fad, and very poor software behind them too. At least there's still some choice, but I suspect the majority of new buyers were taken in by a flashly salesman presentation and only later discovered all the problems. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20190902 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20190902
- smacktoward 7y ago
  Indeed, and some of the worst offenders are among the most trendy car companies (looking at you, Tesla).
tdfx 7y ago
It's also worth pointing out that there's a serious lack of talent in the defense contracting industry (not universal -- but certainly on average). The pay is typically not very impressive, the working conditions tend to be stressful (constant cost over-runs, impossible deadlines) and inflexible working arrangements (good luck with WFH). Talented people generally gravitate elsewhere with better pay and perks.

donarb 7y ago

> If the controls only appeared "active" on the screen they were transferred too this could have made things much more simple. But the system was designed so that control of steering or thrust could be taken over from any "inactive" side. If an interface appeared inactive, how would you easily take control from that side?

userbinator 7y ago
All the controls would be inactive except for one "take control" button, which when pressed activates all the other controls and disables itself and the controls at the other stations.

mannykannot 7y ago

looking at these touch controls, I am wondering how one can possibly operate them with any precision in a heavy sea, and avoid clicking the wrong thing. We evolved hands to grasp, push, pull and twist, not to point and tap a glassy surface.

jki275 7y ago
Totally agree. Touch screens are terrible UI for these things.

jki275 7y ago

You'd be amazed at who built this system. I suspect it's easy enough to find out, but I won't throw it out there in case. I was one of the very early maintenance techs on the system in the 90s. No one with even a foggy understanding of HMI has ever been allowed to touch its design. The issues called out in the article barely scratch the surface.

duxup 7y ago

I'm just a noob front end guy and even I know if the control is disabled...to indicate it. The idea that this thing behaved that way and made it through a bunch of people is mind boggling to me.

WalterBright 7y ago

In a sad irony, the article web page itself is a horrible disaster of a user interface.