6 ms·

> When cost is no barrier, And when operator training time and effort is extremely high.

systemvoltage 6y ago
Pushing back on this a little bit :) - A semi-truck's UI (dashboard) is only a tad bit more complex than a car. The operator training part has to do more with the domain of knowledge (how to back up the trailer, for e.g.) than with the UI. IMO UI can be "complex" and yet understandable if the layout is logical, everything is labelled and the domain is already understood. We all know what Turn on bluetooth means. Whether it is hidden in 4 level deep menu in a touchscreen or immediately accessible with a toggle switch makes no difference IMO. In fact, I would argue that a toggle switch is easier than digging into Menu > Vehicle Settings > Entertainment > Phone > Bluetooth. More importantly, it is discoverable. Please don't dig too much into the bluetooth thing, it is just a example that I want to use to make the more general point.
- scott_s 6y ago
  I don't disagree with your response, but I disagree with what I understand to be your initial point: the primary reason that the F-15's interface is this particular way is because cost was not a barrier. While that is part of it, I don't think it's most of it. I pointed out operator training time, which is assumed to be huge. But there's also a fundamental difference between a fighter pilot and someone driving a car. For a fighter pilot, everything they have to be able to do has to be at a hand's reach in a second. This is an operational requirement for both the "fighter" and "pilot" sides. Driving a car is different; there are many tasks that normal car drivers don't need to do while driving. It's okay for them to do them parked, after fiddling with a bunch of other stuff. My point: it's not just cost which determines the difference, but training and task requirements.
  - systemvoltage 6y ago
    > It's okay for them to do them parked, after fiddling with a bunch of other stuff. Point noted. Commercial airplanes also have that in the form a FMS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_management_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_management_system A menu system just like cars except no touchscreens, although I heard that's changing.
- rzzzt 6y ago
  Not UI, but you mentioned one part where software could really shine: instead of getting the feel of the "inverted pendulum" driving in reverse with a trailer, what if I could just turn the wheel where I want to go and let the computer figure out how to keep the back in line without jackknifing on itself. (I am also sure such software exists, and it fares poorly, otherwise it would be a standard accessory on trucks and everyone would have forgotten how to do it "by ear" by now.)
  - frosted-flakes 6y ago
    Ford has had trailer assist steering on its trucks since MY 2016. https://www.wired.com/2015/05/ford-makes-backing-trailer-easy-turning-knob/ https://www.wired.com/2015/05/ford-makes-backing-trailer-eas...
- jfkebwjsbx 6y ago
  > Whether it is hidden in 4 level deep menu in a touchscreen or immediately accessible with a toggle switch makes no difference IMO That is wrong. It makes a huge difference for the overwhelming majority of users. In addition, you are trying to extrapolate the design choices of + an extremely specialized UI, + for trained experts, + intended to never break, + designed decades ago, + to be used while in combat, + etc. ...just to support your preferences and beliefs in UI design. You may be right or not, but comparing web pages with cockpits does not make any sense at all.
  - systemvoltage 6y ago
    > comparing web pages with cockpits does not make any sense at all. Why not? It is a user interface whether 2D (on a monitor) or 3D (cockpit). It has common purpose - to allow the user to interact with the machine or Human-Machine-Interface/HMI. Why are they fundamentally different? As the light rays hit your retina, process through V1-V4 regions in the occipital lobe, and your limbic system acts on it - to me, a website UI, a door knob, an audio amplifier front panel or a cockpit are all forms of user interfaces that allow the user to interact with the machine. There is no difference besides the context you mentioned. I presume all interactions map to: - enums/ints (dropdowns, DPST, DPDT, rotary selectors, radio buttons) - bools (toggles, SPST, SPDT, checkboxes) - floats (sliders and continuous rollers, including 2d pads and 3d joysticks) Fundamental types in programming languages, I need to think about this a little more - just guessing. Give me any UI and I can probably boil it down to fundamental types in a programming language. Or a circuit element.
    - jfkebwjsbx 6y ago
      You are taking design decisions made in a wildly different context and assuming they were made that way because it fits your UI vision.
      - systemvoltage 6y ago
        It is difficult to argue with you with all due respect when all you have to say is based on ad-hominem attacks. Please get down to the bottom of the problem, I am willing to concede if logic or data dictates. I don't know you and you don't know me and my "UI vision". Edit: I can't respond to you anymore, so here it is, quoting your comment which I found as personal jab: > You are taking design decisions made in a wildly different context and assuming they were made that way because it fits your UI vision. How do know my "UI vision"? I've distilled every response with logical reasoning to which you respond with this?

Pushing back on this a little bit :) - A semi-truck's UI (dashboard) is only a tad bit more complex than a car. The operator training part has to do more with the domain of knowledge (how to back up the trailer, for e.g.) than with the UI. IMO UI can be "complex" and yet understandable if the layout is logical, everything is labelled and the domain is already understood. We all know what Turn on bluetooth means. Whether it is hidden in 4 level deep menu in a touchscreen or immediately accessible with a toggle switch makes no difference IMO. In fact, I would argue that a toggle switch is easier than digging into Menu > Vehicle Settings > Entertainment > Phone > Bluetooth. More importantly, it is discoverable. Please don't dig too much into the bluetooth thing, it is just a example that I want to use to make the more general point.

scott_s 6y ago
I don't disagree with your response, but I disagree with what I understand to be your initial point: the primary reason that the F-15's interface is this particular way is because cost was not a barrier. While that is part of it, I don't think it's most of it. I pointed out operator training time, which is assumed to be huge. But there's also a fundamental difference between a fighter pilot and someone driving a car. For a fighter pilot, everything they have to be able to do has to be at a hand's reach in a second. This is an operational requirement for both the "fighter" and "pilot" sides. Driving a car is different; there are many tasks that normal car drivers don't need to do while driving. It's okay for them to do them parked, after fiddling with a bunch of other stuff. My point: it's not just cost which determines the difference, but training and task requirements.
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  > It's okay for them to do them parked, after fiddling with a bunch of other stuff. Point noted. Commercial airplanes also have that in the form a FMS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_management_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_management_system A menu system just like cars except no touchscreens, although I heard that's changing.
rzzzt 6y ago
Not UI, but you mentioned one part where software could really shine: instead of getting the feel of the "inverted pendulum" driving in reverse with a trailer, what if I could just turn the wheel where I want to go and let the computer figure out how to keep the back in line without jackknifing on itself. (I am also sure such software exists, and it fares poorly, otherwise it would be a standard accessory on trucks and everyone would have forgotten how to do it "by ear" by now.)
- frosted-flakes 6y ago
  Ford has had trailer assist steering on its trucks since MY 2016. https://www.wired.com/2015/05/ford-makes-backing-trailer-easy-turning-knob/ https://www.wired.com/2015/05/ford-makes-backing-trailer-eas...
jfkebwjsbx 6y ago
> Whether it is hidden in 4 level deep menu in a touchscreen or immediately accessible with a toggle switch makes no difference IMO That is wrong. It makes a huge difference for the overwhelming majority of users. In addition, you are trying to extrapolate the design choices of + an extremely specialized UI, + for trained experts, + intended to never break, + designed decades ago, + to be used while in combat, + etc. ...just to support your preferences and beliefs in UI design. You may be right or not, but comparing web pages with cockpits does not make any sense at all.
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  > comparing web pages with cockpits does not make any sense at all. Why not? It is a user interface whether 2D (on a monitor) or 3D (cockpit). It has common purpose - to allow the user to interact with the machine or Human-Machine-Interface/HMI. Why are they fundamentally different? As the light rays hit your retina, process through V1-V4 regions in the occipital lobe, and your limbic system acts on it - to me, a website UI, a door knob, an audio amplifier front panel or a cockpit are all forms of user interfaces that allow the user to interact with the machine. There is no difference besides the context you mentioned. I presume all interactions map to: - enums/ints (dropdowns, DPST, DPDT, rotary selectors, radio buttons) - bools (toggles, SPST, SPDT, checkboxes) - floats (sliders and continuous rollers, including 2d pads and 3d joysticks) Fundamental types in programming languages, I need to think about this a little more - just guessing. Give me any UI and I can probably boil it down to fundamental types in a programming language. Or a circuit element.
  - jfkebwjsbx 6y ago
    You are taking design decisions made in a wildly different context and assuming they were made that way because it fits your UI vision.
    - systemvoltage 6y ago
      It is difficult to argue with you with all due respect when all you have to say is based on ad-hominem attacks. Please get down to the bottom of the problem, I am willing to concede if logic or data dictates. I don't know you and you don't know me and my "UI vision". Edit: I can't respond to you anymore, so here it is, quoting your comment which I found as personal jab: > You are taking design decisions made in a wildly different context and assuming they were made that way because it fits your UI vision. How do know my "UI vision"? I've distilled every response with logical reasoning to which you respond with this?