4 ms·

> 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 h

> 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?
    - jfkebwjsbx 6y ago
      Excuse me? There has been no ad hominem here. Pointing out a flaw in your argument has nothing to do with your person or condition, which as you say I have no clue about. You have made your UI preferences crystal clear in this thread, and I disputed your arguments supporting them. Discussion is the goal of this forum, by the way. If you really believe you have been attacked, then may I suggest we leave the discussion here and please flag the comments you find disruptive and let a moderator work it out. As a friendly side note: claiming "all someone has to say is attacking ad hominem" is quite ad hominem itself, because you are attributing an implicit trait to that person (eg pushy) or a motive irrelevant to the discussion (eg not "liking you" or whatever).

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?
  - jfkebwjsbx 6y ago
    Excuse me? There has been no ad hominem here. Pointing out a flaw in your argument has nothing to do with your person or condition, which as you say I have no clue about. You have made your UI preferences crystal clear in this thread, and I disputed your arguments supporting them. Discussion is the goal of this forum, by the way. If you really believe you have been attacked, then may I suggest we leave the discussion here and please flag the comments you find disruptive and let a moderator work it out. As a friendly side note: claiming "all someone has to say is attacking ad hominem" is quite ad hominem itself, because you are attributing an implicit trait to that person (eg pushy) or a motive irrelevant to the discussion (eg not "liking you" or whatever).