14 ms·

This. %100 this. The airline industry figured this out years ago with some of the cockpit controls. (admittedly there are a lot of other buttons and switches f

This. %100 this. The airline industry figured this out years ago with some of the cockpit controls. (admittedly there are a lot of other buttons and switches for the pilot to worry about too, but it seems like the digital display panels always are flanked by rows of buttons which were used for interacting with the panel. Works great even with gloves on and does not lock you into a single feature set.

NittLion78 4y ago
I was going to cite the example of the Garmin G1000 glass cockpit. Even moving a cursor around a map requires pushing a physical knob in 360° to guide it.
- FabHK 4y ago
  I wouldn't call the Garmin G1000 a paragon of UX design though. I wish there were some serious competitors that would give the UX another try (like Avidyne), but Garmin seems to be the standard now. Philip Greenspun wrote about some of its problems (back in 2006): > In some ways this makes life more difficult for the pilot. For example, suppose that you are busily trying to fly the airplane and study an approach plate when ATC gives you a new transponder code. With a less integrated system, you know exactly where the buttons are to enter a transponder code and your fingers will find their way there almost automatically. The buttons are always in the same place, i.e., on the physical transponder box, and they never change their function. With the G1000, you find the soft key labeled "xpdr" and press it. Then some more soft keys take on the function of digits. It is clearly a less direct and more time-consuming procedure. Similarly for entering a frequency into COM 2. With a traditional radio stack, you reach over to COM 2, which is probably underneath COM 1 and labeled "COM 2". You twist the knob that is always there and that always adjusts the COM 2 frequency. With the G1000, you study the COM freqencies display (typically four numbers) and figure out which number is surrounded by a box. This is the number that you are going to be changing if you twist the COM knob. If the box isn't surrounding the number you want to change, you have to think long enough to push the COM knob to toggle between "I'm adjusting COM 1" and "I'm adjusting COM 2" modes. > A 1965 Cessna has what computer nerds would call a "modeless interface". Each switch and knob does one thing and it is the same thing all the time. This is a very usable interface, but it doesn't scale up very well, as you can see by looking at the panel of a Boeing 707. Both the Avidyne and the G1000 have some modal elements. Knobs and switches do different things at different times. The G1000 is more deeply modal and therefore, I think, will always be harder to use. https://philip.greenspun.com/flying/avidyne-versus-garmin https://philip.greenspun.com/flying/avidyne-versus-garmin
  - fjni 4y ago
    > I wouldn't call the Garmin G1000 a paragon of UX design though. In some ways I would. I wouldn't call it "intuitive," but once you understand its semantics, it's phenomenally predictable in its behavior. And quite well thought through I think. Here's one of my favorite examples: On the MFD, in an urgent situation, two of the most helpful pages are the "map page," and the "nearest page." These are (unintuitively) the first and last page. Until you realize that that means you can access both without looking which page you're on by spinning the page knob either all the way left or all the way right. It isn't perfect, but I find it generally well thought through. I certainly can't argue with the points about transponder and com1/com2 inputs, but within the parameters for the device, I consider the UX for the G1000 to be ... maybe not a paragon in its entirety, but certainly much more thoughtful than what I encounter in other life daily.
falcrist 4y ago
Lab equipment does the same thing. Decades ago, oscilloscopes started having banks of buttons corresponding to an area of the screen, and knobs that have context sensitive functionality. Those can be placed side by side with buttons that have fixed purposes delineated by printed or debossed lettering. I realize that we're getting pretty far from the automotive use-case, but this style has worked remarkably well over the years, and has made it into all sorts of equipment.
- hammock 4y ago
  Two more examples that everyone ought to be familiar with- ATMs and electronic voting machines
  - Swenrekcah 4y ago
    ATMs in my area have started to ditch the physical buttons. I’ve never seen an electronic voting machine and hope I never will.
    - CommitSyn 4y ago
      When did you last vote? The 2016 election is when I first experienced them. I asked to vote by paper as I wasn't comfortable with electronic voting machines, so they gave me a paper and pen to fill it out, which I was then to feed into the computer.
      - archi42 4y ago
        Not everyone lives in the US ;) Around here we cast votes on paper and then use computer assisted verification & counting.
        Dylan16807 4y ago
        > Not everyone lives in the US ;) I don't see how that affects the comments you're replying to in any meaningful way. They only mentioned a particular election to establish a timeline. > Around here Voting varies wildly between parts of the US too.
albert_e 4y ago
many ATM machines I have seen do this as well -- just a blank set of buttons on either side of the screen
- LeifCarrotson 4y ago
  CNC, robotic, and industrial equipment too: Human-machine interfaces have rows of "Soft keys", buttons whose function changes depending on the context. Many machines used soft keys in the ages before touchscreens were available, but manufacturing is slow to change and even with the advent of multi-touch high-resolution color displays, they've remained. For examples: https://www.fanucamerica.com/images/default-source/cnc-images/cnc-panel-images/0if.jpg https://www.fanucamerica.com/images/default-source/cnc-image... https://www.fanuc.eu/~/media/corporate/products/robots/accessories/400x400/400x400/ipendant-software-screenshot-node-banner.jpg https://www.fanuc.eu/~/media/corporate/products/robots/acces... https://i.imgur.com/3vsHBhl.png https://i.imgur.com/3vsHBhl.png (OK, maybe the AB went a little overboard on the number of function keys...) but these are really effective tools to structure menus and build HMIs.
eterevsky 4y ago
I'm not so sure that's an optimal solution. If you are going to use the display to show the UI, you may as well just use touch interface, as long as it is responsive enough. Physical controls make more sense when they are optimized for ergonomics so that they can be used without looking.
- klyrs 4y ago
  I think the point here is that most people who use the interface a few times will learn the necessary key sequences. This learning can happen with the car at rest, and after that the user can keep their eyes on the road. It's not perfect, as some people have a slower learning rate than others, but it's sure better than a touch screen.
  - marcosdumay 4y ago
    Well, if the control all change in meaning depending on the interface state, you can only memorize sequences if there is a reset somewhere. And those will probably be very cumbersome sequences.
    - klyrs 4y ago
      If there are "back" and/or "home" buttons that's a non-issue. And that's been my experience with oscilloscopes with this kind of interface.
      - marcosdumay 4y ago
        A "home" is a reset. A "back" button won't solve the issue. On a second thought, if the options are hierarchical, the sequence of clicks may not be cumbersome at all. Also, in a car the state can be something really easy to keep track of, like "the car is running", but even then, I'm not sure it's safe to rely on this.
        klyrs 4y ago
        mash "back" long enough and you'll get home... it might not be the best thing, but it works.
singlow 4y ago
Most of the ones I have used allowed you to navigate the UI using physical buttons on the steering wheel. Something similar to a up/down/select/back button group with some other specific buttons for frequent actions.
- nuccy 4y ago
  Yes, buttons on the steering wheel are ones of the most useful ones, though even they become capacitive e.g. in new VW, BMW, Tesla Plaid. I have a VW car with a basic HUD (2015-ish era HUD, where a glass pops up). It can show lane keeping state, adaptive cruise control, current speed, recognized signs and navigation directions. Those features are essential for normal driving, so I don't look at all on the instrument cluster (either dials or the screen). The fact that you don't need to look down and change the focus of the eyes makes a significant difference.
ak217 4y ago
If you look at those MFDs, many also have rotational controls in the corners (some even have two levels of dials, one sitting on top of the other), which are another key way to keep the UI tactile and promote muscle memory. Things like eliminating lag, organizing menus into predictable paths that can easily be committed to muscle memory, and designing buttons and dials that can be used even in high vibration environments, are all key design criteria for these cockpit controls. It's so sad that automotive design refuses to take any lessons from that industry.
- QuercusMax 4y ago
  When using the touchscreen in my old Nissan Leaf, I used to anchor my thumb underneath the display so I could hit controls reliably via muscle memory even when the road was bumpy. Preposterous that we have to do these kinds of hacks when there are much better solutions.
Litost 4y ago
This comment reminds me of this video, where a F-15C fighter pilot breaks down the "Human Interface" in the cockpit where there are over 250 buttons and various other displays including HUD and panels and a button they aren't allowed to press because it requires an engine rebuild afterwards: https://arstechnica.com/features/2020/06/human-interface-come-on-a-tour-of-an-f-15c-fighter-jet-cockpit/ https://arstechnica.com/features/2020/06/human-interface-com... It suggests it was meant to be part of a series but I've not found any other examples????
rpdillon 4y ago
Very common in military systems as well.
NonNefarious 4y ago
That's fine if the controls work without significant lag. Last week I drove a minivan whose blower speed was controlled by a multi-purpose knob, and each speed change took several SECONDS to be affected. Pathetic.

NittLion78 4y ago

I was going to cite the example of the Garmin G1000 glass cockpit. Even moving a cursor around a map requires pushing a physical knob in 360° to guide it.

FabHK 4y ago
I wouldn't call the Garmin G1000 a paragon of UX design though. I wish there were some serious competitors that would give the UX another try (like Avidyne), but Garmin seems to be the standard now. Philip Greenspun wrote about some of its problems (back in 2006): > In some ways this makes life more difficult for the pilot. For example, suppose that you are busily trying to fly the airplane and study an approach plate when ATC gives you a new transponder code. With a less integrated system, you know exactly where the buttons are to enter a transponder code and your fingers will find their way there almost automatically. The buttons are always in the same place, i.e., on the physical transponder box, and they never change their function. With the G1000, you find the soft key labeled "xpdr" and press it. Then some more soft keys take on the function of digits. It is clearly a less direct and more time-consuming procedure. Similarly for entering a frequency into COM 2. With a traditional radio stack, you reach over to COM 2, which is probably underneath COM 1 and labeled "COM 2". You twist the knob that is always there and that always adjusts the COM 2 frequency. With the G1000, you study the COM freqencies display (typically four numbers) and figure out which number is surrounded by a box. This is the number that you are going to be changing if you twist the COM knob. If the box isn't surrounding the number you want to change, you have to think long enough to push the COM knob to toggle between "I'm adjusting COM 1" and "I'm adjusting COM 2" modes. > A 1965 Cessna has what computer nerds would call a "modeless interface". Each switch and knob does one thing and it is the same thing all the time. This is a very usable interface, but it doesn't scale up very well, as you can see by looking at the panel of a Boeing 707. Both the Avidyne and the G1000 have some modal elements. Knobs and switches do different things at different times. The G1000 is more deeply modal and therefore, I think, will always be harder to use. https://philip.greenspun.com/flying/avidyne-versus-garmin https://philip.greenspun.com/flying/avidyne-versus-garmin
- fjni 4y ago
  > I wouldn't call the Garmin G1000 a paragon of UX design though. In some ways I would. I wouldn't call it "intuitive," but once you understand its semantics, it's phenomenally predictable in its behavior. And quite well thought through I think. Here's one of my favorite examples: On the MFD, in an urgent situation, two of the most helpful pages are the "map page," and the "nearest page." These are (unintuitively) the first and last page. Until you realize that that means you can access both without looking which page you're on by spinning the page knob either all the way left or all the way right. It isn't perfect, but I find it generally well thought through. I certainly can't argue with the points about transponder and com1/com2 inputs, but within the parameters for the device, I consider the UX for the G1000 to be ... maybe not a paragon in its entirety, but certainly much more thoughtful than what I encounter in other life daily.

falcrist 4y ago

Lab equipment does the same thing. Decades ago, oscilloscopes started having banks of buttons corresponding to an area of the screen, and knobs that have context sensitive functionality. Those can be placed side by side with buttons that have fixed purposes delineated by printed or debossed lettering. I realize that we're getting pretty far from the automotive use-case, but this style has worked remarkably well over the years, and has made it into all sorts of equipment.

hammock 4y ago
Two more examples that everyone ought to be familiar with- ATMs and electronic voting machines
- Swenrekcah 4y ago
  ATMs in my area have started to ditch the physical buttons. I’ve never seen an electronic voting machine and hope I never will.
  - CommitSyn 4y ago
    When did you last vote? The 2016 election is when I first experienced them. I asked to vote by paper as I wasn't comfortable with electronic voting machines, so they gave me a paper and pen to fill it out, which I was then to feed into the computer.
    - archi42 4y ago
      Not everyone lives in the US ;) Around here we cast votes on paper and then use computer assisted verification & counting.
      - Dylan16807 4y ago
        > Not everyone lives in the US ;) I don't see how that affects the comments you're replying to in any meaningful way. They only mentioned a particular election to establish a timeline. > Around here Voting varies wildly between parts of the US too.

albert_e 4y ago

many ATM machines I have seen do this as well -- just a blank set of buttons on either side of the screen

LeifCarrotson 4y ago
CNC, robotic, and industrial equipment too: Human-machine interfaces have rows of "Soft keys", buttons whose function changes depending on the context. Many machines used soft keys in the ages before touchscreens were available, but manufacturing is slow to change and even with the advent of multi-touch high-resolution color displays, they've remained. For examples: https://www.fanucamerica.com/images/default-source/cnc-images/cnc-panel-images/0if.jpg https://www.fanucamerica.com/images/default-source/cnc-image... https://www.fanuc.eu/~/media/corporate/products/robots/accessories/400x400/400x400/ipendant-software-screenshot-node-banner.jpg https://www.fanuc.eu/~/media/corporate/products/robots/acces... https://i.imgur.com/3vsHBhl.png https://i.imgur.com/3vsHBhl.png (OK, maybe the AB went a little overboard on the number of function keys...) but these are really effective tools to structure menus and build HMIs.

eterevsky 4y ago

I'm not so sure that's an optimal solution. If you are going to use the display to show the UI, you may as well just use touch interface, as long as it is responsive enough. Physical controls make more sense when they are optimized for ergonomics so that they can be used without looking.

klyrs 4y ago
I think the point here is that most people who use the interface a few times will learn the necessary key sequences. This learning can happen with the car at rest, and after that the user can keep their eyes on the road. It's not perfect, as some people have a slower learning rate than others, but it's sure better than a touch screen.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  Well, if the control all change in meaning depending on the interface state, you can only memorize sequences if there is a reset somewhere. And those will probably be very cumbersome sequences.
  - klyrs 4y ago
    If there are "back" and/or "home" buttons that's a non-issue. And that's been my experience with oscilloscopes with this kind of interface.
    - marcosdumay 4y ago
      A "home" is a reset. A "back" button won't solve the issue. On a second thought, if the options are hierarchical, the sequence of clicks may not be cumbersome at all. Also, in a car the state can be something really easy to keep track of, like "the car is running", but even then, I'm not sure it's safe to rely on this.
      - klyrs 4y ago
        mash "back" long enough and you'll get home... it might not be the best thing, but it works.

singlow 4y ago

Most of the ones I have used allowed you to navigate the UI using physical buttons on the steering wheel. Something similar to a up/down/select/back button group with some other specific buttons for frequent actions.

nuccy 4y ago
Yes, buttons on the steering wheel are ones of the most useful ones, though even they become capacitive e.g. in new VW, BMW, Tesla Plaid. I have a VW car with a basic HUD (2015-ish era HUD, where a glass pops up). It can show lane keeping state, adaptive cruise control, current speed, recognized signs and navigation directions. Those features are essential for normal driving, so I don't look at all on the instrument cluster (either dials or the screen). The fact that you don't need to look down and change the focus of the eyes makes a significant difference.

ak217 4y ago

If you look at those MFDs, many also have rotational controls in the corners (some even have two levels of dials, one sitting on top of the other), which are another key way to keep the UI tactile and promote muscle memory. Things like eliminating lag, organizing menus into predictable paths that can easily be committed to muscle memory, and designing buttons and dials that can be used even in high vibration environments, are all key design criteria for these cockpit controls. It's so sad that automotive design refuses to take any lessons from that industry.

QuercusMax 4y ago
When using the touchscreen in my old Nissan Leaf, I used to anchor my thumb underneath the display so I could hit controls reliably via muscle memory even when the road was bumpy. Preposterous that we have to do these kinds of hacks when there are much better solutions.

Litost 4y ago

This comment reminds me of this video, where a F-15C fighter pilot breaks down the "Human Interface" in the cockpit where there are over 250 buttons and various other displays including HUD and panels and a button they aren't allowed to press because it requires an engine rebuild afterwards: https://arstechnica.com/features/2020/06/human-interface-come-on-a-tour-of-an-f-15c-fighter-jet-cockpit/ https://arstechnica.com/features/2020/06/human-interface-com... It suggests it was meant to be part of a series but I've not found any other examples????

rpdillon 4y ago

Very common in military systems as well.

NonNefarious 4y ago

That's fine if the controls work without significant lag. Last week I drove a minivan whose blower speed was controlled by a multi-purpose knob, and each speed change took several SECONDS to be affected. Pathetic.