5 ms·

Can you even imagine how relaxing it would be to have the same interface to your systems, every day, with all the parts in one physical location and never movin

Can you even imagine how relaxing it would be to have the same interface to your systems, every day, with all the parts in one physical location and never moving? Learn it once, then nothing changes for years and years, or if it does it's usually adding on, not replacing or re-arranging existing stuff? Man, that would be nice.

Wistar 4y ago
I used to be an editor in an online digital video suite. All real time and all dedicated controls. GVG Kadenza, Abekas and Accom digital disk recorders, D1 and digi-beta, GVG 141 edit controller. Rarely even looked at the controls, could adjust two or more parameters simultaneously—super important, especially when the parameters affected each other as they were adjusted. Muscle memory ruled—like playing a piano. Plus the physical motion, flying through the settings, looked impressive to the clients and, at those rates which could reach several hundred dollars an hour, that performance, the show, was important.
RedShift1 4y ago
Use boring software. Software that releases every few months instead of weeks or even days. Software that is well documented and has an active supportive community.
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  Works when you're picking the software. Less so in most companies where you spend 75% of your time interacting with half-broken, constantly-changing, barely-interoperable programs and web-services that someone else chose.
- topspin 4y ago
  I've had an experience like this recently in Java. One of the most storied and heinous areas of Java development: so-called "web services." This is the whole SOAP+WSDL hell that did incalculable damage to the Java language and can be credited with the rise of REST as a sane alternative. I had a system I needed to integrate into a workflow engine. I looked at the available interfaces and, noticing that the SOAP API was the most feature complete of the bunch, I figured I'd give it a try. Guess what; no one is iterating on this stuff anymore. The standards specifications quit changing years ago so the targets aren't moving. The libraries are feature complete, solid and efficient and only infrequent bug fixes are appearing now. It works wonderfully. So now you can grab a WSDL, stick on the resource path, add a code generation step to the build and it all "just works." The endless backflips and somersaults it took to get this stuff working back in the day have been evolved out of the stack and we're left with simple, type-safe RPC over HTTP, which is all most people ever really wanted.
  - eitland 4y ago
    I joked recently that these days, if you see a XML file in a project it means there is a higher probability that the project is good. It means someone of those who make it is capable of making pragmatic decisions.
    - geodel 4y ago
      Agree. With yaml infested cloud native asshatery everywhere, the xml or simple properties file based project look very decent to me.
  - RedShift1 4y ago
    I've been a programmer long enough to see things being reinvented over and over again, just under a different name or written in a different language, or now it's "cloud native" and "serverless" and "ready for microservices". The longer I witness this cycle of reinvention the more annoyed I become by it. It's crazy to think that all the work we did in the 80's, 90's and 00's is just thrown away like that, only for those same things to be reinvented and implemented from scratch again with all the experience from the previous iteration lost. Programmers seem to behave much more like the fashion industry than anything else.
turtledragonfly 4y ago
Agreed. Typing this with Vim (:
rthnbgrredf 4y ago
Learn vi/vim/nvim. Interface hasn't changed much since 1976 (first version of vi).
- bmitc 4y ago
  I think a modal editor is somewhat at odds with an HMI consisting of dedicated, physical controls.
  - codemac 4y ago
    nomodes.com
neilv 4y ago
Especially if the interface was designed for high performance (unlike most UX today). One of my favorite was when I spent years starting to learn photojournalism on the side: the mechanics of using a camera is only a small part of it (it's mostly about understanding and conveying a story), but even at my student/amateur level, the muscle memory with pro DSLR and lenses was crazy-effective. I even got a shot that happened only in an instant, unexpected, perceived in my peripheral vision, and the right camera body (I had 2 hanging from shoulders) was suddenly in my hands, viewfinder to my eye, aimed, zoomed in with my 70-200 focal length ring, focused (I might've even used the wheel to select which AF focus point, before half-pressing the shutter button), and snapped-- without consciously intending to do any of those things, so it all seemed to be instantaneous, and I got the shot of something as it was falling. Had I only had a touchscreen phone/camera or a bottom-end DSLR (on which some brands intentionally cripple the UI, to avoid cannibalizing pro gear sales), I would've looked very dumb as I didn't get the shot.
- smm11 4y ago
  f8 and be there.
  - neilv 4y ago
    For the "f/8 and be there" philosophy of getting a usable shot at all, I agree with the simplicity of having a sensible default, and of course with the importance of being where the story is. In the digital era, and as a student/amateur who often kept the strobe in the bag, I'd modify that to "f/4 and be there". f/4 with autofocus, aperture-priority automatic exposure, ISO 400 gave great images, with faster exposure (less likely to have motion blur when I didn't want it, and faster bursts, more forgiving of lower light) and shallower depth-of-field (for making the subject pop). (I think of f/8 as being near hyperfocal distance for having anything in field of view in focus, and probably near an image quality sweet spot of the lens, but also often being slow for non-studio use unless you were using a strobe.)
    - CWuestefeld 4y ago
      I'd modify that to "f/4 and be there". Sure, because my micro 4/3 sensor has a crop factor of 2:1, so when I set to f4, I'm effectively getting a 35mm f8.
trap_goes_hot 4y ago
I can see it working for certain industries, but overall we need digital systems too. I work in manufacturing (biotech); everything we do uses a automated recipe, and there are only a handful of systems where we need an operator to directly interact with a UI to make stuff happen.
robofanatic 4y ago
> not replacing or re-arranging existing stuff? Man, that would be nice. I've met some people who miss those phones with "bottom 40%", that is pre-iphone era phones with hard coded plastic buttons. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/want-new-iphone-blame-steve-jobs-presentation-rob-willis?trk=portfolio_article-card_title https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/want-new-iphone-blame-steve-j...
- grishka 4y ago
  I've been using touchscreen phones since 2009. Typing text on one is still a frustrating experience for me.
closeparen 4y ago
Boring is best where the risk of nuclear meltdown is concerned, but I would expect operating the same system every day for years to be pretty boring vs. engineering changes to systems.
waynesonfire 4y ago
whatever would the bored 10x'er do! But of course, invent the LCD touchscreen. Now, excuse me while I throw up.
ehnto 4y ago
One if the aspects I loved about flying more basic planes. You can master the controls, and then you just know that interface forever. Another reason is that it is discrete, and feedback is obvious. I flip a switch, it goes thonk, and it is in a new physical state. This is where I think modern UX fails the most often. Did I click it? Did it work? Was that a button at all? Is this toggle on or off?
berniedurfee 4y ago
I was just thinking the same thing! It seems so peaceful. Now it’s a bunch of flat panel screens with brash colors and a flood of information, animation and menu diving. AWS should sell physical control panels. This knob is for memory, that one is for CPU. Hit that button to scale up… no not that one!! Music synthesizers are an example. People still flock to hardware synths even though software is as good sonically and way more flexible. Limitations are good. Twisting knobs is satisfying.

Wistar 4y ago

I used to be an editor in an online digital video suite. All real time and all dedicated controls. GVG Kadenza, Abekas and Accom digital disk recorders, D1 and digi-beta, GVG 141 edit controller. Rarely even looked at the controls, could adjust two or more parameters simultaneously—super important, especially when the parameters affected each other as they were adjusted. Muscle memory ruled—like playing a piano. Plus the physical motion, flying through the settings, looked impressive to the clients and, at those rates which could reach several hundred dollars an hour, that performance, the show, was important.

RedShift1 4y ago

Use boring software. Software that releases every few months instead of weeks or even days. Software that is well documented and has an active supportive community.

yamtaddle 4y ago
Works when you're picking the software. Less so in most companies where you spend 75% of your time interacting with half-broken, constantly-changing, barely-interoperable programs and web-services that someone else chose.
topspin 4y ago
I've had an experience like this recently in Java. One of the most storied and heinous areas of Java development: so-called "web services." This is the whole SOAP+WSDL hell that did incalculable damage to the Java language and can be credited with the rise of REST as a sane alternative. I had a system I needed to integrate into a workflow engine. I looked at the available interfaces and, noticing that the SOAP API was the most feature complete of the bunch, I figured I'd give it a try. Guess what; no one is iterating on this stuff anymore. The standards specifications quit changing years ago so the targets aren't moving. The libraries are feature complete, solid and efficient and only infrequent bug fixes are appearing now. It works wonderfully. So now you can grab a WSDL, stick on the resource path, add a code generation step to the build and it all "just works." The endless backflips and somersaults it took to get this stuff working back in the day have been evolved out of the stack and we're left with simple, type-safe RPC over HTTP, which is all most people ever really wanted.
- eitland 4y ago
  I joked recently that these days, if you see a XML file in a project it means there is a higher probability that the project is good. It means someone of those who make it is capable of making pragmatic decisions.
  - geodel 4y ago
    Agree. With yaml infested cloud native asshatery everywhere, the xml or simple properties file based project look very decent to me.
- RedShift1 4y ago
  I've been a programmer long enough to see things being reinvented over and over again, just under a different name or written in a different language, or now it's "cloud native" and "serverless" and "ready for microservices". The longer I witness this cycle of reinvention the more annoyed I become by it. It's crazy to think that all the work we did in the 80's, 90's and 00's is just thrown away like that, only for those same things to be reinvented and implemented from scratch again with all the experience from the previous iteration lost. Programmers seem to behave much more like the fashion industry than anything else.

turtledragonfly 4y ago

Agreed. Typing this with Vim (:

rthnbgrredf 4y ago

Learn vi/vim/nvim. Interface hasn't changed much since 1976 (first version of vi).

bmitc 4y ago
I think a modal editor is somewhat at odds with an HMI consisting of dedicated, physical controls.
- codemac 4y ago
  nomodes.com

neilv 4y ago

Especially if the interface was designed for high performance (unlike most UX today). One of my favorite was when I spent years starting to learn photojournalism on the side: the mechanics of using a camera is only a small part of it (it's mostly about understanding and conveying a story), but even at my student/amateur level, the muscle memory with pro DSLR and lenses was crazy-effective. I even got a shot that happened only in an instant, unexpected, perceived in my peripheral vision, and the right camera body (I had 2 hanging from shoulders) was suddenly in my hands, viewfinder to my eye, aimed, zoomed in with my 70-200 focal length ring, focused (I might've even used the wheel to select which AF focus point, before half-pressing the shutter button), and snapped-- without consciously intending to do any of those things, so it all seemed to be instantaneous, and I got the shot of something as it was falling. Had I only had a touchscreen phone/camera or a bottom-end DSLR (on which some brands intentionally cripple the UI, to avoid cannibalizing pro gear sales), I would've looked very dumb as I didn't get the shot.

smm11 4y ago
f8 and be there.
- neilv 4y ago
  For the "f/8 and be there" philosophy of getting a usable shot at all, I agree with the simplicity of having a sensible default, and of course with the importance of being where the story is. In the digital era, and as a student/amateur who often kept the strobe in the bag, I'd modify that to "f/4 and be there". f/4 with autofocus, aperture-priority automatic exposure, ISO 400 gave great images, with faster exposure (less likely to have motion blur when I didn't want it, and faster bursts, more forgiving of lower light) and shallower depth-of-field (for making the subject pop). (I think of f/8 as being near hyperfocal distance for having anything in field of view in focus, and probably near an image quality sweet spot of the lens, but also often being slow for non-studio use unless you were using a strobe.)
  - CWuestefeld 4y ago
    I'd modify that to "f/4 and be there". Sure, because my micro 4/3 sensor has a crop factor of 2:1, so when I set to f4, I'm effectively getting a 35mm f8.

trap_goes_hot 4y ago

I can see it working for certain industries, but overall we need digital systems too. I work in manufacturing (biotech); everything we do uses a automated recipe, and there are only a handful of systems where we need an operator to directly interact with a UI to make stuff happen.

robofanatic 4y ago

> not replacing or re-arranging existing stuff? Man, that would be nice. I've met some people who miss those phones with "bottom 40%", that is pre-iphone era phones with hard coded plastic buttons. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/want-new-iphone-blame-steve-jobs-presentation-rob-willis?trk=portfolio_article-card_title https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/want-new-iphone-blame-steve-j...

grishka 4y ago
I've been using touchscreen phones since 2009. Typing text on one is still a frustrating experience for me.

closeparen 4y ago

Boring is best where the risk of nuclear meltdown is concerned, but I would expect operating the same system every day for years to be pretty boring vs. engineering changes to systems.

waynesonfire 4y ago

whatever would the bored 10x'er do! But of course, invent the LCD touchscreen. Now, excuse me while I throw up.

ehnto 4y ago

One if the aspects I loved about flying more basic planes. You can master the controls, and then you just know that interface forever. Another reason is that it is discrete, and feedback is obvious. I flip a switch, it goes thonk, and it is in a new physical state. This is where I think modern UX fails the most often. Did I click it? Did it work? Was that a button at all? Is this toggle on or off?

berniedurfee 4y ago

I was just thinking the same thing! It seems so peaceful. Now it’s a bunch of flat panel screens with brash colors and a flood of information, animation and menu diving. AWS should sell physical control panels. This knob is for memory, that one is for CPU. Hit that button to scale up… no not that one!! Music synthesizers are an example. People still flock to hardware synths even though software is as good sonically and way more flexible. Limitations are good. Twisting knobs is satisfying.