3 ms·

Are we stuck with the same toothbrush UX forever?

by ares623 11mo ago

LeFantome 11mo ago
I feel like toothbrush UX has improved quite a bit.
- AndrewKemendo 11mo ago
  Toothbrush UX is the same today as it was when we were hunter gatherers: use an abrasive tool to ablate plaque from the teeth and gums without removing enamel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMuTG6fOMCg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMuTG6fOMCg The variety of form factors offered are the only difference
  - jrowen 11mo ago
    Yes, whittling down a stick is pretty much the same experience as using an electric toothbrush. Or those weird mouthguard things they have now. I don't think most people would find this degree of reduction helpful.
    - AndrewKemendo 11mo ago
      > Yes, whittling down a stick is pretty much the same experience as using an electric toothbrush Correct? I agree with this precisely but assume you’re writing it sarcastically From the point of view of the starting state of the mouth to the end state of the mouth the USER EXPERIENCE is the same: clean teeth The FORM FACTOR is different: Electric version means ONLY that I don’t move my arm “Most people” can’t do multiplication in their head so I’m not looking to them to understand
      - echoangle 11mo ago
        That’s just not what user experience means, two products having the same start and end state doesn’t mean the user experience is the same. Imagine two tools, one a CLI and one a GUI, which both let you do the same thing. Would you say that they by definition have the same user experience?
        AndrewKemendo 11mo ago
        If you drew both brushing processes as a UML diagram the variance would be trivial Now compare that variance to the variance options given with machine and computing UX options you’ll see clearly that one (toothbrushing) is less than one stdev different in steps and components for the median use case and one (computing) is nearly infinite variance (no stable stdev) between median use case steps and components. The fact that the latter state space manifold is available but the action space is constrained inside a local minima is an indictment on the capacity for action space traversal by humans. This is reflected again with what is a point action space (physically ablate plaque with abrasive) in the possible state space of teeth cleaning for example: chemical only/non ablative, replace teeth entirely every month, remove teeth and eat paste, etc… So yes I collapsed that complexity into calling it “UX” which classically can be described via UML
        jrowen 11mo ago
        I would almost define "experience" as that which can't be described by UML. Ask any person to go and find a stick and use it to brush their teeth, and then ask if that "experience" was the same as using their toothbrush. Invoking UML is absurd.
        AndrewKemendo 11mo ago
        You know some of us old timers still remember a time before people just totally abandoned the concept of having functional definitions and iso standards and things like that. Funny how we haven’t done anything on the scale of Hoover Dam, Three Gorges, ISS etc…since those got thrown away User Experience also means something specific in information theory and UX and UML is designed to model that explicitly: https://www.pst.ifi.lmu.de/~kochn/pUML2001-Hen-Koch.pdf https://www.pst.ifi.lmu.de/~kochn/pUML2001-Hen-Koch.pdf Good luck vibe architecting
        jrowen 11mo ago
        Notably, the terms "UX" and "experience" are not present in that document. UI and UX are different things. UX is a newer concept that is more based on observing users and their emotional reactions to using the product. UML and functional definitions and iso standards are still important, it's just not UX. Good luck never observing users using your product. Not everything is a space shuttle, recall that we are talking about toothbrushes here.
  - mrob 11mo ago
    As somebody who's tried using a miswak [0] teeth-cleaning twig out of curiosity, I can say with confidence it's not the same experience as using a modern toothbrush. It's capable of cleaning your teeth effectively, but it's slower and more difficult than a modern toothbrush. The angle of the bristles makes a huge difference. When the bristles face forward like with a teeth-cleaning twig your lips get in the the way a lot more. Sideways bristles are easier to use. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miswak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miswak
- yearolinuxdsktp 11mo ago
  It’s changed, but is a wash: On the positive side, my electronic toothbrush allows me to avoid excessive pressure via real-time green/red light. On the negative side, it guilt trips me with a sad face emoji any time my brushing time is under 2 minutes.
calmbonsai 11mo ago
I can imagine some sort of car-wash-like partial mouth insertion interface (think "smart cleaner/retainer"), but it would be cost-prohibitive and, likely, not offer any appreciable cleaning benefits.
ErroneousBosh 11mo ago
I was going to say "are we stuck with the same bicycle UX forever". Because we've been stuck with the same bicycle UX for like 150 years now. Sometimes shit just works right, just about straight out of the gate.
- esafak 11mo ago
  This is what bicycles originally looked like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocipede#/media/File:Velocipedes.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocipede#/media/File:Velocip...
  - ErroneousBosh 11mo ago
    Yes, something like 200 years ago. By the 1870s we'd pretty much standardised on the "Safety Bicycle", which had a couple of smallish wheels about two and a half feet in olden days measurements in diameter, with a chain drive from a set of pedals mounted low in the frame to the rear wheel. By the end of the 1880s, you had companies mass-producing bikes that wouldn't look unreasonable today. All we've done since is make them out of lighter metal, improve the brakes from pull rods to cables to hydraulic discs brakes, and give them more gears (it wouldn't be until the early 1900s that the first hub gears became available, with - perhaps surprisingly - derailleurs only coming along 100 years ago). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_bicycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_bicycle
- DangitBobby 11mo ago
  There have been absolute fucking gobs of UX changes to bikes in just the last 5 years. They just usually end up on mid range or higher end bikes. Obviously they don't fundamentally change the way a bike works, otherwise it wouldn't be a bike anymore.
  - ErroneousBosh 11mo ago
    Like what? What would you call a "UX change"?
esafak 11mo ago
There are electric-, ultrasonic-, mouthpiece-, and irrigating toothbrushes... Maybe the experience has not changed for the average person, but alternatives are out there.
TheAceOfHearts 11mo ago
This is a bad example because it's solving a problem over a much more constrained domain. A UX revolution in teeth-cleaning technology would probably look like some kind of bio-organism or colony that eats plaque and kills plaque-producing bacteria. In an ideal world you wouldn't have to brush your teeth at all, aside from an occasionally floss or scrub.
- ares623 11mo ago
  Disagree. You're ignoring cost completely (end to end including R&D, manufacturing, logistics, testing, approvals) I can have a personal dentist brush my teeth while I lie down. There's a point where UX-that-works-at-acceptable-cost is good enough. Maybe desktop UX is like the shark. An evolutionary dead-end, but it gets the job done extremely well. (Would be cool if they have lasers on their frickin' heads though)

Are we stuck with the same toothbrush UX forever?

by ares623 11mo ago

Are we stuck with the same toothbrush UX forever?

LeFantome 11mo ago

I feel like toothbrush UX has improved quite a bit.

AndrewKemendo 11mo ago
Toothbrush UX is the same today as it was when we were hunter gatherers: use an abrasive tool to ablate plaque from the teeth and gums without removing enamel https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMuTG6fOMCg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMuTG6fOMCg The variety of form factors offered are the only difference
- jrowen 11mo ago
  Yes, whittling down a stick is pretty much the same experience as using an electric toothbrush. Or those weird mouthguard things they have now. I don't think most people would find this degree of reduction helpful.
  - AndrewKemendo 11mo ago
    > Yes, whittling down a stick is pretty much the same experience as using an electric toothbrush Correct? I agree with this precisely but assume you’re writing it sarcastically From the point of view of the starting state of the mouth to the end state of the mouth the USER EXPERIENCE is the same: clean teeth The FORM FACTOR is different: Electric version means ONLY that I don’t move my arm “Most people” can’t do multiplication in their head so I’m not looking to them to understand
    - echoangle 11mo ago
      That’s just not what user experience means, two products having the same start and end state doesn’t mean the user experience is the same. Imagine two tools, one a CLI and one a GUI, which both let you do the same thing. Would you say that they by definition have the same user experience?
      - AndrewKemendo 11mo ago
        If you drew both brushing processes as a UML diagram the variance would be trivial Now compare that variance to the variance options given with machine and computing UX options you’ll see clearly that one (toothbrushing) is less than one stdev different in steps and components for the median use case and one (computing) is nearly infinite variance (no stable stdev) between median use case steps and components. The fact that the latter state space manifold is available but the action space is constrained inside a local minima is an indictment on the capacity for action space traversal by humans. This is reflected again with what is a point action space (physically ablate plaque with abrasive) in the possible state space of teeth cleaning for example: chemical only/non ablative, replace teeth entirely every month, remove teeth and eat paste, etc… So yes I collapsed that complexity into calling it “UX” which classically can be described via UML
        jrowen 11mo ago
        I would almost define "experience" as that which can't be described by UML. Ask any person to go and find a stick and use it to brush their teeth, and then ask if that "experience" was the same as using their toothbrush. Invoking UML is absurd.
        AndrewKemendo 11mo ago
        You know some of us old timers still remember a time before people just totally abandoned the concept of having functional definitions and iso standards and things like that. Funny how we haven’t done anything on the scale of Hoover Dam, Three Gorges, ISS etc…since those got thrown away User Experience also means something specific in information theory and UX and UML is designed to model that explicitly: https://www.pst.ifi.lmu.de/~kochn/pUML2001-Hen-Koch.pdf https://www.pst.ifi.lmu.de/~kochn/pUML2001-Hen-Koch.pdf Good luck vibe architecting
        jrowen 11mo ago
        Notably, the terms "UX" and "experience" are not present in that document. UI and UX are different things. UX is a newer concept that is more based on observing users and their emotional reactions to using the product. UML and functional definitions and iso standards are still important, it's just not UX. Good luck never observing users using your product. Not everything is a space shuttle, recall that we are talking about toothbrushes here.
- mrob 11mo ago
  As somebody who's tried using a miswak [0] teeth-cleaning twig out of curiosity, I can say with confidence it's not the same experience as using a modern toothbrush. It's capable of cleaning your teeth effectively, but it's slower and more difficult than a modern toothbrush. The angle of the bristles makes a huge difference. When the bristles face forward like with a teeth-cleaning twig your lips get in the the way a lot more. Sideways bristles are easier to use. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miswak https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miswak
yearolinuxdsktp 11mo ago
It’s changed, but is a wash: On the positive side, my electronic toothbrush allows me to avoid excessive pressure via real-time green/red light. On the negative side, it guilt trips me with a sad face emoji any time my brushing time is under 2 minutes.

calmbonsai 11mo ago

I can imagine some sort of car-wash-like partial mouth insertion interface (think "smart cleaner/retainer"), but it would be cost-prohibitive and, likely, not offer any appreciable cleaning benefits.

ErroneousBosh 11mo ago

I was going to say "are we stuck with the same bicycle UX forever". Because we've been stuck with the same bicycle UX for like 150 years now. Sometimes shit just works right, just about straight out of the gate.

esafak 11mo ago
This is what bicycles originally looked like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocipede#/media/File:Velocipedes.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocipede#/media/File:Velocip...
- ErroneousBosh 11mo ago
  Yes, something like 200 years ago. By the 1870s we'd pretty much standardised on the "Safety Bicycle", which had a couple of smallish wheels about two and a half feet in olden days measurements in diameter, with a chain drive from a set of pedals mounted low in the frame to the rear wheel. By the end of the 1880s, you had companies mass-producing bikes that wouldn't look unreasonable today. All we've done since is make them out of lighter metal, improve the brakes from pull rods to cables to hydraulic discs brakes, and give them more gears (it wouldn't be until the early 1900s that the first hub gears became available, with - perhaps surprisingly - derailleurs only coming along 100 years ago). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_bicycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safety_bicycle
DangitBobby 11mo ago
There have been absolute fucking gobs of UX changes to bikes in just the last 5 years. They just usually end up on mid range or higher end bikes. Obviously they don't fundamentally change the way a bike works, otherwise it wouldn't be a bike anymore.
- ErroneousBosh 11mo ago
  Like what? What would you call a "UX change"?

esafak 11mo ago

There are electric-, ultrasonic-, mouthpiece-, and irrigating toothbrushes... Maybe the experience has not changed for the average person, but alternatives are out there.

TheAceOfHearts 11mo ago

This is a bad example because it's solving a problem over a much more constrained domain. A UX revolution in teeth-cleaning technology would probably look like some kind of bio-organism or colony that eats plaque and kills plaque-producing bacteria. In an ideal world you wouldn't have to brush your teeth at all, aside from an occasionally floss or scrub.

ares623 11mo ago
Disagree. You're ignoring cost completely (end to end including R&D, manufacturing, logistics, testing, approvals) I can have a personal dentist brush my teeth while I lie down. There's a point where UX-that-works-at-acceptable-cost is good enough. Maybe desktop UX is like the shark. An evolutionary dead-end, but it gets the job done extremely well. (Would be cool if they have lasers on their frickin' heads though)