|
|  |
User Experience (Usability)
350 hits
| Dec 14, 2003 9:34 pm |
|
re: Analog Interfaces and Digital Innards |
Frank Collyer
| |
It seems that manufacturers/designers believe that people won't consider their product "cutting edge' if the controls don't look like the bridge on the Starship Enterprise. After all, how advanced could a product be that has 1950's controls - like twisty knobs? (oddly enough, web pages use HTML "Radio Buttons" that work exactly like 1950's car radio buttons!) Consider dishwashing machines. Take 'em apart & the mechanical workings of most mfr's lines are pretty much the same. same motor, same pump. etc. The controls on each more expnsive machine in a line are more complex - and the mfr charges accordingly. Same mechanicals doing the same job, only more (unnecessary) speed etc. settings. A number of years ago, GM put non-optional digital speedometers in Corvettes. The speedo display was so distracting that the digital speedo quickly became an option - with the analog standard!
It has nothing to do with "usability", only marketing!
> Alex Barnes wrote:
> Hello, usability gurus!
>
>I recently went shopping for a Christmas present for my mother-in-law. She wants a radio that is easy to use.
>
>Now, you'd think that this is simple. Radios have been around for at least 100 years. By now, the user interface would be flawless, right?
>
>Wrong!
>
>You see, for her, the UI has to be analog (most good UIs are: mice, sliders, car brakes). Yet, only the cheapo radios have an analog interface. The problem is the tuner (which is not the same as the UI, think of a slider widget) is analog too.
>
>More expensive radios have digital tuners (innards) with digital UIs to match (+/- buttons). There is no way my mother-in-law would have the patience to learn or to use these.
>
>This is when I realized that the UI should be analog (twisty knob) and the innards should be digital. The feedback display could be either simulated analog or digital.
>
>I saw a Sony that looked to have both. But, alas 'twas not to be. The twisty knob did not twist all the way -- it had what appeared to be 5 settings: nothing, slow +, fast +, slow - and fast -.
>
>Why don't radio manufacturers clue into this simple idea? The computer industry is often faulted for poor SW UI design, but most computer hardware has excellent UI. You don't see anyone coming out with a 6 button "pointing device" (up, down, right, left, right-click, left-click). No, the most recent additions are the Mouse Wheel and Optical tracking.
>
>The Mouse Wheel is a classic analog UI.
>Optical tracking uses digital sampling (my guess), but retains the usability of an analog ball (minus the surface problems).
>
>So, instead of just simply complaining about this, I want to do something.
>
>First, who agrees with my "radio" critique? What flaws are there in my argument?
>Second, if you do agree, should we:
>a) lobby the manufacturers and retailers to address this, OR
>b) design our own?
>
>Option a) requires less time, but does not have nearly the payoff or satisfaction of option b).
>
>Over and out (sorry, couldn't resist),
>
> -Alex
>
> Private Reply to Frank Collyer (new win) |
|
