US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/11/20800111/us-navy-uss-john-s-mccain-crash-ntsb-report-touchscreen-mechanical-controls <comment><USER2> Wait. Let me get this straight.

Touchscreens, which are ideal for representing multiple user unterfaces in an intuitive way, but requiring constant visual contact are being replaced by a physical user interface that can be used by both touch, and memory?

Why was touchscreen ever even a consideration for controls you're not looking at?

Touchscreen is great for phones. It is awful for keyboards (see macbook pro). And if is even more awful for controls. Has nobody researched this before spending a few hundred million dollars?

<comment><USER3> Well, it worked on Star Trek. Then again, that was addressed in a Voyager episode when Tom Paris designs the helm in their new runabout with old fashioned buttons and switches because he wanted to actually feel the controls much to Tuvok's dismay.

Though, on a serious note, I work in industrial automation and user interfaces, aka HMI's have been touch oriented for quite some time. It was and still is common to see graphical elements which emulate the look of physical buttons used on machinery. This was done to help operators navigate touch screens who were used to panels full of buttons, knobs, and switches.

Recently I rebuilt a machine that was half analog and half digital controls to all digital control. I first started with a full touch interface with provisions for knobs and buttons. During testing operators hated, and I mean HATED the touch screen when it came to virtual potentiometers (one operator got up and walked away saying "this screen is a fucking piece of shit"). I installed encoder knobs to emulate potentiometers and it was a success. Everyone was happy.

Some things just can't be done with a screen. You need physical things to interact with.

<comment><USER4> _I installed encoder knobs to emulate potentiometers_

There's really no need to force this decision to go in either direction. Ever since I first heard of capacitive multitouch, going back to the timeframe before the first iPhone announcement, I've been waiting for someone to build 'stick-on' encoder knobs that the touchscreen controller can read.

These would simply take the form of a knob with a metal leaf or other polygonal electrode in its base, whose rotation could be sensed by code similar to that used to implement crappy 'virtual potentiometers' on existing touchscreens. The fixed part of the knob base would be epoxied or otherwise bonded directly to the screen surface, or perhaps held in place with some sort of frame.

Doesn't seem to have happened yet despite being an incredibly obvious (and inexpensive!) thing to do. Seems like the MIDI community would be all over something like this, even if no one else considered it worthwhile.

<comment><USER5> This reminds me of the Surface Dial. [https://www.microsoft.com/en- us/p/surface-dial/925r551sktgn](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/surface- dial/925r551sktgn)

Being able to set the dial on the screen and just turn it is a really good- feeling workflow, though likely not for something as mission-critical as the article is describing.

<comment><USER4> What I had in mind would cost closer to $0.99 than $99.00, though. (Well, OK, $9.99.) The Surface Dial was a relatively complex Bluetooth device; it didn't work through the touchscreen itself, except to the extent that the touchscreen somehow knew that a Surface Dial was resting on it.

<comment><USER6> According to the spec it uses the touchscreen, or at least some touchscreens:

>On-screen detection: Touch digitizer reports the onscreen location through a capacitive pattern (Studio only)

[https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/surface- dial/925r551sktgn?...](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/surface- dial/925r551sktgn?activetab=pivot%3aoverviewtab)

<comment><USER4> Right, to sense location, not rotation. Rotation goes through Bluetooth, as with any number of existing knob controllers.

<comment><USER7> Funny, I have a whole sketch for this. Well the cat is out of the bag, we might as well complete this to prevent any patents.

I envision using cam levered suction cups to hold on rotary and linear sliders that had touch screen sensitive rubber tips. One could go as far to 3d print arbitrary interaction devices that could get attached to the face of the touch screen. You can use the multitouch sensor w/o the screen but still be able to configure arbitrary devices to go on the front.

I even had a design for joystick. Lots of analog opportunities when you have something like a back illuminated camera or a touch controller that can sense areas. You could also serially transfer data from the device to the touch screen, either using physical touches or electrically simulated touches.

<comment><USER4> Yep, any number of other controls besides knobs would work under the same basic principle. A linear slider control would be an obvious one, as would calculator-style membrane buttons.

I'd be surprised if the concept weren't already patented, though, just because the idea of a generalized capacitive control surface seems fairly obvious, and the patent office doesn't really apply an "obviousness" test. What _definitely_ surprises me is that, patented or not, I can't just go out and buy these sorts of controls.

<comment><USER8> These are great ideas! Tbh I think that much of the reason that these don't exist is the configurability of software UIs - these controls in Linux/ Windows/ OSX would need to be specifically programmed for by the programmer, rather than say in Squeak by the users. Breaking down that user/ programmer barrier is key I think.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> You know, I think touchscreens are not preferable unless you need/want to be able to have controls for many different systems in the same space (e.g. a smartphone with multiple apps). If you are needing a dedicated control for a high-stakes system, the fact that it's a more modern-looking interface should not matter. Touchscreens are inherently inferior to a mechanical interface, if it's a single-system (i.e. doesn't need to morph into a different and back again).

<comment><USER10> This is why I detest touchscreens for most car functions. Specifically AC, with old fashioned knobs I have full control over AC without taking my eyes off the road, but nowadays everyone wants to put it on their infotainment system, hidden beneath 4 other buttons.

<comment><USER11> Yesterday I was driving back from Scotland to England, doing 70ish, when we ran into a really heavy thunderstorm. Went from good visibility to almost zero in seconds, and the only thing I could properly see was the crash barrier alongside the lane. I found myself desperately trying to see where the road was, simultaneously trying not to get rear-ended as I slowed up, switch on the rear fog lamps and hazards, max wipers, and select max demist because suddenly the windscreen had fogged up. Was one of those thankfully-rare maximum mental workload moments. Thank god for manual controls and muscle memory. Pretty such I wouldn't have had enough spare attention and/or brainpower left over for operating a touchscreen.

<comment><USER12> Honest question: Why don't modern cars yet monitor humidity in and outside the car and make the correct decisions to keep your windows clear? Why are we focusing on self-driving cars while our cars are too dumb to do this much on their own?

<comment><USER13> It isn't caused by any specific humidity levels. While it is depositing water droplets on to the glass surface, that same water is normally suspended harmlessly in the air (it is effectively de-humidifying the air onto the cold windows).

It is caused by the glass's surface temperature being much lower than the air temperature inside the car. Humans are warm. The air we breath is warm. We're heating up the interior of the vehicle. When that warm air contacts the cold surface of the glass, the water droplets migrate from the air onto the surface.

In order to detect it you'd need to know the glass's surface temperature ideally in the middle (away from the car's body) and also know the interior temperature. The interior temp they already have. But figuring out the glass's temp is non-trivial. Infrared camera is the only thing I can imagine working (since a sensor wouldn't be transparent or wouldn't be replaced when the glass is) but that would likely give inaccurate readings due to the outside temperature.

<comment><USER14> Yes, but could we maybe get a decent approximation of the windshield temperature from interior temperature, exterior temperature, and speed? Combined with interior/exterior humidity (maybe these gauges might be the expensive/finicky part of this project?), we could calculate a probability of window fogging.

It doesn't have to be perfect -- we can have it just turn on the defrost whenever the probability of window fogging is >10% or something.

<comment><USER15> You could do one of two things. First, a heated windshield like I believe some Landrovers have. It's about $5000 to replace, last I heard, but it works. Second, a double pane windshield like house windows or some motorcycle helmet face shields. These work 100% of the time, but would definitely be more expensive as well.

<comment><USER16> Best car I had for window defrosting/demisting was a Ford Mondeo which had a fine-mesh heating element embedded. Super fast clearing. More expensive than regular glass but not $5000 by a long shot.

<comment><USER17> I had a Honda Accord with a cracked radiator.... It defrosted right quick, but idling it after it warmed up was very ungood. After the radiator was replaced defrost went back to normal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Great. If only monitor manufacturers would do the same thing.

I have a monitor with exactly 2 inputs (1 DP, 1 HDMI). What do I need to do to switch between them?

1\. Press the Menu button

2\. Move the option to Input Source

3\. Select Input Source

4\. Move from one to the other

5\. Press Select

Some monitor will compress 1-3 into a single Input Source option. Still, 3 presses? Why does literally NO ONE make a monitor with hardware input source buttons? WHY?

I HATE OSD menus. With a passion. I don't care if it's a few cents cheaper. They are literally AWFUL. Just look at the Macbook touch bar and how much it's generally reviled.

<comment><USER19> > Some monitor will compress 1-3 into a single Input Source option. Still, 3 > presses? Why does literally NO ONE make a monitor with hardware input source > buttons? WHY?

Because they want to use essentially the same chassis case when they have 2 inputs or 20, and they have dozens of models over the life of the tooling to support. It's much easier to swap out the die for the backplate or to use a snap in backplate than it is to have a variable number of buttons, knobs and dials. The zero-bezel design craze is what makes them really difficult to use because they're a line of tiny, poorly labelled buttons on the front, or an awkward line of buttons on the back with tactile bumps.

<comment><USER18> So this reminds me of a joke. There are only 3 numbers software engineers care about: 0, 1 and 2^32.

The point of this joke is that as soon as the number of "things" (in this case input sources) is >1, someone somewhere starts looking at solutions as if that number might be 5, 10, 100, 1000, 1 million. Most monitors will have less than 5. Some will have up to 10. This number is known when you make the monitor.

Just let me buy a monitor with hardware input selection.

<comment><USER20> > There are only 3 numbers software engineers care about: 0, 1 and 2^32.

Also known as the Zero-One-Infinity Rule: [http://catb.org/jargon/html/Z/Zero- One-Infinity-Rule.html](http://catb.org/jargon/html/Z/Zero-One-Infinity- Rule.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> > and that many were fatigued, with an average of 4.9 hours of sleep between > the 14 crew members present.

I suspect this played more of a role than any of the controls or procedures did. I had a friend in the Navy and he once explained the shifts he did to me and how utterly insane they were.

I suspect leadership doesn't want to (or cant) fix the root cause (fatigue) and is happy to spend tax dollars to replace the steering and divert attention from the problem for now. Gotta do something! Anything! Even if it's not the right thing.

<comment><USER22> I'm not going to argue that the navy should be allow insane schedule, if it's due to budget or poor planing, but in case of a real war maybe you can't expect the grew to get a full 8 hour sleep.

A warship need to be able to operate under the worst of circumstances. In that case every move you make needs to be reflex, and I can imagine that touchscreens aren't ideal for quick precise motions, done by reflex, after only 4 hours of sleep.

<comment> crooked-v This is less than 5 hours of sleep in peacetime, though. How much sleep do you think they'd actually get with a war on?

<comment><USER23> Their daily task list will change. They might cancel some kinds of training and some kinds of cleaning during wartime.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> In a related news:

Mazda is purging touchscreens from its vehicles

[https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1121372_why-mazda-is- pur...](https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1121372_why-mazda-is-purging- touchscreens-from-its-vehicles)

Discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20200335](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20200335)

</comment><comment><USER25> "Fun" touchscreen story - I had to file a warranty claim for my not so cheap blender that had mechanical controls. The company replaced it with the newer model, that had, you guessed it - touchscreen control.

Not long after that, I was working in the kitchen, moving stuff into the blender, when a drop of water made it to the screen. The thing started at full speed throwing liquid everywhere, which worsened the situation, leaving me no way to stop it but to pull the cord out.

If I had to guess the next touchscreen everywhere will be misuse of AI, not in a malicious way, but in a really stupid one.

<comment><USER26> >If I had to guess the next touchscreen everywhere will be misuse of AI, not in a malicious way, but in a really stupid one.

Reminds me of a talk someone gave. I forget who. Elon Musk perhaps. A quick google didn't turn it up.

Anyhow, they laid out a hypothetical scenario where humans were driven to extinction by a run away AI. Rather than being some sort of Skynet scenario where the machines are explicitly trying to kill all humans, it is an AI whose job was to maximize strawberry production. The AI converted the earth's entire surface into strawberry fields and inadvertently wiped out everything else in the process.

Arguably a more plausible scenario than Skynet.

<comment><USER27> The Revelation Space book series by Alastair Reynolds [spoilers ahead] ends with such a paperclip maximizer scenario. Someone accidentally turns on advanced sentient self-replicating terraforming robots without programming their target area. They promptly begin to terraform the galaxy and don't take kindly to interference.

This is a tiny shade of background in the story, not the main story, but read the books if you like this kind of tale.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> A key issue for the Navy is that they have multiple stations which can control steering and propulsion, and they are not tied together with force feedback. There's at least one airplane crash of an Airbus that came from that situation, and a crash between a ferry and a NYC dock for the same reason.

What the Navy is looking for is available off the shelf. Force and position feedback ship throttles are available.[1] Move one lever and all the other ones move to match.

[1] [https://www.kongsberg.com/globalassets/maritime/km- products/...](https://www.kongsberg.com/globalassets/maritime/km- products/product-documents/k-thrust-azimuth-lever)

</comment><comment><USER29> I'm having trouble visualizing exactly how this works from the text, but it sounds like a total nightmare. Some sort of complicated list of steps for transferring control screens between different stations on the ship, and it's not clear why or when you do this at all.

I'm guessing the Navy doesn't spend a lot of time on UI/UX, which is ironic since these long, high-stress shifts with lives on the line is exactly where it's needed most. I can't imagine a worse solution than a bunch of poorly designed, unintuitive screens being transferred all over the ship in a chaotic situation.

<comment><USER30> In my own experience, any software developed under government contract has horrendous UI/UX. Probably because it's hard to specify "don't suck and be pleasant to use" in terms of formal system requirements.

<comment><USER31> Also because the people paying for the system aren't the ones that will end up using it day to day. The system looks nice enough for the bean counters to approve it based on looks without soliciting actual user feedback (partly because those users are way lower down the food chain but also because of the mindset of the bean counters - they see it looks nice from their perspective but aren't aware of the benefit of user testing).

<comment><USER30> This complete separation of "customer" and "user" is one reason I disliked working in the gov't contracting world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Flying in bumpy weather, the touch screens can be tricky to do precision presses. End up having to balance your finger on the edge of the Garmin and then touch. I can imagine rough seas being a similar issue.

<comment><USER33> Rough roads too.

<comment><USER34> Oh boy, driving through the shit town of Haaren by bus while trying to text my girlfriend I'll be there in 10. I miss my Nokia 6230i or E75 so much during those times. I don't get why nobody made an E75-style phone with Android, I look for it every time I need a new phone but there is never anything reasonable.

<comment><USER35> They do make them. People keep pretending they don't exist without even looking for them.

<comment><USER36> Examples?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> The very idea of a touchscreen on a ship is mindboggling, at least to a landlubber. Ships are on oceans. Oceans are kinda famous for making things tip around, as are torpedoes, collisions, and such. I can't fathom trying to press the CORRECT area on a touchscreen during a critical situation when I may have just been abruptly knocked aside moments earlier.

</comment><comment> c-smile Someone needs to go to basics of ergonomics.

That strange actually. I do remember ergonomics lectures in university were presented by lecturer wearing army uniform as these guys were deadly (literally) serious about it and consequences. At least in USSR and at USSR time.

</comment><comment><USER38> Somewhat related - when I was working at Union Pacific in 2011, there was a hugely expensive effort to replace the old 1024x768 monitors in the locomotives with 1080p equivalents, including redesigning a lot of the UIs to work in a wide screen form factor.

After the rollout completed, all the feedback was negative, saying that the fonts were too small to read on the new displays, especially when the locomotive began vibrating at speed.

In the end, the whole fleet had a software update pushed out that set the resolution back to 1024x760, and all the UIs looked stretched. The engineers (train, not software) were ecstatic.

Lesson to take away is that with user interaction, it's important to look at how humans will actually be using the system. That seems self evident, but given stories like these clearly isn't.

</comment><comment><USER39> Let's picture a mechanical throttle, with force feedback to indicate conflicting inputs, and self positioning to indicate current settings. Spiffy! The interest in this thread is understandable.

Except this is 7th fleet, so operational tempo and deferred maintenance means those new throttles will be variously broken. So now absence of force sometimes means no conflict, and sometimes doesn't. And position sometimes indicates setting, and sometimes doesn't. You just need to keep track of what maintenance state each throttle of each pair is in. But don't worry, mechanical inputs for continuous variables reduces cognitive load.

And maybe instead of a mechanically complex positioner, we'll put a more reliable indicator next to the throttle. I know, it could be screen. Or even better, let's have both!

And ... oh, never mind.

Just two observations.

First, apropos unilateral transfer of control.

"In addition to the coordinated procedure, a unilateral procedure, in which one station could take control of thrust from another station by action of only one station, was also available. However, the unilateral procedure is not relevant to the accident and will not be discussed further in this report." Page 6 (pdf's 16).

"Considering the speed and timing of the control transfer, the NTSB concludes that the unintended shift in steering control from the helm to the lee helm station on the John S McCain was likely a unilateral transfer initiated from the lee helm station. [...] and contributed to the errors that led to the accident." Page 26 (36). Reflected in Findings 7 and 8.

Second, apropos the big red button.

"According to the John S McCain's emergency procedures and other written directives, the helmsman's first action in response to a loss of steering was to press the emergency-override-to-manual button. This action would have shifted steering to the helm station in the backup manual mode. However, the helmsman told investigators that, during the accident, he did not press the emergency-override-to-manual button because he believed that this sent steering control to aft steering (an opinion shared by other bridge watch standers interviewed by investigators)"

It seems the accident might have been avoided if the single big red button in the middle of the console, ambiguously labeled "EMERGENCY OVERRIDE TO MANUAL", had been sharpied with "Get manual helm control".

</comment><comment><USER40> I greatly dislike touch screens in vehicles for the same reason. Still can't believe they are allowed

</comment><comment><USER41> I think this is actually a smart decision. Thinking about it from a systems engineering perspective might help. I spent a few years writing software for NAVAIR. I worked specifically with systems that are on carriers, but I assume it is the same for NAVSEA and destroyers. A touchscreen might be thought of as a COTs component, but there's not many choices when you take into account the mil spec standards that must be met with regards to vibration and salt water. The touchscreens that are allowed to be used are not cheap and if the display breaks, it must all be replaced. The whole monitor itself is the smallest replaceable unit. Physical buttons on the other hand have very cheap versions that have been passing mil spec for the last half century. Stocking LED buttons and non touch screen displays would be the cheapest option.

</comment><comment><USER42> Tactile is better.

That's also the lesson electronic musicians found out over time.

You can still use MIDI/VST/synthesizers/DAWs and so on -- but having tactile control over them is better (faster and more expressive) than a tiny, or even a large, screen.

And of course, you can combine both methods (but not when you're just given a screen).

<comment><USER43> I also still prefer a slide out keyboard on my phone... and I don't care if it's twice as thick

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Same thing Happened in Honda CR-V. They removed the volume knob, and people had to use touchscreen; there was a huge backlash, so they brought back the physical volume knob.

</comment><comment><USER45> This is interesting in the context of the SpaceX capsule design that heavily relies on touchscreens:

"The cockpit simulator demonstrated the controls that Dragon astronauts will have at their command. In comparison to the space shuttle and its more than 1,000 buttons, switches, and controls, the Dragon capsule has a modest array of three flat screens and two rows of buttons below." [1]

It seems like space travel would be less resilient to the growing pains of naval travel when implementing new tech, but hopefully they get the HMI issues all worked out beforehand.

[1] [https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/08/spacex-reveals- the-c...](https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/08/spacex-reveals-the-controls- of-its-dragon-spacecraft-for-the-first-time/)

<comment><USER46> The culture at NASA traditionally was to allow the occupants of any craft to have complete control over everything[1], even though it was technically possible to pilot entire missions remotely (as many unmanned missions over the years have proven). I'm assuming SpaceX doesn't have such a culture.

[1] Digital Apollo is a very interesting book on the subject: [https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/digital- apollo](https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/digital-apollo)

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Recently I've taken up metal machining as a semi-serious hobby. Fully automated CNC machines don't entirely fit my use-cases but for a couple of them LinuxCNC works fine. The primary UI for LinuxCNC is a touchscreen and frankly it's a frustrating limitation.

LCD Touchscreens are just not well suited for that sort of environment. Legit OEM CNC controls are better but honestly every time I use one I can't but feel like that by now we should have figured out something better. Something that is very robust and can stand up well in harsh environments. Something very easy to read, even for folks with poor vision. Something usable while wearing some sorts of thin(ish) gloves. But I've yet to find anything that would be better.

<comment><USER48> LinuxCNC (at least Axis) can be controlled by keyboard - F1 is especially handy to stop the job in progress if anything goes wrong. Arrow keys can be used for jogging, with shift it uses max travel speeds but dedicated CNC pendant for jogging is on my TODO list as well as standalone DRO with 7 segment displays.

<comment><USER47> I absolutely hate using a standard computer keyboard to control a machine tool. It's all wrong. Or maybe it's more accurate to say that my mind is in completely the wrong mode of thought. Anyway it just doesn't jive.

So far I've tried a few pendants, starting with a games controller, some kind of media production controller, and some off-shore low budget purpose made dedicated CNC pendant. The games controller was by far the most useable but it's made out of the wrong materials, made for childrens' hands, and doesn't have all the right mechanical inputs (I need a wheel). The media thing was unsatisfying but tantalising in some ways.

I've been psyching myself up for a doing some sort of mostly faithful copy of legit OEM controllers I use from time to time, like Fanuc for example. Some years ago I used an old Maho that had a really nice wired pendant. It was really solid, had some heft to it, and my recollection is that failing one or two functions had every one might want in such a device.

Also, I think you're right about wanting a standalone DRO with 7 segment LED displays. For a lot of jobs I find that a DRO hits the sweet spot with being easy to use, easy to read, and having the functions I need. My only real complaint is that I think I want one with a larger read out, so I can push it well out of the way and still see it properly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> We still use controllers for most video games over keyboards/mice or touch pads for a good reasons related to how games are played (from a couch vs desk) or the types of games.

No human computer interface is a panacea. It should always be a mix for any complex system, not either/or.

<comment><USER50> It depends on the game and your personal preferences. I can't imagine any enjoying a RTS or 4x like Civilization with a gamepad. I prefer a mouse for 1st person shooters, for whatever reason I simply can't aim accurately or quickly with a analog joystick.

<comment><USER51> Thats not just you. A skilled joystick player will be easily beaten by a mediocre player with a keyboard/mouse if all the other conditions are the same.

Infact, most games have aim assist if you use a controller as means of input.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> In somewhat related news, I am kicking around the idea of a modular hardware project to be able to add physical knobs, buttons, and switches to a computer interface, sort of how those magnetic modular midi controllers work, but for more than just MIDI, and with a wider range of input types and a spec for a frame/rack/bus so that you can screw them together (sort of like a modular synth, but probably with landscape orientation instead of portrait) into a console panel.

I want my computer to have a lot more backlit LCD 2x16 dot matrix displays and blinky lights and heavy metal clunk switches and good knobs.

Email me if you have ideas or feedback or want to get involved.

</comment><comment><USER53> Just yesterday I downloaded a couple of kind-of-documentary-videos from Youtube about submarines, for example [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwTS3FYGhOc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwTS3FYGhOc) (the doc itself is not great but the resolution/detail of the video is good).

I was astonished to see that they have screens (touchscreens?) everywhere!

I was naive in this area and thought that at least submarines would rather have physical switches or at most something similar to the screens of jet fighters (e.g. [http://falcon4.wdfiles.com/local-- files/avionics%3Amfd/mfd_m...](http://falcon4.wdfiles.com/local-- files/avionics%3Amfd/mfd_menu.JPG) ) where any switch/option/selection is displayed at the border of the screen and mapped to a physical button on its rim, but that's apparently not the case.

I thought so because I thought that whoever uses the controls would like to have a physical feedback about switching a switch/button especially in a critical/stressful situation - but maybe they still get some kind of feedback (e.g. some external sound or vibration?)?

</comment><comment><USER54> Same thing happened in Ford Flex (perhaps other cars as well, I just have a ford flex). The touchscreen was replaced with mechanical dials and buttons in newer models for climate control. I understand, I find the touchscreen hard to use while concentrating on the road.

That said, touchscreens definitely have their place for getting information about the system / monitoring / managing data.

</comment><comment><USER55> If you have physically controls then you will get haptic touch feedback and develop muscle memory.

Physical controls is similar to playing the guitar you need the feedback and sensitivity of the touch thing.

Touch screens is good for certain areas. Displaying information.

Ferries have had similar incidents crash with dock, with touch controls.

A reason aircraft have gps with knobs, bmw has roll wheel to control the infotainment selection etc.

</comment><comment><USER56> Man for something like the main controls you would expect it to be manual.

Picture Boeing moving plane controls to touchscreen - I thing it would be disastrous. I bet the navy had contractors up selling touchscreen tech like crazy.

So many more points of failure for touchscreens it seems crazy

<comment><USER57> At this point is "manual" even accurate, as these controls are gradually not linked to anything ? (thus allowing to move control around, or input adjustement for instance)

Also (from 2016): [http://www.boeing.com/777x/reveal/touchscreens-come- to-777x-...](http://www.boeing.com/777x/reveal/touchscreens-come- to-777x-flight-deck/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> >That setting meant that any crew member at another station could take over steering operations, and when the crew tried to regain control of the ship from multiple stations, control "shifted from the lee helm, to aft steering, to the helm, and back to aft steering."

There's some parallel here to Air France 447, where crew fed opposing inputs to flight controls, with reportedly zero tactile feedback, as it pancaked into the ocean.

>[https://news.aviation-safety.net/2012/07/09/bea-issues- final...](https://news.aviation-safety.net/2012/07/09/bea-issues-final-report- on-af447-accident/)

</comment><comment><USER59> Its pretty simple to work out if the touchscreens were a step-back: ask the operators.

BACK-DROP: Many commentators blame the USS Fitzgerald squarely at the feet of budgetary uncertainty, leading to severely depleted crews. Researching it now, the coverage I think must of been largely by this guy [https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/aqmwam/im_t_christian...](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/aqmwam/im_t_christian_miller_a_journalist_who/)

</comment><comment><USER60> _Hey Skippy, don 't get any water or coffee on the helm controls, or it might either not respond or go full ahead/reverse._

^-- Just one class of examples of what could wrong with not having physical controls.

Also, it takes a smaller explosive to crack/damage a touchscreen than physical controls into uncontrollability... and now you have a billion dollar paperweight.

</comment><comment><USER61> This looks like a great step in the right direction and I hope the manufacturer of my coffee machine is following suit.

<comment><USER62> hmm, I like the coffee machine at the office to have touch screen. They have literally 30 types of coffees there, I prefer quick searching and selecting my stuff.

\+ with touchscreen you can bookmark your specific drink with the right amount of sugar and milk and then get it every time at the touch of a button.

<comment><USER61> We also have these big coffee machines at work and they're very cool because when you're walking to a different one it's kind of random which mix of products you'll get offered just because there are so many drinks and each one is programmed differently. And I agree that it makes sense for these types of machines.

But my personal one has literally two options to choose from. However, the touch screen is old technology in contrast to the machine itself, so the handling is rather awkward. Also, it had to be replaced already because it suddenly stopped working for no actual reason. I think that the logic behind not just putting two physical buttons on it is that some designer thought it looks cooler with this big screen full of colors - and he may be right, but UX should really be more than just looks.

<comment><USER62> yes, I agree. I think the UX should always start with physical buttons and if they find that the buttons are too many to fit on the device in an intuitive way, then adopt the touchscreen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> This is why the Enterprise has buttons and sliders as its controls rather than immersive holographic displays.

</comment><comment><USER64> Touchscreens seem like it was overly ambitious to implement in the first place. Not to mention prone to attack by an EMP, or even literal sticky fingers (heh) but I bet a lot of other stuff on the ships are too. Navy may bumble around a tiny bit but I really like my GPS.

</comment><comment><USER65> What even was the point of putting them there in the first place? It's a freaking gunboat.

You want this things to have a single clear mode of operation. You're using this to kill people, not play games. Clarity and intent of use are paramount here, over sweet transitions and looks

</comment><comment><USER66> certain car manufacturers should do the same too

</comment><comment><USER67> And in related news, Kindle now charges _more_ for a top-end unit which exposes physical page-turn buttons in place (or alongside) screen touch interactions: Its not just more functional, _you can charge more for it_

</comment><comment><USER68> Oh, well, I must say - I'm touched that they got that problem under control.

</comment><comment><USER69> "The report says that while fatigue and lack of training played a role in the accident, the design of the ship's control console were also contributing factors"

I hope this is not just a scapegoat and actual issue is being fixed.

</comment><comment><USER70> Touch screens are amazing interfaces for interacting with zoom/rotation of multi-scale data (maps / 3D space / molecules / etc.).

Buttons are amazing interfaces for changing a single state of a machine.

</comment><comment><USER71> Good choice. I HATE touch screens. Humans need tactile feedback.

</comment><comment><USER72> I am a computer person, and I am falling onto my knees with tearful thanks for the wisdom of this. We have barely escaped really-stupid but we're not out of the woods yet.

</comment><comment><USER73> I took a cheap MIDI controller and wrote some software to control Photoshop with it so that I can use dials for brush size, zoom, etc. Feels so much more natural.

</comment><comment><USER74> If the controls were exclusively gaming mice/keyboards and Xbox/PlayStation controllers, they'd be the most agile, fearsome fleet in history.

<comment><USER75> The Navy has tested using Xbox controllers for controlling periscopes. It's saves tens of thousands of dollars each over the fancy custom joysticks they used to use. If one breaks, it's easy to replace. It also helps a lot for training--the old ones took a few hours of training to get new users comfortable, but since a lot of the users are dudes in their 20s and 30s the Xbox controller is a lot more intuitive

</comment></comment><comment><USER76> Hardware electronic musicians understand this well. :)

</comment><comment><USER77> Seriously touchscreens are so bad for most controls, it irks me that they're so gratuitously over used

</comment><comment><USER78> Sense of touch is underused as an aspect of interface design. See Apple Watch's crown dial.

</comment><comment><USER79> Who is/are the idiot/s who thought it appropriate to use touch screens to begin with? How much taxpayer money waste has this decision and its undoing caused, and is there any effort whatsoever to get to the bottom of this? Or is this just "collateral damage"?

</comment><comment><USER80> I look forward to this outbreak of common sense to return to car interfaces.

</comment><comment><USER81> How does one operate a touch screen when wearing anti-flash gear?

</comment><comment><USER82> Touch screens in cars should burn in hell.

</comment><comment><USER83> Duh. Especially if an EMP hit.

<comment><USER29> Yes but instead of worrying about the theoretical EMP that has never happened and will never happen how about we worry about the fact that we keep crashing into merchant ships like on the regular?

Engineering priorities and all that.

<comment><USER84> _the theoretical EMP that has never happened_

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859)

> Telegraph systems all over Europe and North America failed, in some cases > giving telegraph operators electric shocks.[20] Telegraph pylons threw > sparks. [..]

> In June 2013, a joint venture [..] used data from the Carrington Event to > estimate the current cost of a similar event to the U.S. alone at $0.6–2.6 > trillion.[2] [..]

> The solar storm of 2012 was of similar magnitude, but it passed Earth's > orbit without striking the planet, missing by nine days.[4]

<comment><USER85> A geomagnetic storm is not an EMP. They are completely different phenomena.

A geomagnetic storm is a very long duration, low frequency event that causes movement in the magnetic field of the earth. This can induce a voltage on large conductive structures notably very large metal objects, but primarily on long distance electrical lines such as telegraph (in 1859), or electrical transmission lines today.

An EMP is an incredibly high-frequency, short-duration event in which a very intense electric field is generated which can affect mostly very small electrical devices such as integrated circuits, etc.

They aren't even vaguely similar.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> Awesome... they can replace the mechanical controls with oars the next there's an accident!</comment>


Why Is Europe Failing to Create More Unicorns? - <AUTHOR> http://000fff.org/why-is-europe-failing-to-create-more-unicorns/ <comment><USER2> There is indeed the impossibility to have a european silicon valley, as UK, France and Deutschland are basically competing to impose London, Paris or Berlin.

With Brexit impacting London, I think the fight will be more and more between Paris and Berlin. Paris being a true word capital, but Berlin being cheaper and more international, it's hard to predict which one will prevail.</comment>


Edward Snowden's not the story. The fate of the Internet is - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/jul/28/edward-snowden-death-of-internet

<comment><USER2> Previous discussion:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6115088](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6115088) (331 points, 84 comments)</comment>


California Weighs Raising Taxes on Companies Based on Pay Gap Btwn Execs&Workers - <AUTHOR> https://www.kqed.org/news/11796417/california-weighs-raising-taxes-on-companies-based-on-pay-gap-between-execs-and-workers <comment><AUTHOR> my initial impression is that CA wants more of its people to get on to public assistance.

There will more automation and less jobs in the future. It's better to get there quickly and simply give everyone a UBI(or services) and mostly importantly healthcare(because most people work because they need coverage)..and just be done with this pretense?

[..] One question is whether the state should make money off the tax. Lawmakers could write the bill so it rewards companies that have smaller gaps between their CEO's salary and the average pay of their workers.

As written, state officials estimate the legislation could bring in up to $4.1 billion. Skinner said it's reasonable for the state to make money off the tax because the rising income inequality means more workers are relying on public assistance.

"California's taxpayers are basically paying the cost for the services that employees then turn to because they don't have a wage that can provide their families needs," Skinner said.[..]</comment>


An Introduction to Lambda Calculus and Scheme - <AUTHOR> http://www.jetcafe.org/jim/lambda.html

<comment><USER2> A much more thorough, free book along similar lines is:

 _"An Introduction to Functional Programming Through Lambda Calculus"_

<http://www.macs.hw.ac.uk/~greg/books/gjm.lambook88.ps>

There's also this:

 _"Introduction to Lambda Calculus"_

by Henk Barendregt , Erik Barendsen

<http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/barendregt94introduction.html></comment>


I agree with Guy Steele - <AUTHOR> http://164543.spreadshirt.com/i-agree-with-guy-steele-A6608157

<comment><AUTHOR> What the heck is this t-shirt talking about?</comment>


Rich Kids: Social network for the "wealthiest and most interesting" kids - <AUTHOR> https://richkids.life/membership/ <comment><USER2> Oh dear. How common!

My even more exclusive social media site "evenricherkids.life" has a membership fee of €10000 / month. That should keep out the ghastly parvenus I'd expect to be attracted to your sort of tawdry establishment.

[Seriously though. Good luck with it. It's such a cheeky idea, it might just work.... It won't, but it might]

</comment><comment><USER3> Their targeted customer are the kind of people of want these kind of products. But if the only exclusivity of the product is about being rich, and all my others friends are rich, where is the exclusivity ?</comment>


Ask HN: What are the most used productivity tools in your tech job? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Figuring out goals, identifying underlying problems, coming up with efficient solutions, focusing on the critical path...

A so-called "productivity tool" will save you 15 minutes a day. Asking questions and thinking will save you weeks of work.

More on productivity here: [https://codewithoutrules.com/2016/08/25/the-01x-programmer/](https://codewithoutrules.com/2016/08/25/the-01x-programmer/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I have a Do Not Disturb button on my phone that allows the phone to ring once then it goes directly to voicemail.

That is probably my number one productivity tool.

The next most important tool is moving everyone to an established process where all requests/bugs/tasks have to come through a single channel. In this case, the channel is Jira for me. Before this, things could come from many different channels. Having things all in one place ensures things do not fall through the cracks. It gives you the ability to see a big picture view of what is going on.

For smaller teams, it might not make sense to use something big like Jira, but none the less, having a process in place really helps.

</comment><comment><USER4> If you are asking for things that increase my productivity:

\- Computing power of course.

\- magit: I cannot imagine using git without it. This and org-mode are still the reasons why I use Emacs.

\- IntelliJ: My younger, stupid self always felt proud of using spartan tools (spartan, as in "emacs is too bloated and the only thing I need are ed or mg and how dare you using a mouse"). Fortunately I grew up and abandoned all sort of tribalistic or elitist thoughts. IDEs are an invaluable tool and I feel sorry for the suckers that are still trapped on the "programmers that use IDEs are inherently stupid" narrative.

\- TOAD SQL & Winmerge: I don't work with Windows anymore but miss these two daily. Let me know if you know of tools that are similar for macOS / Linux.

\- cwm: I rarely use it anymore as I don't boot my OpenBSD box as much as I'd like but it has this thing where you press M-/ (I think?) so you can query windows by name. It's really useful. So are groups.

\- Ctrl-up & Ctrl-down in macOS. Win+tab in Windows.

\- Windowmaker's Dockapps. I miss those.

\- ACME: You don't know what you're talking about when you say "UNIX as IDE" if you haven't tried this.

\- vi keybindings.

\- A internal wiki: 1/4 of my time is spent writing or reading it.

</comment><comment><USER5> Five years into emacs and I'm only now getting into org-mode. I have about 6k lines of bash code which tangles into a series of startup scripts I use to bring a fresh boot system into production (that includes everything from db config, to raid setup). There is a block of code on top that holds all the configuration details which instructs which blocks to tangle, and to which destination. And since it's org mode, all the code is annotated and exports to HTML and PDF format documentation. The best part, in my project folder where I used to keep these things, now sits one org file.

</comment><comment><USER6> Visual Studio 2015, Vscode, git, SQL Management Studio, Remote Desktop and Vivaldi

<comment><AUTHOR> Cool, i´m using vivaldi too. Pretty good browser by the way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Regex, because most of our work involves manipulating text.

<comment><AUTHOR> so your basic stack are some regex? sounds interesting ..

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Our coffee machine

<comment><USER2> Getting a full night's sleep is better than stimulants, but well-played nonetheless.

<comment><USER9> For some definitions of "better"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Sublime Text, iTerm2, DBeaver, MacDown, TaskWarrior

</comment><comment><USER11> Command line, git, github, atom, chrome console.

</comment><comment><USER12> Basecamp and Slack are probably the most used.

</comment><comment><USER13> Winmerge , notepad++, JIRA,ServiceNow

<comment><USER14> I have seriously never heard someone say ServiceNow is productive :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> tmux, vim</comment>


Federal Reserve hacked by Anonymous - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/feb/06/federal-reserve-anonymous <comment><USER2> Interesting the use of "stealing" in the article.

Anonymous "stolen" information on 4000 executives... Well, it is more like spying, but alright.

But then Swartz "stole" JSTOR articles too...

I wonder if one day, we will ever have people stop use words in that broken way, "steal" to mean so many different things.

The whole point of languages, is facilitate communication, even if you think it is helping you to communicate when you use a "simplified" version of the language, if you slowly erode the meaning of the words, it makes communication ultimately, harder.</comment>


Play with Interactive Bootstrap Documentation - <AUTHOR> http://pinegrow.com/bootstrap-docs.html

<comment><USER2> Really impressive demo!

Been using Pinegrow a few days and it is much better executed than Macaw, Divshot, Muse, Dreamweaver and similar, mainly because it's based on node- webkit and as such uses a proper DOM, less error prone and perfect testing since it actually use a browser.

I also like the UI better, this seems to be made by someone intending to actually USE their own app.

Do hope to see extensions/plugin support soon!</comment>


Read eBooks using the free Kindle Cloud Reader only with web browsers - <AUTHOR> https://kevinhq.com/complete-guide-about-kindle-cloud-reader.html <comment><USER2> Why I don't like Kindle eBooks they are treated different than paper printed books, stitched up with DRM they are electronic but not allowed to cross borders or geographic areas. Try buying Kindle eBook and sending to another country as gift, first lets waste your time choosing eBook fill in your details plus recipients press send, rejected you may only send to person living in same country as you. Plus the cost of eBooks for kindle being same price or more than paperbacks not talking about the info booklets and other fluff giving away. Kindle has been around for a while and I don't see it improving for the customer. Better alternatives [https://calibre- ebook.com/](https://calibre-ebook.com/)</comment>