More seriously, there are tradeoffs either way. Physical knobs give great feedback, require less cognitive load, and remain fixed. The latter is also where touch screens shine - the UI can evolve over time.
In some settings touch screens are superior to physical buttons and in other scenarios it is the reverse.
> The latter is also where touch screens shine - the UI can evolve over time.
This is not necessarily a benefit. Such interfaces often break muscle memory when they change, often with no choice to the user. At least manufacturers can't come in when you have physical controls and suddenly replace your control panel without consent because they have a "better" one.
Quite honestly, as long as the UX is _actually_ improving, I'm completely fine with having to adapt. I don't want to live in a world where things stay the same just because it's comfortable.
Having said that, at least 50% of the time that people change the experience, it makes it worst. So I agree that for companies that don't know how to design interfaces, this is maybe a benefit.
UI can evolve over time -- for appliances that need it. Almost none of them need it, and always always the "UI enhancements" are stuff nobody asked for, like 24/7 telemetry to servers that are gods know where.
No thanks.
Another commenter beat me to it but I'll just join him to reinforce their point: UI changes also break muscle which is something extremely important to have in a car and in your home appliances. People just don't enjoy relearning their own machines when they expect the job to be done with minimal cognitive overhead.
Cooks love the sense of pride and accomplishment they feel when they unlock new modes and temperatures, and they really go nuts over learning about exciting new products and services by the appliance’s partners in a way that is uniquely targeted to them /s
I think some people would like that. The first would have to be an opt-in option, of course. I wouldn't like the latter, but most of the world isn't on HN and accept ads everywhere. An ad for the right bottle of wine to accompany the meal, etc., might be appreciated.
I think that the problem comes with what the article mentions in the first paragraph—there are some places where UI might evolve with time, but my kitchen appliances, my washing machine, and much of my car are not places where I expect new UI paradigms, or want them if somebody dreams one up. Sure, the pendulum will eventually swing back again the other way to too much skeumorphism, but for now I'm going to push reflexively for physical buttons first, and ask questions later.
Can you point to a single instance where the UI scheme for _an appliance_ was evolved over time in a way consumers like? I understand what you're saying is theoretically possible I just can't think of any instance in which it happened
TVs evolved from knobs on the device to buttons on a remote (or touchscreen).
Washing machines evolved from finicky one way turn relay knobs to tactile bidirectional digital knobs with buttons for options (like extra rinses, prewash, temperature, etc)
VCRs used to be so unusable they'd blink 12:00 because no one knew how to set the time. BluRay players and PVRs put everything on screen accessible via remote or mobile app.
Smart door locks make it very easy to lock/unlock a door via phone or watch vs futzing with keys that can be easily lost possibly requiring a new lock. Much better for guests or families.
Old dial or even digital thermostats were nearly impossible to properly schedule, modern digital thermostats use phones or websites, much easier (and also visualizes all your HVAC stats!)
Smart lights let you group lights together independent of power wiring, change colors, etc
Japanese in-seat toilet bidets with dashboards or remote are masterful compared to traditional bidets with faucets.
Single lever faucets vs separate dial faucets for hot/cold water
But those are all hardware changes right? besides the smart lock? Of course changing the hardware fundamentally will require a different UI but i meant for the same device
They're UI changes? Like I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing, any modern UI always involves some mix of hardware (physical controls and maybe a touchscreen) and software. My point is that the design space in the UI does evolve for the better in many cases.
A Nest thermostat for example which is a mix of screen, physical button and dial, is way more usable and feature rich than old school digital thermostats with buttons and monochrome LED displays.
>The latter is also where touch screens shine - the UI can evolve over time.
I think that also serves as a perverse incentive: no need to make it as perfect as possible the first time, you can always fix it later! Tech debt, coming to the controls of your moving 1~2 tons of metal, f yeah!
Touchscreens are a viable alternative to buttons only if the system can react to touches within at most 500ms. We have enough evidence now to conclude that only Apple and Google engineers are capable of such an undertaking. Everyone else should stick to physical buttons.
For context I did development with a Teensy board and the library I was using for physical buttons claims to have 20 nanoseconds latency using the CPU interrupts.
More seriously, there are tradeoffs either way. Physical knobs give great feedback, require less cognitive load, and remain fixed. The latter is also where touch screens shine - the UI can evolve over time.
In some settings touch screens are superior to physical buttons and in other scenarios it is the reverse.
Choose the right button for the job.