
US Navy will replace touchscreen with mechanical controls on its destroyers - Grazester
https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/11/20800111/us-navy-uss-john-s-mccain-crash-ntsb-report-touchscreen-mechanical-controls
======
Justsignedup
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?

~~~
MisterTea
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.

~~~
CamperBob2
_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.

~~~
eropple
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.

~~~
CamperBob2
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.

~~~
zaat
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)

~~~
CamperBob2
Right, to sense location, not rotation. Rotation goes through Bluetooth, as
with any number of existing knob controllers.

~~~
sitkack
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.

~~~
CamperBob2
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.

~~~
alexis_read
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.

------
rossdavidh
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).

~~~
jakear
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.

~~~
mhandley
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.

~~~
ocdtrekkie
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?

~~~
Someone1234
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.

~~~
dantillberg
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.

~~~
IgorPartola
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.

~~~
pbhjpbhj
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.

~~~
toast0
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.

------
cletus
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.

~~~
da_chicken
> 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.

~~~
cletus
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.

~~~
cesarb
> 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)

------
meddlepal
> 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.

~~~
mrweasel
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.

~~~
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?

~~~
wolf550e
Their daily task list will change. They might cancel some kinds of training
and some kinds of cleaning during wartime.

------
achow
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)

------
almog
"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.

~~~
pandapower2
>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.

~~~
iofiiiiiiiii
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.

------
Animats
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)

------
situational87
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.

~~~
octorian
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.

~~~
Nextgrid
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).

~~~
octorian
This complete separation of "customer" and "user" is one reason I disliked
working in the gov't contracting world.

------
heelix
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.

~~~
a3n
Rough roads too.

~~~
lucb1e
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.

~~~
megaremote
They do make them. People keep pretending they don't exist without even
looking for them.

~~~
dredmorbius
Examples?

------
reilly3000
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.

------
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.

------
thanatos_dem
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.

------
mncharity
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".

------
exabrial
I greatly dislike touch screens in vehicles for the same reason. Still can't
believe they are allowed

------
stevec2222
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.

------
coldtea
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).

~~~
OrgNet
I also still prefer a slide out keyboard on my phone... and I don't care if
it's twice as thick

------
wintorez
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.

------
bumby
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/)

~~~
SmellyGeekBoy
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)

------
Quequau
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.

~~~
flowless
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.

~~~
Quequau
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.

------
dmix
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.

~~~
xnyan
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.

~~~
IceWreck
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.

------
sneak
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.

------
zepearl
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?)?

------
blazespin
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.

------
acd
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.

------
gorbot
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

~~~
hrktb
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/)

------
everybodyknows
>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/)

------
KuhlMensch
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/)

------
throwaway3627
_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.

------
mxscho
This looks like a great step in the right direction and I hope the
manufacturer of my coffee machine is following suit.

~~~
PunchTornado
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.

~~~
mxscho
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.

~~~
PunchTornado
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.

------
yarrel
This is why the Enterprise has buttons and sliders as its controls rather than
immersive holographic displays.

------
hello_tyler
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.

------
cfv
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

------
buboard
certain car manufacturers should do the same too

------
ggm
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_

------
einpoklum
Oh, well, I must say - I'm touched that they got that problem under control.

------
cryptozeus
“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.

------
mensetmanusman
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.

------
TuLithu
Good choice. I HATE touch screens. Humans need tactile feedback.

------
HocusLocus
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.

------
TrevorJ
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.

------
joemaller1
If the controls were exclusively gaming mice/keyboards and Xbox/PlayStation
controllers, they'd be the most agile, fearsome fleet in history.

~~~
Rebelgecko
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

------
vortico
Hardware electronic musicians understand this well. :)

------
olliej
Seriously touchscreens are so bad for most controls, it irks me that they’re
so gratuitously over used

------
m3kw9
Sense of touch is underused as an aspect of interface design. See Apple
Watch’s crown dial.

------
shrimpx
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"?

------
chrisbrandow
I look forward to this outbreak of common sense to return to car interfaces.

------
frobozz
How does one operate a touch screen when wearing anti-flash gear?

------
SQL2219
Touch screens in cars should burn in hell.

------
crb002
Duh. Especially if an EMP hit.

~~~
situational87
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.

~~~
jodrellblank
_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]

~~~
jhayward
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.

------
transfire
Awesome... they can replace the mechanical controls with oars the next there's
an accident!

