Haptic interfaces
in [Embedded]
|
From: D Yuniskis on 1 Mar 2010 15:43 Hi Joel, Joel Koltner wrote: > "D Yuniskis" <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com> wrote in message > news:hmh540$lr1$1(a)speranza.aioe.org... >> E.g., I would nominate a traditional "squashed sphere" doorknob >> as the best haptic interface. > > ....but this is often cited as as very poor interface for those with > limited dexterity -- hence the trend to have handle-shaped door > openers. (Here in the U.S., on most commercial buildings the ADA makes > it illegal to even have round door knobs.) Understood. I tend to dislike the "handles" as they are invariably uncomfortable (they cut into the palm). My point was to show the sorts of things *about* a haptic interface that *I* considered differentiating the good from the bad (i.e., "feel", intuitiveness, simplicity of function, etc.) >> Contrast this with something like a "child proof" pill bottle... > > Indeed. Some pharmacies (e.g., Target) have also taken on the problem > that reading a label on a cylindrically-shaped bottle is rather less > than idea, and now use kinda tapered oblongish bottles with flat > surfaces for the labels. Yes. Of course, this is *deliberately* a "bad interface" as it wants to rely on the (physical and cognitive) abilities of a particular group of users to make it usable vs unusable (adults vs children) >> I, for example, consider most of Apple's (electronic) offerings >> to have crappy interfaces. > > I think they're quite intuitive, although of course what one finds > intuitive is often largely a function of what they already know. :-) > And I agree with you that mechanical jog dials are better than > touch-based ones. Imagine a child playing with a touch-based iPod. Imagine that same child playing with a "pushbutton" remote control (for your TV). I.e., the buttons *tell you* what to do to activate them ("Gee, I wonder what happens when I push this?") whereas a flat face iPod requires some experimentation and/or reading (manual) to figure out how the interface works. I dislike most of these devices because they often require two hands *and* an eye to operate -- when I take my daily sabbatical, I don't want to have to carry something in my hand *and* have to look at it just to use it... especially when there is no real reason for this to be the case. E.g., a pair of raised concentric rings surrounding the "dial" area (like a race in a ball bearing) would provide enough tactile feedback to allow you to use the device without your eyes. A smaller diameter would make it even easier to navigate. As a result, I carry a Shuffle when I walk (I set it atop my shoulder *under* my shirt so the weight of the fabric keeps it in place -- I can "feel" the 5way button controls through the fabric if I need to change songs/volume. So, my iPod just gets used for photos and videos :-/ > It's true that Apple's interfaces are often not designed to be used > single-handedly/without looking at them/etc. -- this is a trend in all > of electronics and software to make things "novice friendly" often at > the expense of them no longer being "expert friendly." But, it also contributes to distractions while driving because those folks remain "novices" -- even after they are *expert* with the device -- in the way the device *forces* them to interact with it. E.g., imagine if all GUI's *required* you to use a mouse for everything (no keyboard shortcuts)... Again, I am just using these as examples of characteristics that I find "bad" in particular implementations.
From: 1 Lucky Texan on 1 Mar 2010 15:38 On Mar 1, 1:47 pm, Tim Wescott <t...(a)seemywebsite.now> wrote: > D Yuniskis wrote: > > Hi Tim, > > > Tim Wescott wrote: > >> Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote: > >>> Op Mon, 01 Mar 2010 04:44:29 +0100 schreef D Yuniskis > >>> <not.going.to...(a)seen.com>: > >>>> What makes a haptic interface "good"? > > >>> Dunno. > > >>>> bad? > > >>> When it is painful. ;) > > >> Actually, if it were on the primary controls of a plane, something > >> that gets painful when there's a good chance of damaging your > >> life-preserving airframe 10000 feet above the ground may not be a bad > >> thing. Particularly if there's enough pain to make you think, but not > >> enough to force you to fly into Mt. St. Helens on a particularly bad day. > > > Wow! That's a great idea! I.e., not just "feedback" but > > "particularly unpleasant feedback" that really works to > > dissuade you from doing something that you shouldn't. > > > I've designed "big knobs" with force feedback (to simulate > > the "mechanisms" you are influencing with your "adjustments") > > but those just gave you subtle reinforcement that you are > > "doing what you expect to be doing" (e.g., if the knob > > is supposed to cause something to be elevated, then it > > is harder to turn in the "up" direction than the "down" > > direction). > > > But, that raises the issue of "what happens if you (the > > device) screw up" and your "penalty pain" makes it > > hard for a user to "do what is right"? (think of this > > in the example you cite below; I've heard avionic > > controls are far from "perfect" :> ) > > That's why I was calling out a level of discomfort that could be > overcome with enough adrenalin. To pull an example from real life, if > you're out jogging and you pull a muscle you should slow down and walk > -- but if you're getting chased by a dozen toughs and you pull a muscle, > you should run like hell anyway! > > I wouldn't put the discomfort level up to 'painful' unless it really was > a life-threatening problem. But fly-by-wire systems already have 'stick > shakers' to warn the pilots that they're pushing the envelope of safety. > > -- > Tim Wescott > Control system and signal processing consultingwww.wescottdesign.com Back when powered hang-gliders were 'new' I was told that the throttle control was operated by mouth/teeth. I jokingly asked if screaming shut the motor off - or applied full power!
From: Joel Koltner on 1 Mar 2010 15:41 Good points, thanks for the response!
From: D Yuniskis on 1 Mar 2010 15:53 Hi Tim, Tim Wescott wrote: > D Yuniskis wrote: >> Hi Tim, >> >> Tim Wescott wrote: >>>> When it is painful. ;) >>> >>> Actually, if it were on the primary controls of a plane, something >>> that gets painful when there's a good chance of damaging your >>> life-preserving airframe 10000 feet above the ground may not be a bad >>> thing. Particularly if there's enough pain to make you think, but not >>> enough to force you to fly into Mt. St. Helens on a particularly bad >>> day. >> >> Wow! That's a great idea! I.e., not just "feedback" but >> "particularly unpleasant feedback" that really works to >> dissuade you from doing something that you shouldn't. [snip] >> But, that raises the issue of "what happens if you (the >> device) screw up" and your "penalty pain" makes it >> hard for a user to "do what is right"? (think of this >> in the example you cite below; I've heard avionic >> controls are far from "perfect" :> ) > > That's why I was calling out a level of discomfort that could be > overcome with enough adrenalin. To pull an example from real life, if > you're out jogging and you pull a muscle you should slow down and walk > -- but if you're getting chased by a dozen toughs and you pull a muscle, > you should run like hell anyway! I still see problems. E.g., you (the pilot?) perceive something wrong is happening with your aircraft. You go to make a corrective action but encounter something painful. Not "YOWCH!" but just something mildly uncomfortable -- enough to get you to stop doing what you *wanted* to do (i.e., what you *know* is "right"). Perhaps you pull your hands off the yoke, etc. Now you take a pause to reconsider what just happened -- because it happens (in theory) very *infrequently*. Meanwhile, the aircraft is continuing to do something that *will* get you in trouble (recall, I am hypothesizing the case where the control system is in error -- hence it was in error to "be painful" as well). This is exactly what you *want* to happen when *you* are the "system in error". But, its a double edged sword in that when *it* is in error, it can cost you (valuable) time trying to recover. I think the speed/immediacy that flight implies is where the problem lies (in my hypothetical scenario). E.g., I think this would be perfect as a device to discourage you from trying to drive with the emergency/parking brake on. The difference being, you start from a stopped condition so if the "pain/discomfort" causes you to *remain* stopped for a moment longer, its usually of no risk. Dunno. I'd have to think hard on what criteria would contraindicate this sort of approach. > I wouldn't put the discomfort level up to 'painful' unless it really was > a life-threatening problem. But fly-by-wire systems already have 'stick > shakers' to warn the pilots that they're pushing the envelope of safety. I'll plead ignorance, here. I don't even like riding in them! :>
From: Jim Stewart on 1 Mar 2010 15:55
D Yuniskis wrote: > Hi Tim, > > Tim Wescott wrote: >> D Yuniskis wrote: >>> Hi Tim, >>> >>> Tim Wescott wrote: >>>>> When it is painful. ;) >>>> >>>> Actually, if it were on the primary controls of a plane, something >>>> that gets painful when there's a good chance of damaging your >>>> life-preserving airframe 10000 feet above the ground may not be a >>>> bad thing. Particularly if there's enough pain to make you think, >>>> but not enough to force you to fly into Mt. St. Helens on a >>>> particularly bad day. >>> >>> Wow! That's a great idea! I.e., not just "feedback" but >>> "particularly unpleasant feedback" that really works to >>> dissuade you from doing something that you shouldn't. > > [snip] > >>> But, that raises the issue of "what happens if you (the >>> device) screw up" and your "penalty pain" makes it >>> hard for a user to "do what is right"? (think of this >>> in the example you cite below; I've heard avionic >>> controls are far from "perfect" :> ) >> >> That's why I was calling out a level of discomfort that could be >> overcome with enough adrenalin. To pull an example from real life, if >> you're out jogging and you pull a muscle you should slow down and walk >> -- but if you're getting chased by a dozen toughs and you pull a >> muscle, you should run like hell anyway! > > I still see problems. E.g., you (the pilot?) perceive something > wrong is happening with your aircraft. You go to make a corrective > action but encounter something painful. Not "YOWCH!" but just > something mildly uncomfortable -- enough to get you to stop > doing what you *wanted* to do (i.e., what you *know* is "right"). > Perhaps you pull your hands off the yoke, etc. Google "stick shaker". Pilots are trained to recognize an approaching stall by buffet of the control surfaces and then the whole airframe. Works well in small aircraft, not so much in large jets. So to give a pilot a pre-learned cue of an approaching stall, a device shakes the control horn to simulate the warning cue of a small aircraft. |