Haptic interfaces
in [Embedded]
|
From: Dave Platt on 1 Mar 2010 15:52 In article <3oqdnfFLYf3ajBHWnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nospam(a)nowhere.com> wrote: >> And, of course, "why", in each case. > >The good interface is a big green square button with inscription: >"I WANT EVERYTHING RIGHT NOW !" For some value of "EVERYTHING", I imagine. Pressing this button and expecting a handful of raw diamonds and a scoop of really great vanilla icecream to appear is all well and good. The fact that they appear in the same everything-dump as a set of 8-track audiobook tapes containing the collected works of George Bulwer-Lytton, an annoyed tax auditor, and two tons of semi-composted llama dung, is less than good. Having proper specifications for a deliverable is very important! -- Dave Platt <dplatt(a)radagast.org> AE6EO Friends of Jade Warrior home page: http://www.radagast.org/jade-warrior I do _not_ wish to receive unsolicited commercial email, and I will boycott any company which has the gall to send me such ads!
From: Andy on 1 Mar 2010 16:17 On Mar 1, 1:11 pm, Vladimir Vassilevsky <nos...(a)nowhere.com> wrote: > D Yuniskis wrote: > > Hi, > > > What makes a haptic interface "good"? bad? *Exceptional*? > > > What would you nominate as the "best" haptic interface? > > > What (electronic) device would you nominate as having the > > best haptic interface? > > > And, of course, "why", in each case. > > The good interface is a big green square button with inscription: > "I WANT EVERYTHING RIGHT NOW !" > > The best interface is a big green round button without any inscriptions. > > VLV It's called an "Easy Button"! Andy
From: Andy on 1 Mar 2010 16:26 I'd hate to be the test pilot on some of these systems... OK, go into a dive; wait, wait, wait...; now pull up abrubtly to make sure the airframe destruction prevention subsystem will override the airframe bending prevention subsystem, and let you live to do something equally entertaining tomorrow... Andy
From: D Yuniskis on 1 Mar 2010 16:46 Hi Jim, Jim Stewart wrote: >> 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. Yes, but: 1) I assume a shaking stick isn't *painful* (perhaps annoying?) 2) I imagine a pilot encounters that sort of thing *often* in their career. Contrast this with a collision avoidance system (mistakenly) giving you a mild shock to discourage you from "banking hard to port" when, in fact, that is *exactly* what you need to do in this particular (once in a career) situation. E.g., I would imagine the shaking stick is familiar enough to the pilot that he would *ignore* it if he saw an aircraft in his flight path. But, would he ignore a "mild shock" as he tried to turn away? Or, would it cause him to hesitate? I.e., would you have to introduce this "pain" (discomfort) in enough situations that the pilot could set a low threshold to overcome it? (including the "surprise" associated with it) Dunno. I've just heard horror stories of avionics misbehaving (I wonder if Toyota makes any? :> ) and wonder how quickly a pilot could overcome his hesitation caused by that "unexpected" pain/discomfort?
From: Boudewijn Dijkstra on 1 Mar 2010 16:53
Op Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:50:34 +0100 schreef D Yuniskis <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com>: > Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote: >> Op Mon, 01 Mar 2010 04:44:29 +0100 schreef D Yuniskis >> <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com>: > [...] > >>> What would you nominate as the "best" haptic interface? >> For doing what? Pointing something out on a screen, inputting text >> and/or context-sensitive instructions, digging a ditch, positioning >> concrete slabs, removing a kidney and piloting an aircraft would >> usually benefit from different interface properties (haptic or not). > > I disagree. I am sure there are attributes of a haptic interface > (or any other interface, for that matter) that make them better > or worse than other implementations in their class. Are you talking about rather concrete attributes? What kind of attributes are you thinking about? >>> What (electronic) device would you nominate as having the >>> best haptic interface? >> What is the difference from the previous question? > > Why does an interface have top be part of an electronic device? You used parenthesis. Anyway, I got confused because interfaces that do not belong to a device, are probably off-topic and also not the scope of your research. Then I got more confused because a device (like a door) can have different interfaces (knob/handle/sensor/etc.). > E.g., I would nominate a traditional "squashed sphere" doorknob > as the best haptic interface. It's shape ("feel") is > reasonably comfortable (not painful nor intimidating -- hence > the qualification of the "squashed sphere" variety and not some > of the more exotic artsy-fartsy door handles), it doesn't > "prefer" a particular size hand, it is intuitive in operation, > can be operated without benefit of any of the other senses, > etc. I strongly disagree with that choice: unlike the handle variety, the knob cannot be operated when carrying stuff with your two hands, as it requires at least two fingers to turn. (Also, when nobody is watching, I like to open a door with my foot, which doesn't require special dexterity when the door interface is of the handle variety.) > Contrast this with something like a "child proof" pill bottle... > the size of the cap varies and, as such, causes it to favor a > particular hand size/strength (arthritic senior citizens vs men > with "manly" hands vs teenagers and, of course, young children); > the childproofing usually makes the actions required to "unlock" > it counterintuitive (on purpose), etc. Which makes this interface very good at what it's supposed to do: to protect our children. > Note the criteria used in these explanations identify the > sorts of things that I perceive as "important" (to *me* -- the > purpose of the question was to identify criteria that others > might consider important). Is this a warning for the unprotected dangerous fluids that children might find in your house? ;) > I, for example, consider most of Apple's (electronic) offerings > to have crappy interfaces. You *need* your eyes to use them > (even on things like setting the volume on an iPod), they > require more attention than should be necessary (again, the > iPod example comes to mind -- changing volume should be the > sort of thing you can do without thinking about what you > are doing -- instead of requiring you to track your finger > in a particular circular orbit on the face of the device -- note > that things like the Shuttle were much easier to operate > in this regard); they aren't particularly intuitive (contrast > with the doorknob which even a toddler can "operate"), etc. > > Refering to your "For doing what?" question, could you > consider this sort of iPod interface BETTER in *any* > application than some other haptic interface -- ignoring > trivial cases? (this is a genuine question, not a statement > of my beliefs) Define "sort of". Anyway, in general it is pointless to ask questions like "is X better than anything in any circumstance", because either we would all be using X or we would only use X where appropriate. -- Gemaakt met Opera's revolutionaire e-mailprogramma: http://www.opera.com/mail/ (remove the obvious prefix to reply by mail) |