Haptic interfaces
in [Embedded]
|
From: D Yuniskis on 2 Mar 2010 12:39 Hi Boudewijn, Boudewijn Dijkstra wrote: > 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? "Characteristics" that can be quantified -- even if subjectively. >>>> 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.). Understood. I was trying to force thinking in terms of "haptic" instead of the natural tendency (here?) to think more in terms of "devices" (electronic in this forum). >> 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.) Due to a childhood injury, I can't achieve full pronation (or supination) with my left hand. As a result, any "handled" door "knobs" can only be operated with my right hand. When faced with such a door, I use my *hip* to actuate the handle and walk through the door backwards/sideways (turning as I go through it). This only works for doors opening "out" :> That's pretty much the case for "foot power", too. By contrast, a "knob" doesn't care about the angular orientation of the hand -- so long as you (I) can grasp the knob. >> 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. Yes. But it does so at the expense of being unfriendly to those by whom it is *intended* to be used. (I haven't thought about how you could provide this functionality in a "win-win" manner) >> 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? ;) Oh, "dangerous fluids" would be the *least* of their worries! ;-) >> 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". I.e., the "touch wheel". Can you imagine an application where a "flat, featureless, immovable surface that detects the sequential activation of sensors in a circular motion" would be preferable to some *other* sort of haptic interface to implement the same functionality? E.g., a mechanical *wheel* "feels" better (but would be vulnerable to liquid spills); raised "curbs" on the outer diameter would be a boon to guiding your fingertip without requiring vision (but would make the device some fraction of an inch "thicker"); etc. > 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. I didn't mean *all* circumstances. Rather, I was aasking if there are circumstances (see above) where the iPod technique is *better* than alternative implementations. I.e., what application criteria would lead to *that* as the "ideal" solution?
From: Jim Stewart on 2 Mar 2010 13:19 JosephKK wrote: > On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:46:15 -0700, D Yuniskis <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com> wrote: > >> 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? > > On the other hand i have read several times of flight control > systems behaving exactly as designed leading to crashes. > Study early airbus 300 and 310 crashes for examples. I happen to be a Boeing fan, but nonetheless I would point out that the 727 had 3 major hull losses in the first 6 months of service. In each case, the accident was deemed pilot error or unknown. All of the accidents involved flying what appeared to be a perfectly good aircraft into the ground. The non-official semi-consensus (how's that for a weasel phrase) amongst pilots is that the high sink rate and long engine spoolup time contributed to the accidents. In any case, improved training and disciple to "fly by the numbers" seemed to resolve the problem. I believe there is some parallel between the early 727 crashes and the early Airbus crashes and that they probably revolve around pilot training and procedures.
From: JosephKK on 3 Mar 2010 00:18 On Mon, 1 Mar 2010 22:21:53 -0600, "Tim Williams" <tmoranwms(a)charter.net> wrote: >"Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul(a)Hovnanian.com> wrote in message >news:4B8C7325.E30E526A(a)Hovnanian.com... >>> Like Borg implants :) >> >> I guess that makes 7 of 9 the 'best' haptic interface. > >I'd _love_ to interface with her face. > >Tim Just her face? There is a lot more to her.
From: JosephKK on 3 Mar 2010 00:22 On Tue, 02 Mar 2010 10:19:38 -0800, Jim Stewart <jstewart(a)jkmicro.com> wrote: >JosephKK wrote: >> On Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:46:15 -0700, D Yuniskis <not.going.to.be(a)seen.com> wrote: >> >>> 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? >> >> On the other hand i have read several times of flight control >> systems behaving exactly as designed leading to crashes. >> Study early airbus 300 and 310 crashes for examples. > >I happen to be a Boeing fan, but nonetheless I would >point out that the 727 had 3 major hull losses in the >first 6 months of service. In each case, the accident >was deemed pilot error or unknown. All of the accidents >involved flying what appeared to be a perfectly good >aircraft into the ground. The non-official semi-consensus >(how's that for a weasel phrase) amongst pilots is that the >high sink rate and long engine spoolup time contributed to >the accidents. In any case, improved training and disciple >to "fly by the numbers" seemed to resolve the problem. > >I believe there is some parallel between the early 727 >crashes and the early Airbus crashes and that they probably >revolve around pilot training and procedures. Yes, there was an aspect of training and procedures to the early A300 / A310 crashes as well.
From: Tim Williams on 3 Mar 2010 01:02
"JosephKK" <quiettechblue(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:o8sro5li3tsk1ef17kpt3uf6bsjuhqlajs(a)4ax.com... >>> I guess that makes 7 of 9 the 'best' haptic interface. >> >>I'd _love_ to interface with her face. >> >>Tim > > Just her face? There is a lot more to her. Yeah, but most of those parts don't rhyme. Most? Hmmm... Tim -- Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website: http://webpages.charter.net/dawill/tmoranwms |