Maker Pro
Maker Pro

Haptic interfaces

D

D Yuniskis

Jan 1, 1970
0
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.

Thanks!
--don
 
T

Tim Williams

Jan 1, 1970
0
Optimal throughput: direct connection to the motor cortex (sensor implanted
soon after birth, to maximize training time). ;-)

Tim
 
B

Boudewijn Dijkstra

Jan 1, 1970
0
Op Mon, 01 Mar 2010 04:44:29 +0100 schreef D Yuniskis
What makes a haptic interface "good"?
Dunno.

bad?

When it is painful. ;)
*Exceptional*?

Perhaps a lot of positive scientific papers about it.
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).
What (electronic) device would you nominate as having the
best haptic interface?

What is the difference from the previous question?
 
C

Charlie E.

Jan 1, 1970
0
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

No, you need a big RED button, that takes a little effort to push it.

Then the sign lights up

RELEASE TO DETONATE


;-)

Charlie
 
D

D Yuniskis

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hi Boudewijn,

Boudewijn said:
Op Mon, 01 Mar 2010 04:44:29 +0100 schreef D Yuniskis


When it is painful. ;)

Wow, I never considered that possibility. :-/
Perhaps a lot of positive scientific papers about it.


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.
What is the difference from the previous question?

Why does an interface have top be part of an electronic device?
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.

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.

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).

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)
 
D

D Yuniskis

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hi Tim,

Tim said:
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" :> )
 
D

D Yuniskis

Jan 1, 1970
0
Charlie said:
No, you need a big RED button, that takes a little effort to push it.

Then the sign lights up

RELEASE TO DETONATE

With a roll of adhesive tape conveniently placed just out of
arm's reach.

(or, the *two* identical red buttons, one of which "orders coffee"...)
 
C

Charlie E.

Jan 1, 1970
0
...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.)


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.


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.

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."

---Joel

It also makes them 'disability unfriendly!' My wife could never use
one of these, even if she wanted to!

Charlie
 
D

D Yuniskis

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hi Joel,

Joel said:
....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.)
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 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.
 
D

D Yuniskis

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hi Tim,

Tim said:
D said:
Hi Tim,



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! :>
 
J

Jim Stewart

Jan 1, 1970
0
D said:
Hi Tim,

Tim said:
D said:
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.
 
D

D Yuniskis

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hi Charlie,
It also makes them 'disability unfriendly!' My wife could never use
one of these, even if she wanted to!

And that's just the extreme case of what I am alluding to.
I.e., the interface requires nore of the user than it *needs*
for the task that it performs.

E.g., an old "transistor radio" could be operated one hand
and eyes closed. Indeed, this was often the *only* way to
use them since the little numbers printed on the tuning
"knob" (variable cap) were too small to read and too
imprecisely placed to provide any *real* indication of
what "station" you were actually tuning.

[I am refering to the small, inexpensive, handheld radios
that were about the size of a pack of cigarettes... volume
and tuning were two "disks" the size of a US 25c piece
located on opposite sides of the device]

It was not uncommon to hold it up near your ear while you
*rolled* the tuning dial slowly back and forth to find
the station of choice and "fine tune" it (least static).
Likewise, adjusting the volume required using the opposing
finger/thumb (depending on which hand held the radio)
to roll the volume dial up or down.

I recall rolling my eyes in disbelief when "linear tracking"
turntables were introduced. The fact that you pushed a button
to slew the tonearm to the desired place on the record before
lowering it. This seemed like the epitome of laziness.

In hindsight, I wonder how "adults" (beyond 40-ish) were
able to use conventional turntables before that! Just
trying to position the tonearm in a particular "gap"
between tracks would have been quite tedious (and lots
of speaker *pops* as the tonearm wasn't cleanly lowered
to the vinyl).

"Progress" :>
 
D

D Yuniskis

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hi Jim,

Jim said:
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?
 
B

Boudewijn Dijkstra

Jan 1, 1970
0
Op Mon, 01 Mar 2010 20:50:34 +0100 schreef D Yuniskis
Boudewijn said:
Op Mon, 01 Mar 2010 04:44:29 +0100 schreef D Yuniskis
<[email protected]>: [...]
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?
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.
 
M

Martin Riddle

Jan 1, 1970
0
Vladimir Vassilevsky said:
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

Reminds me of when we changed the DELETE button to say GOD on the new
born christians workstation.

Cheers
 
T

Tim Williams

Jan 1, 1970
0
Paul Hovnanian P.E. said:
I guess that makes 7 of 9 the 'best' haptic interface.

I'd _love_ to interface with her face.

Tim
 
J

JosephKK

Jan 1, 1970
0
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.

Thanks!
--don

In a nutshell, it is good to the extent that it maps to conventional
experience and sensation in a clear way. It is bad to the extent that
it is counterintuitive. Exceptional would have to mimic natural sensation
in a major way while having a nearly trivial learning curve.
Several examples of good seem to be embodied in the Nintendo Wii.
But all this is just my opinion.

If you search hard you may be able to find research that manages to quantify
this to some extent.
 
J

JosephKK

Jan 1, 1970
0
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.

(This is from a criticism of flight control systems, by the way -- at
least at the time it was made several years ago, Boeing automatic flight
controls were criticized for letting you bend the airplane, while Airbus
flight controls were criticized for not letting you keep the plane from
flying into terrain. I don't know if things have changed since then.)

Most of the early Airbus avionics problems have been sorted out. The
Boeing issues did not appear in my news sources that i noticed,
perhaps it happened when i had gaps in access to those sources.
 
J

JosephKK

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hi Jim,



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.
 
J

JosephKK

Jan 1, 1970
0
Hi Boudewijn,



Wow, I never considered that possibility. :-/
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.

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).

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.

I think that is the first time i saw decent discussion of flaws
in the iPod interface. Thanks. It busted me out of several bad
ruts all at once. The haptics on my tiny Muvo player are (now
obviously) far superior to the iPod interface, i can control it
without having to look at it.
 
Top