Haptic interfaces

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

Tim

-- Deep Friar: a very philosophical monk. Website:

ed

Like Borg implants :)

Bye Jack

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

Dunno.

When it is painful. ;)

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).

What is the difference from the previous question?

--
Gemaakt met Opera's revolutionaire e-mailprogramma:  
http://www.opera.com/mail/
(remove the obvious prefix to reply by mail)

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.)

--
Tim Wescott
Control system and signal processing consulting
www.wescottdesign.com

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

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 consulting
www.wescottdesign.com

Wow, I never considered that possibility. :-/

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.

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)

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" :> )

...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

ay.

k

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!

Good points, thanks for the response!

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.)

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)

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 :-/

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.

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                                    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!

[snip]

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'll plead ignorance, here. I don't even like riding in them! :>

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.

It's called an "Easy Button"!

Andy

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

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?

Are you talking about rather concrete attributes? What kind of attributes are you thinking about?

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.).

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.)

Which makes this interface very good at what it's supposed to do: to protect our children.

Is this a warning for the unprotected dangerous fluids that children might find in your house? ;)

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)