HDTV Almanac - A Remote Rant

[alfredpoor]

The title doesn’t mean that I intend to phone it in today. No, instead I want to take a moment to complain — okay, maybe even whine – about remote controls. To quote Chef of South Park, most remotes have “more features than the Space Shuttle.” I’ve got one with 50 buttons. 50! And most [...]

[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/2009/09/hdtv_almanac_a_remote_rant.php]Read Column[/url]

[stevekaden]

The iPhone has - as of last ad - 75,000 apps. There are a lot of buttons and controls there. Even a bare iPhone has a page full of apps - and some like the General Settings have a bunch more (they all have much more).

The beauty of the iPhone is in the integration of everything, in layers. From the iPhone's basic functions to it's connection to the bigger universe of purchasable items via iTunes.

To find similar - look at the Activity remotes. The surface is quite simple, but the detail functions are integrated at different points and levels - from the Web programs to the detail hidden in macros, the custom functions at the activity level and finally the devices themselves in their screens.

I'd say the Harmony's are the best, but they are all I have owned, and while I love the functional design, they are rather mechanically unreliable. I've seen an ad for a new Yamaha (Neo?) system that the remote is very simple, but it just moved the functionality to the display device - but still Activity based and layered. Great concept, pictures looked great (think no eyestrain seeing things on a 50" screen! ( starts at list $600).

[rfowkes]

While having 50 (or more) buttons on a remote control (at least without some sort of nested sub-menus) borders on the insane the implication that touch screen products are some magic cure-all or even superior to hard buttons still remains to be proven to many including myself. Ironically, I own a bunch of universal remotes (which shall remain nameless but you can get a clue regarding the brand from the generic name mentioned here <g>) and I've actually migrated back from some that feature touch panels to those that feature hard buttons. For one thing, touch screens don't always offer the accuracy of "real" buttons and can be a hinderance for some users. For another, if there is a problem with the viewability of the screen then the device becomes useless (it happens!). As a long time user of remotes both with and without colorful screens I greatly prefer the compromise - devices with actual buttons and some associated screen graphics to clarify the buttons' purpose. Backlighting is also nice as is some sort of aural reinforcement when a button is pressed. Devices with touch panels only may look elegant but I will choose function over form in just about every case. I want things to work well, not just look nice. When the touch panel dims or fails the functionality also dims or disappears.

My two cents.

[alfredpoor]

Thanks, Steve. When I said "buttons", I meant the physical keyboard/calculator/phone pad kind. What I want are the virtual buttons of an iPhone touch screen, and I realize that there are some TV remotes out there like that but they're expensive. The idea of displaying the control surface on the TV screen is interesting -- which is what Windows Media Center does, for example -- but I don't want to take over the screen every time I want to change channels or adjust the volume. If Epson can put an excellent control panel on a $300 printer, why can't we have an excellent universal control panel for our TVs that costs $100 or so?

Alfred

[rfowkes]

At least not as the only buttons on the device. See my previous post for my reasons why.

[alfredpoor]

Rfowkes wrote "I want things to work well, not just look nice."

And I couldn't agree more. For me, it's nearly impossible to make a 50-button remote "work well". A touch screen is certainly no guarantee that the result will work well, but it gives the user interface designers a better playground to work with. Not all iPhone apps work well, I'm sure, but you couldn't even begin to do most of them with the controls on a phone with physical keys/buttons. I want even more from my remote, especially now that my TV is hooked up to the Internet, so maybe I eventually can have a WiFi remote that receives information as well as transmits my requests (though I fear the latency might be too annoying for remote control functions). But I don't want more buttons.

Alfred

[stevekaden]

The Yamaha neoHD seems to be a nice compromise. No display/touch screen to be vulnerable and die. Just basic entertainment and neoHD navigation, volume, channel. I doubt they take over the screen for basics, but then again, many of us want volume display, and our set top boxes/Blu-Ray's(DVDs) impose their status/menus on the screen anyway.

[Roger Halstead]

I've found devices with touch screens to be...the best socially acceptable phrase would be "A royal pain".

I worked in industry for many years. I'm a pilot, photographer, Ham Radio Operator, and an all around experimenter with a degree in Computer Science.
I've found touch screens to be fragile and often inconvenient. OTOH larger touch screens are easy to use, but still fragile with scratches showing up with little use. Regular calculators (with buttons) suffer a relatively short life in my shop, but it's long compared to PDAs and smart phones. If I get 2 or 3 years out of a cell phone it's exceptional. That stuff is too expensive and fragile to use outside my office in the real world and when working I'm not able, or willing to wash the grease and grit ( or fiberglass and resin ) off my hands every time before using one. If you have small children around you should be able to throw them in the dish washer...The control, not the kids.

[alfredpoor]

Okay, working backwards:

I don't have a single remote control that would survive a cycle in the dishwasher. Do you? Yes, it would be nice, but it's not realistic yet. But the two best ways to get there would be either a membrane keyboard (which I don't particularly like) or a sealed touchscreen.

Yes, a lot of LCD touchscreens are delicate creatures, but I've lately tested a number of protective films, one of which makes fingerprints disappear! (A nanostructure wicks away the skin oils.) Use one of these, and you get a sacrificial layer that resists scratches, grit, grease, peanut butter, or even jelly. A button remote would not fare any better under those circumstances, and probably worse.

So we're down to taste and personal preference. Oh, and perhaps the avionics industry that seems to think that a glass cockpit is less cluttered and reduces pilot workload. You certainly may not agree, but there is some evidence to support this.

I'm certainly not saying that 50-button remotes should be banned; I'm just saying I, for one, would like an affordable choice of a touchscreen device with a simple, elegant, and efficient user interface.

Alfred

[Roger Halstead]

Okay, working backwards:

I don't have a single remote control that would survive a cycle in the dishwasher. Do you? Yes, it would be nice, but it's not realistic yet. But the two best ways to get there would be either a membrane keyboard (which I don't particularly like) or a sealed touchscreen.

I've cleaned many including computer keyboards, but it can be a delicate process and no I don't use the dishwasher, but I sure wish I could. BTW, most of them do have a membrane between the keys and the circuit board.

Yes, a lot of LCD touchscreens are delicate creatures, but I've lately tested a number of protective films, one of which makes fingerprints disappear! (A nanostructure wicks away the skin oils.) Use one of these, and you get a sacrificial layer that resists scratches, grit, grease, peanut butter, or even jelly. A button remote would not fare any better under those circumstances, and probably worse.

So we're down to taste and personal preference. Oh, and perhaps the avionics industry that seems to think that a glass cockpit is less cluttered and reduces pilot workload. You certainly may not agree, but there is some evidence to support this.

The aviation industry takes a bit different approach. They use what are called "soft keys" where a key or knob sets the functions of keys around the display with the name of the function on the display next to the key. This works very well and the key function is right there to read. That might possibly be a good approach for TV/DVR/ and what have you, remotes, rater than the current crop of countless buttons, or touch screens. Unfortunately that hardware if *very* expensive with the most common display set being worth more than my high performance, complex, retract.

I'm certainly not saying that 50-button remotes should be banned; I'm just saying I, for one, would like an affordable choice of a touchscreen device with a simple, elegant, and efficient user interface.

Likewise I'd certainly like an effective alternative than a hand full of buttons with multi functions.