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 [...]
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't know about you guys but I have a Harmony One to control a DirecTV receiver and I use every single hard button plus about 6 commands on the LCD. Way too many to put on one touchscreen - you'd need multiple screens.
You also can't use touchscreens without looking at them and that becomes a pain for power users.
Harmony and some other universal remotes that use a combination of hard and soft (LCD) keys gets my vote.
akirby, you certainly make good points, especially about the power user factor; I prefer to use the Windows Office keyboard shortcuts rather than grope for the mouse every time I want to use one command or another. So I think I get that part.
However, a single touch screen can be a powerful thing. Look at all the things an iPhone can do; I bet it's way more than what your remote can. The point is that in any given situation, there are only a few of those buttons -- hard or soft -- that you can press that are meaningful in that context. At that instant, the rest are just taking up space and confusing the non-power-user. Nested menus focus your attention on the choices available at that point, and for many people, can be the start of a more efficient user interface.
As for power users not being able to "speed dial" on a touch screen, I'd point to the iPhone again. Some people can make it fly without glancing at the screen.
I'm not saying that there aren't other solutions that people can be happy using; it's just that I'm not happy with any of the ones I've experienced.
I just counted and for my DirecTV HD DVR I have 39 commands/buttons that I need. You can't fit all of those on one small touchscreen.
I like touchscreen technology and in some cases it works much better than hard buttons. But there is a difference between using a touchscreen on an appliance or cell phone where you are looking at the device and using a TV remote where you're looking at the TV and not at the remote. For casual users this is probably not an issue, but for power DVR users who are constantly using the transport buttons a hard button remote or hybrid hard/LCD button remote works better.
Actually you can put more than 39 commands on the screen of a PDA, I-Pod, or other touch screen device. Even my little Motorola cell phone can do more than that and they are easier to use than buttons. These are "soft coded" so buttons around the edge, or spots on the screen take on different functions. Most aircraft Multi Function Displays (MFDs), GPS's and nav screens are configured like this. So you can get a relatively large screen without having to make room for a lot of buttons. I was looking at a little smart phone the other day that basically could do just about any thing I can do on here while surfing the net, looking at the weather, reading e-mail, or even filing flight plans. Thing is these devices are from a 1/3rd to a 1/4 (or even smaller) than my existing TV and satellite remotes and they are easier to use. One possibility would be soft menus on the TV screen like those used for set up. Push the menu button on the remote, then use the arrows to navigate around the TV screen. When in this mode you'd have a smaller image with the soft buttons around the outside of it. That could drop the need for everything on the remote except the On/off, up/down/right/left, menu, and select button.
Remember in this case the screen is dynamic (changing) rather than static or unchanging. There are several ways of doing this, but the simplest is to have one "soft key" designated as the <function> key. the other keys on the screen will depict the operations of what ever function is selected. Press the function button/spot and the programming will change the functions of the keys displayed. Any one screen may only have 5 or 10 keys displayed, but by pressing the function key you can go through any number of screens. Also you can scroll up and down as well as right and left and zoom. IOW the screen becomes a small window into a much larger world. Key functions can be redefined at the push of a button the way they do with the "glass cockpit", or you can put your finger on the screen and move it across the screen dragging the image with it. This can reveal more keys/functions that were hidden or rather out of view as the I-pod does when browsing.
It may sound confusing, but in reality it is a system that is much easier to use than the standard remote where it may take a sequence of key presses to do something. It may also take a sequence with the touch screen or soft buttons (software defined), but if each one is well labeled as to what it does that makes the navigation much easier than old style, physical button sequences.
Probably the best analogy...that I can think of at the moment is surfing the net with a computer. You can often go through many pages, such as 10's or 100's with no more than moving the mouse and clicking on screen locations. Right and left clicks give different results and even drop down menus. I have real time RADAR running on the computer next to this one. I have 41 image display functions available, playback as a movie with variable speed, I can zoom in to a display only a few miles across or see the whole state, I can display lightning, projected storm tracks with time intervals, total precipitation at any specific area, and that is just a fraction of the capabilities. These controls take only a small portion of the screen and change depending on what I select.
Whether we'd get a touch screen remote that'd be useful or one designed by an engineer for engineers would be something else, but they do appear to be getting a bit more user friendly.
39 buttons on a small touch screen is no more usable than 39 physical buttons on the same size remote control.
6 buttons on a touch screen is totally usable.
Seven screens of 6 context-sensitive buttons gives you more than 39 buttons in much less distracting and easier to use format.
It takes a difference of opinions to make a horserace, and I certainly understand that some folks will prefer a physical button over a virtual one, but I believe that there is a touch screen solution that would work better for me.
I understand you could have multiple screens or one huge touchscreen but neither is appealing to me.
I guess the biggest issue for me is having to look at the screen to switch between play, rew, ff, skip, jump back while watching a DVR'd show. I can do that easily with my Harmony ONE by touch (same with volume) while I still have the other functions available via the other hard keys and LCD screen.
I'm talking about a screen small enough to fit on a standard remote, much like the i-pod, not a large screen. I keep coming back to the I-Pod as a comparison and really dislike the things. <:-)) I find surfing the Net with one like trying to view the world through a keyhole.
With the function you could select the DVR control and have graphics on the screen that look just like your current symbols. You'l only need to touch them, or they might be a spot on the screen where you'd only need to slide your finger right or left to forward, rewind, speed up, slow down, and pause. That would be an ideal function for a touch screen. Even with the small screen there should be room to keep the volume control where again you could just slide your finger up and down to change volume.
This approach could greatly simplify the controls on the remote...if any one ever builds one. OTOH they'd probably cost as much as one of those I-Pods.
As I said earlier in this thread, I really dislike touch screens but OTOH they do work well and could greatly simplify something like a remote, or even universal remote. I'd probably even purchase one.
Like akirby I have 2 Logitech Harmony's - an 880 and a 1000. One is touchscreen (the 1000) and one is not but the display is somewhat programmable. I have had the Logitech 1000 for over 2 years now and it works terrific, has no scratches on the touchscreen and no protective film. It even automatically dims the lights when I hit the play button on my BlueRay. It seems that most so called "universal" remotes always have to leave out something. The Harmony 1000 doesn't and it'll even turn on your fireplace if it's remote controllable. Logitech's customer service is superb. You only get what you pay for...
I understand you could have an Ipod sized touch screen and have different subsets of commands on different screens, but I don't like that either.
I like touch screens in most cases for the reasons you cite. And for people who only pick up the remote to turn stuff on and off or to change a channel once an hour it would be fine. But for people like me who use their remote constantly while watching a show (DVR users especially) a touch screen would be a nightmare. I only have to use my Harmony One touchscreen when using the LIST function (recorded shows) and to use the colored buttons to go backwards and forwards in the program guide and even then I hate having to look down, find the spot on the touch screen and hit it. And I don't always hit the right button either.
On the Harmonys the LCD changes depending on which activity you're in and which devices you're controlling. This is the best of both worlds.
You won't see touch screens replace regular hard button remotes on lower end products because of the cost differential. But on anything costing a few hundred bucks or more I expect they'll become standard.
The Proceed factory remote that I use for A/V has 9 buttons. The footprint is smaller than a typical pack of cigarettes and under 1/2 inch thick. Remove the on/off and mute buttons, and 7 rubber-coated buttons control all set-up and daily control functions. It's very lightweight and feels good in my hands. The main reason is that it's not a micro-structure lacking proper scale and appreciable tactile feel for real human hands.
It converts to on-screen menu displays for lessor used settings and controls. It's very intuitive and the buttons are large enough to easily see in a low-lit HT environment without a backlight.
I can see product engineers - "Okay, department 7 designs the remote....and we'll get back together in 2 weeks", and here comes department 7 with their impressive remote with 50+ mini-buttons.
"Sure makes our product appear more expensive in the showrooms, huh?"
Well-meaning designers may look at the many remote designs on market and take "Q's" from top benchmarks. Touch-screens look impressive, too, yet, can get very messy in real applications.
The best remotes should be very simple, intuitive, a pleasure to feel and use, and disappear when not in use.
Typically you can have, or could have say 3 rows of 3 buttons. One button, either hard or soft would change menus so you'd now have a different 8 buttons. Like typing, you soon learn where they are located without bothering to look. 3 bottom or 3 top, just let your fingers run along the edge of the screen. From there it becomes easy to locate the center 3 without looking. But, engineers being what they are, marketing being what it is, and the general public being clueless they all thing more is better and soon the touch screen is as cluttered as the remote with 50 or 60 buttons. Don't forget many of those 50 or 60 buttons have multiple functions and those functions change depending on which button was pressed prior to that button and in what order other buttons were pressed. BTW with typing my fingers know where the keys are located, but I have to look for them.
Computers, data bases, and interfacing with lab equipment were my my profession while my degree is in CS, yet most of the time I find these controls be be illogically organized, but they are simple compared to some of the radios I use. Some of them have multiple layered menus on different keys so the current one may have as many as 5 or 6 different menus depending on which key was pressed prior to getting to that one. Over all. 7 keys may have a total of 40 plus menus which may have 3 to 10 functions each.
First, I don't necessarily agree that the engineers are at fault for the button-itis of remote controls. They're given functions and a budget to make them fit, and my guess is that most of them have minimal human factor training, especially in terms of user interface. (I can always spot a program manual written by an engineer.)
But, don't take the current state of the art as permanent. Haptics provide tactile feedback that can be used for buttons or touch screens. And the touch screen applications can make it feel as though you're actually pressing a button. I can imagine that haptics and sophisticated touch screens could provide tactile feedback that would feel like buttons and the spaces between them, and then provide the confirming feedback when you press one. (It would have to distinguish between a light and firm press, but that's easy if you can map the footprint of the touch; a larger footprint means a harder press.)
So there's no reason -- aside from budget for the moment -- that you could make a touch screen that you could navigate by feel.
So you can create an expensive, technologically advanced remote that mimics a $10 hard button remote.
This reminds me of those expensive digital speedometers in the 80s that were made to look like a simple analog speedometer.
What's the point other than to prove it can be done? I think there are applications that work better with hard buttons (or hard/soft combination) and others that work better with LCD touchscreens. Can't we just leave it at that?
They just aren't all on there at the same time. Most touch screens are used in conjunction with physical keys which select what is up on the touch screen at any one time. My telephone has only 9 at any one time, but it has at least 40 plus functions in addition to hooking to my local network and surfing the net as well as shooting poor quality photos unless you view them as small snapshots, but that is true of all camera phones.
