[hart]

I was thinking about the fallibility of increasingly complex technology because my mother gave me a low tech alarm clock for xmas. It has 2 knobs to set the time and alarm and an on/off switch to activate the alarm. And a traditional analogue clock face. Up to now I've had a series of digital alarms and the simplicity of using this new one made me realize that I always had a low undertone of anxiety using the digital ones. Setting alarms on a 24 hour clock was more complex and invariably took longer. it was hard to tell for sure if the alarm was on and there was no way to look at it and know what time the alarm was set for. This was true for all of them despite individual differences on user interface.

With my new clock I have a binary on/off switch which clearly indicates the status of the alarm and simple, visible indicators for time and alarm settings. The simple clock performs the twin functions of telling time and waking me up with far greater ease and efficiency.

Now, we can assume that this forum isn't overloaded with crusty grampas who wouldn't touch one of them dang computer things. We're all pretty tech-savvy so it isn't a comprehension thing. But looking around there seem to be a lot of innovations that turn out to be LESS functional than they promise.

Another example: I assume there are a lot of you guys who will disagree but overall it seems that the increasing complexity of phones, especially mobile, are, for the general user, not an improvement. It may be that the actual physical size of the object makes a functional user interface difficult to create. In terms of actual time and effort spent, carrying around a little address book might be more efficient than all the button pushing required to enter and then access one's phone book in a cell phone and then RE-ENTER it in your next phone. And the lack of uniformity across the industry means that some relearning is necessary between phones. Back in my day, we walked to school in the snow uphill barefoot and all phones were the same. You knew what they did and they did that one task well.

To some extent this is a question of user interface. But there may be a limitation to the interface options between analogue humans and digital gadgets. Do we need one tool to do a gazillion tasks in a complicated fashion or is it more efficient to have individual tools for those tasks that function well. A hammer is not a screw driver or a wrench and if you try to create one tool that covers all the needs in your tool box you end up with a gadget that isn't as effective as a simple hammer at hammering nails.

Two items in the NYTimes this week speak to this issue. Here's a commentary on CES: "Browsing on the Web through the list of gadgets on display, I saw a future that looked more like a necropolis: a mountain of once-promising appliances exiled to call-now commercials or an in-flight magazine."

from this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/op...ml?ref=opinion

and another is the discussion of the humanities in the opinion page (Stanley Fish - Think Again - Opinion - New York Times Blog). See part one also. I was thinking that without the humanities (ie anything but hard sciences and math really) we'd all be typing little white letters into a console. GUI is by it's nature a "humane" subject. Designing a usable alarm clock is as much about look and feel as about functionality. And look and feel are largely intuitive and hard to quantify. The difference between a maroony red and an orangey red can be quantified but the different emotional and esthetic reactions of the human brain can only be anticipated by a human.

Anyway, I've gone on a bit with a smidgeon of rambling. But it's an interesting question. At what point does technological complexity break down into more of a hindrance than a benefit? At what point do the limits of human physiology make a viable interface with that complexity impossible? Where is the line between perceived efficiency or functionality and ACTUAL efficiency/functionality and how do you tell the difference?

What do you guys, as the Vanguard of the Technological Age, think?

[hart]

Yoiks! I wrote a lot! Too much coffee I guess.

[peeb]

Of course you can over-think a problem! There is an intersection of complexity and function that is a sweet point for every task.

[Dakar the Fourth]

I think I see what you're referring to in video games. The learning curve for superficially simplistic games (say basketball) have become extra-ordinarily difficult. What used to be pass and shoot has turned into pass, direct pass, shoot, pump fake, a variety of dribble moves, and post moves, some controlled by the right stick rather than buttons. I think this is part of the reason for the popularity of the Wii -- where jumping into a game like NBA Live might take a weekend to get a firm grasp on, on the Wii its turned into "Point here and shake your arm like a moron". Much less work, and in the short run, much more effective.

[mitchell_pgh]

I have a firm rule about what I buy these days. When I was younger, I was a "look at me" kind of guy that needed the best of everythign. I've since learned, "only buy what you KNOW you will use" so instead of buying the higher end stuff, I buy the medium/average item, or I don't buy at all... unless I know I'm going to use it. THAT is when I buy the high end.

[Chuckit]

Of course higher technology isn't always better. I can imagine very high-technology items that don't do anything.

[BlueSky]

Overall maybe there's a lot of hi-tech in my life, but there's always room for more. For example, I'm damn sick of shoelaces. I wish someone would invent digital shoelaces.

[Dakar the Fourth]

I miss my velcro sneakers.

[Zeeb]

Going off the deep end-technology in general doesn't make things easier or less stressful it seems in the long run. A slick new piece of software or device that saves you time doesn't mean you'll get more time to peruse macnn--it just means the boss with give you more work. If you don't have a boss, you'll have to give yourself more work to keep up with everyone else using the software or device.

Another generality is that technology makes things far less personal. My personal experience has been a lot of my friends don't actually go out as much--they would rather use online social sites or download a movie. lol

[EndlessMac]

I believe part of the problem is that tech companies seem to think that in order for something to sell now a days it has to be filled with several features. Most of them aren't really used by the owner expect for them to show off to their friends like saying, "my pen not only writes but it also babysits my children." I see it all the time now. For example a phone is no longer just a phone or a watch isn't just a watch anymore. I guess part of the problem for some products is that they are trying to reinvent and make new profits from something that was already working very well as it was...basically they are trying to solve a problem that no one asked for or in other words create a new demand for something when there wasn't a new demand for it.

The tech industry profits mostly by making last years model obsolete. In order to do so they have to keep adding fancy features which makes their products more complicated. I think there wouldn't be a such a hyped up demand for something if future technology were simply more refined and reliable. For example, I don't think people would have camped over night for an iPhone if all it had was a promise to be more refined than the average phone. People liked all the fancy new features, but cell phones worked perfectly fine before the iPhone came. I think we the consumer are the ones pushing the industry this way. I don't think there are many people who are willing to buy a basic phone anymore because they feel that they are missing something if they did.

All the fancy features crammed into one device wouldn't be so bad if the engineers actually used the products they make...or at least it seems like they don't use them because if they did they would realize how horribly designed some of their products were. Have you guys used some of the more recent tv/dvd remote controls out there? Why would they hide some of the more common buttons like play, record, tv/video, etc?

Hart I don't think you are alone in thinking this. I've felt this way about technology for awhile even though I do like technology. I think what it comes down to is to not buy high tech items for the sake of getting the latest high tech item but rather buy high tech items when they actually are useful for your needs. For example, I would be interested in the iTouch because I really do want an mp3 player and PDA in one device but I don't need a wrist watch that can do my taxes, tell me the current temperature on Mars, or tell me when Aliens have invaded the earth...but if you need it then go ahead and buy one. I bought a simple analog wrist watch because all I wanted it to do was tell me the time. I comes down to what really needs to be high tech and what doesn't, which is different for anyone.

[mdc]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

I miss my velcro sneakers.

Royal Elastics

Back on topic though. I feel that there is a place for high and low-tech items everywhere. I much prefer my iPhone to my first cellphone, but, like you, I prefer the simple alarm clock to the new digital ones.

[Dakar the Fourth]

Originally Posted by mdc 

Royal Elastics

Thanks. Unfortunately sneakers are one of those items I need to try on before I buy. There's too much difference in shoe sizes between companies. That and who knows if they're comfortable..

[vmarks]

Refrigerators, clothes washers.

These things have water going through them, and some idiot decides to put electronics in them. What happens to electronics in the vicinity of water?

Seriously, mechanical timers are every bit as good as electronic timers, and the trouble that I had to go through when I had to replace the solenoids and triacs in the washer was more than enough to tell me how my next washer will be.

The refrigerators with the water dispenser in the door - what happens when the shut off relay fails? You flood your kitchen. Okay, I can dig the bar code scanner in the door that makes the shopping list via inventory means, but come on.

[Chuckit]

You're going to use a manual washing machine?

[peeb]

I've used manual washing machines - they're not that bad, especially if you live somewhere with no electricity.

[Mr Ti]

"... unless I know I'm going to use it. THAT is when I buy the high end.

I agree completely with this. I just bought a touch lamp for reading that is very basic in appearance, but really nice quality , you touch it on and touch it off, it's really elegant.

[PB2K]

digital photocamera's become more and more advanced but not necessarely better. I get really fed up with friends and family sending me 10 megabyte attachments of a babypicture because they don't know how to make them smaller

I am really happy with a 5 year old sony cybershot 717 5megapixel that has nightvision and a really good lens, costed me 150 euro together with wideangle lens. I use a newer compact Olympus 770sw that is waterproof and shockproof for travelling and point and shoot photography.

also, coincidentally, I just bought a 4 year old racing bike with Ultegra STI shifts. also not the latest but it serves it's purpose really well. Lighter doesn't mean faster, I better put my energy in a better physical condition.

And best of all, my house is 350 to 400 years old (i live in a dutch village). and my car, a classic Alfa Romeo , is hard to beat with modern design You can't have a Porsche or Ferrari and people will still approach you and congratulate you with your awesome car and strike a nice conversation about it.



It breaks down from time to time but I can learn how to fix everything, because it's all mechanical and simple.

[besson3c]

Great thread hart, and great post!

I think we all need to remember what hart is talking about here the next time we jones for some new, fancy gadget. Computer guys such as ourselves are often gadget geeks, but you would think that of all people it would be us that understand the drawbacks of being an early adopter of a product! It's not just gadgets either, I'm sure many of us (me included) upgraded to Leopard within a day/week or two of its release.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by hart 

In terms of actual time and effort spent, carrying around a little address book might be more efficient than all the button pushing required to enter and then access one's phone book in a cell phone and then RE-ENTER it in your next phone.

Never had to re-enter a number, nor have I lost a number, for eight years.

Sometimes higher tech really is better.

[Chuckit]

Who on earth manually re-enters all their address book numbers? Just move your SIM card.

[ghporter]

There are ways to go way overboard with tech, but some subtle ways to go wrong-at the bleeding edge. A friend has EVERYTHING except power and water connected through his cable connection. His phone goes through that-as does his house alarm, with the added (and at additional expense) monitored smoke detector.

No problem he says! "I have the VOIP modem on an UPS, and it has a built in battery too." Great! But what about other problems? Like what happens when (not if) the cable distribution system has a problem? Mud slides in LA, earthquakes in Missouri, collapsing sinkholes, cars bashing down utility poles, and just plain cable failures could all cut off some portion of a cable system. So what happens when the local cable goes down? He's up the creek.

Traditional telephone has a separate pair going to each residence (sometimes more than one, too), so at most a subscriber to a landline (like me) risks losing dialtone and DSL at the same time. But telephone infrastructure is considerably more robust than cable infrastructure-central offices (or remote terminals) provide power to subscriber lines, and the system is built redundantly because "public safety" depends on it. Sure, my alarm may fail due to a local cable cut, but not due to someone miles away taking down an old utility pole.

It's like finding out that you can build a helicopter out of styrofoam and a 12V motor. Sure, you can, but is it a good idea to put your family in that and lift them off a tall building with it?

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's not just gadgets either, I'm sure many of us (me included) upgraded to Leopard within a day/week or two of its release.

Was that a mistake?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Was that a mistake?

For some, yes... It wasn't so bad for me, but there were a few things that caught me off guard, and a few features I was hoping for that didn't pan out as I was hoping they would that ended up wasting time.

I'm not sure in what context you were asking this question (I took it as tangential, and a literal question), so I'll leave it at that.

[Cipher13]

High tech all the way baby.

I can't wait to get my hands on a ULTRA-HIGH DENSITY, ULTRA-HIGH SPEED AND EXTREMELY COMPACT SIZE NON-VOLATILE INTEGRATED
QUANTUN-OPTICAL RANDOM ACCESSIBLE MEMORY DEVICE.

Yes, Quantun dammit.

[Goldfinger]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Who on earth manually re-enters all their address book numbers? Just move your SIM card.

I don't have a single number stored on my sim. All my contact info is stored on my phone. It's a ten year old sim card so it doesn't have enough capacity. I should maybe trade it in for a new one but I'm too lazy.

iSync is great though. My contacts are always backed up.
Most phones support SyncML these days anyway.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Seriously, mechanical timers are every bit as good as electronic timers

Not really. I have had several alarm clocks, and it was always difficult with the normally priced mechanical ones to be accurate for the wake up time. I'd always have to set it say 10 minutes early to make sure I got up on time.

Mind with electronic clocks I set it on time, and then hit snooze when it goes off so sometimes I end up 10 minutes late.

Sure you can get more accurate mechanical clocks, but I don't feel like spending $300 on an alarm clock.

[osiris]

I'm as low tech as it gets, but still like computers, lasers, transporters, etc...
basically I try to determine if something electronic is going to add to my life, or become a complete time waster.

The simplest solutions are often the most elegant.

[Doofy]

Going back to the original question... ...yes, sometimes low tech is better.

Ride an old Land Rover through Africa and break down you'll very quickly find a bush mechanic who'll be able to bodge something together. Break down in a modern Landie and you'd better hope there's a dealer within a few miles.

Also, I've mentioned this before but every mobile phone on the market appears to have buttons on the side (to activate the camera and suchlike). This is problematic for old folks, who're usually all thumbs.

Oh, and I use valve amps.

K.I.S.S.

[peeb]

Clockwork often rocks.

[hart]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Traditional telephone has a separate pair going to each residence (sometimes more than one, too), so at most a subscriber to a landline (like me) risks losing dialtone and DSL at the same time. But telephone infrastructure is considerably more robust than cable infrastructure-central offices (or remote terminals) provide power to subscriber lines, and the system is built redundantly because "public safety" depends on it. Sure, my alarm may fail due to a local cable cut, but not due to someone miles away taking down an old utility pole.

I live in a 150 year old house and I have a brick red rotary dial wall phone and an olive rotary dial tabletop phone that were here when we moved in. They are probably 40 years old. In the ten years we've been in the house they're the only phones that haven't broken. I can't use touch tone menus, but then who wants to. They are, I believe also not shut down by power outages but I've never been here when the power was out to test it.

As for SIM cards, well, you caught me. My cell phone is a 2 1/2 year old el cheapo model because I hate talking on the phone. I prefer to communicate via email. For a while I had a Palm with my phone book in it but it never seemed to function well enough to make the time investment worth it. Which I suppose supports my original point. Neither my cell phones or my Palm made it seem worth it. In any case, although Young People These Days and energetic blackberry users are all about having their lives in their phones I still encounter a lot of people who just can't get the hang of them. There seem to be two kinds of people on that front actually. Avid live-by-the-phone/die-by-the-phone users and people who get stressed out just having to answer the dang thing.

Oh, and Erik, I do, on the other hand have all my contacts entered in Address Book and everything I have to do on iCal all synced among my computers and with .Mac. If I didn't have alerts popping up on my screen all day I probably wouldn't remember anything. It seems that entering an alarm in iCal falls within the range of balance for effort to outcome. It was gratifying to NOT get a ticket this year for forgetting my car inspection. iCal was there for me right on time. If I needed a cell phone more I would consider an iPhone because it syncs with iCal and Address Book as much as anything. Originally, years ago I stopped using paper address books because of the lack of backups.

So, today's NYTimes editorials has a related opinion:

By Design - Allison Arieff - Design - Opinion - New York Times Blog

"Function Dysfunction"

[finboy]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Going back to the original question... ...yes, sometimes low tech is better.

It troubles me that often new updates/upgrades offer no advantages, and are more error-prone. For example, my current install of Jaguar (yep) has about 30k files, and the corruption/deletion of any one of a handful of these will render my trusty ibook useless. My Powerbook 100 ran a couple hours on batts and could boot from a floppy. Other than getting on the fancy Internet, it did just about the same thing that my ibook does. Instead of focusing on whizbang, we should look at what lets us "get some real work done." The old days were better in many respects. Certainly from a fault-tolerant standpoint.

[subego]

While I agree with the OP's overall point, I think this is just as much a UI issue.

I love a good mechanical clock (I collect stopwatches), but my alarm clock (which is digital) was designed to take care of most of those issues.

The alarm time is on a smaller separate readout, so you always know whether you are changing the time or the alarm time (is it the big number blinking, or the small one?). Likewise, you know whether the alarm is set because you can see the alarm time. If there is no alarm time listed, the alarm isn't on.

If it had a backup battery, it'd be perfect. I highly recommend it.

http://www.sangean.com/product.php?m...330&prod_id=29

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

For some, yes... It wasn't so bad for me, but there were a few things that caught me off guard, and a few features I was hoping for that didn't pan out as I was hoping they would that ended up wasting time.

I'm not sure in what context you were asking this question (I took it as tangential, and a literal question), so I'll leave it at that.

You understood me.

[mkral]

High tech sells for a reason (for the most part). Mechanical alarm clocks are simple to use, but not very accurate & you need to activate the alarm every day (since you don't want it ringing at 6 am & 6 pm) Electronic alarm clocks fixed that problem (although they have their own-power outages, complexity, etc)

Same thing with older cars, sure a mechanic out in the bush can fix your 1950 Land Rover if it breaks down, but it's also far more likely to break down than the 2007 model.

400 year old houses are great (and I truly mean that, I'm very jealous) but I"ll bet it's not all original inside. Great inventions like electricity & municipal water systems have come around since then.

Having everything run through the cable box does risk some kind of calamity should all hell break loose, but honestly how often does that happen. Our power went out back when there was that big blackout in the North Eastern US (actually the epicenter was about 6 miles from my home) & we were completely fine. we have a phone line (my wife insists on keeping one 'for emergencies' but we have not used it one time in the 6.5 years we've been married (not even during the blackout). I suspect that if an earthquake hit or a tsunami or something of that magnitude, worrying if your cable went out would be low on the list of things to worry about.

Having to re-type your contacts into each new cell phone sucks, but can you remember back to the days of not having access to that kind of stuff. How much more inconvenient is it to not be able to call someone, or to call all your other friends to find the guy's phone # that you're looking for.

Some high tech stuff is simply crap, but if you're not on the absolute bleeding edge, that stuff usually gets weeded out before you buy into it. We all know pretty fast if something is garbage, or if it works.

Probably more of a rant than anything & I'm really not all that passionate about this issue, but I think that sometimes we tend to romanticize the past & think of the good old days, without remembering why we stopped living that way in the first place.

Occasionally people are suckered in to buying technology for technology's sake, but for the most part, that isn't the case.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Going back to the original question... ...yes, sometimes low tech is better.

Ride an old Land Rover through Africa and break down you'll very quickly find a bush mechanic who'll be able to bodge something together. Break down in a modern Landie and you'd better hope there's a dealer within a few miles.

Also, I've mentioned this before but every mobile phone on the market appears to have buttons on the side (to activate the camera and suchlike). This is problematic for old folks, who're usually all thumbs.

Oh, and I use valve amps.

K.I.S.S.

ANY automobile built in the last 15 years is a pain to work on without a specialized computer and a lot of training, while any older vehicle, being all-mechanical, is something you can work on with just a basic knowledge of how autos work (and the right set of hand tools of course, but you need them regardless).

Here in the States there's a line of cell phones tailored to people with reduced dexterity and vision-with no side buttons, large dialing buttons and a large display. I like it as a response to "my cell does everything for me-if I can just manage to push the right button..." products.

And it's possible to make a transistor amp that is just as (if not more) simple as older vacuum tube amps. But it won't sound the same and it won't be "elegant" at all. Elegance is a big point here. If you're into your music, you probably want your system to reflect who you are, and a tiny black box doesn't really say much, does it? But a nicely made wooden cabinet with 6 tubes (nicely displayed through the box) is both "warm sounding" and a bit of sculpture. I wish I had the money to have the tube amp I would like to have-I have expensive tastes.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by ghporter 

Here in the States there's a line of cell phones tailored to people with reduced dexterity and vision-with no side buttons, large dialing buttons and a large display. I like it as a response to "my cell does everything for me-if I can just manage to push the right button..." products.

I like those. I won't hold my breath waiting for them to travel east.

Originally Posted by ghporter 

And it's possible to make a transistor amp that is just as (if not more) simple as older vacuum tube amps. But it won't sound the same and it won't be "elegant" at all. Elegance is a big point here. If you're into your music, you probably want your system to reflect who you are, and a tiny black box doesn't really say much, does it? But a nicely made wooden cabinet with 6 tubes (nicely displayed through the box) is both "warm sounding" and a bit of sculpture. I wish I had the money to have the tube amp I would like to have-I have expensive tastes.

Ah. I was actually meaning "for my banjo" (and tranny amps come nowhere near valves in terms of playability). But those points are valid for serious audiophile chaps and their valve stereos, for sure.