Guest
Show Posts
11
Screen designer tips and tutorials / Re: How to bring in a touch screen keyboard using VB script.
« on: May 05, 2006, 09:57:41 AM »
Benny,
That makes a lot of sense. I just think that people should think about the control panel as part of the overall "system" of the CNC tool. Usability and ergonomics plays an important role in the user interface of any system. A touch screen offers many advantages, both from the standpoint of simplifying and "hardening" the physical interface layer and enhancing the ease of use. It also introduces the interesting challenge of adjusting it to the proper angle. This would tend to be vertical for vision from anything but a trivial distance and close to horizontal for ease of typing. The two positions are pretty much mutually exclusive and the designer should take this into account. The full keyboard you inserted shows the versatility of MACHx and is a starting point for future designers. I think, eventually, a subset of keys (mostly numerical) with larger, easy to hit, footprints would be more beneficial if one chose a vertical plane for the screen.
The reason I'm harping on trivia like this is the design of most devices, whether an airline seat or a toothbrush, is based on an evolution of legacy designs, ending in something which is acceptable to most parties involved. It does not mean that they are the best possible design. Having discussions about what makes a screen easier to use (whether from the standpoint of glare, size, angle, button color/shape, layout, and so forth) I think will go a long way towards coming up with a set of guidelines which will help those who come after us. Think about how the consensus discussions have advanced the control hardware design over the past three years and how much simpler it is today to build a CNC platform than it used to be. Art has modified his software to conform to the "low hanging fruit" concensus of what 3 1/2 axis CNC is expected to do and his success at satisfying most people, most of the time is evident.
The screens are the major interface that we have into the control of the CNC system (tool, PC and software all glopped together). I think there are a number of "competing" schools of thought here:
The professional machinist-these tend to be conservative and adopt change slowly. On the other hand, they are efficiency based and stress functionality over aesthetics. They are also safety based and do not want compromises which may cause problems (for example, they would not appreciate the ability to jog on an "automatic" screen. It serves no function here and could conceivably cause issues if used in error).
The all-in-one guy-Generally (but not always) a hobbyist who wants simplicity of use interpreted as having the maximum available functionality on a single screen. There is a savings of keystrokes here, and maybe a more complete presentation of all of the tings that are going on. This presentation would make most of the "pros" crazy as they need only a few functions at each part of their workflow and having the whole "Kitchen sink" available all the time is confusing and can cause errors.
The aesthetics-These are users who treat the screens as a work of art. Generally, they are light users of CNC, but enjoy expressing their artistic flair on the only portion of MACHx which is easily user modifyable - the screens. The outcomes run the gamut of the good, the bad and the ugly (like any art work). My personal oppinion is that they can achieve results which would be more widely appreciated by studying screen GUI ergonomics as it applies to CNC tools, rather than shoot for artistic impressionism.
There are probably other design philosophies which I've left out, but I think a discussion is probably warranted just to see whether most people can agree on a few "good practice" approaches.
Jeff
That makes a lot of sense. I just think that people should think about the control panel as part of the overall "system" of the CNC tool. Usability and ergonomics plays an important role in the user interface of any system. A touch screen offers many advantages, both from the standpoint of simplifying and "hardening" the physical interface layer and enhancing the ease of use. It also introduces the interesting challenge of adjusting it to the proper angle. This would tend to be vertical for vision from anything but a trivial distance and close to horizontal for ease of typing. The two positions are pretty much mutually exclusive and the designer should take this into account. The full keyboard you inserted shows the versatility of MACHx and is a starting point for future designers. I think, eventually, a subset of keys (mostly numerical) with larger, easy to hit, footprints would be more beneficial if one chose a vertical plane for the screen.
The reason I'm harping on trivia like this is the design of most devices, whether an airline seat or a toothbrush, is based on an evolution of legacy designs, ending in something which is acceptable to most parties involved. It does not mean that they are the best possible design. Having discussions about what makes a screen easier to use (whether from the standpoint of glare, size, angle, button color/shape, layout, and so forth) I think will go a long way towards coming up with a set of guidelines which will help those who come after us. Think about how the consensus discussions have advanced the control hardware design over the past three years and how much simpler it is today to build a CNC platform than it used to be. Art has modified his software to conform to the "low hanging fruit" concensus of what 3 1/2 axis CNC is expected to do and his success at satisfying most people, most of the time is evident.
The screens are the major interface that we have into the control of the CNC system (tool, PC and software all glopped together). I think there are a number of "competing" schools of thought here:
The professional machinist-these tend to be conservative and adopt change slowly. On the other hand, they are efficiency based and stress functionality over aesthetics. They are also safety based and do not want compromises which may cause problems (for example, they would not appreciate the ability to jog on an "automatic" screen. It serves no function here and could conceivably cause issues if used in error).
The all-in-one guy-Generally (but not always) a hobbyist who wants simplicity of use interpreted as having the maximum available functionality on a single screen. There is a savings of keystrokes here, and maybe a more complete presentation of all of the tings that are going on. This presentation would make most of the "pros" crazy as they need only a few functions at each part of their workflow and having the whole "Kitchen sink" available all the time is confusing and can cause errors.
The aesthetics-These are users who treat the screens as a work of art. Generally, they are light users of CNC, but enjoy expressing their artistic flair on the only portion of MACHx which is easily user modifyable - the screens. The outcomes run the gamut of the good, the bad and the ugly (like any art work). My personal oppinion is that they can achieve results which would be more widely appreciated by studying screen GUI ergonomics as it applies to CNC tools, rather than shoot for artistic impressionism.
There are probably other design philosophies which I've left out, but I think a discussion is probably warranted just to see whether most people can agree on a few "good practice" approaches.
Jeff