Power Meters?

On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 11:41:01 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Op vrijdag 7 mei 2021 om 00:18:47 UTC+2 schreef :
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 3:14:06 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Op donderdag 6 mei 2021 om 23:49:23 UTC+2 schreef :
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 12:02:48 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Op donderdag 6 mei 2021 om 19:56:24 UTC+2 schreef :
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 10:36:37 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Op donderdag 6 mei 2021 om 16:10:51 UTC+2 schreef :
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 2:10:28 AM UTC-7, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Tue, 4 May 2021 10:51:21 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
:
On 5/4/2021 10:23 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
...
Coincidentally, some of this was mentioned in today's Yahoo Lifestyle
article from _Buycycling_ magazine.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/burn...194200200.html



Interesting. At one point in the article it says that “the fitter you are,
the more efficient you are, and the less energy/fewer calories you use when
you ride at a given pace. �. However, later on it says that kJ and KCal
track at a 1:1 ratio (the assumed 25% efficiency of human muscles
offsetting the 4.3 Cal/J conversion). However, the energy required to ride
a certain speed is constant, based on the physics of the situation. Unless
the author is stating that as one gets fitter, one loses weight, buys a
bike with lower rolling resistance and assumes a position with lower CdA,
I’m not sure how to reconcile those two statements.

I assume one's metabolic efficiency for a specific activity (in this
case, bicycling) can improve with practice. It might be explained at
least in part by better coordination, so less firing of non-essential
muscles.
This, plus better aerodynamics. As you well know, because you commented
on it a while ago, I prefer to ride a bike in clothing that doesn’t look
like the latest ads in a sports magazine. But that doesn’t mean that I
don’t try to avoid avoidable air drag, by riding a road bike and using
the low positions on the drop bar.

I'm riding for fun, not as a matter of competition or to loose fat. Part
of that fun is getting around, though. Part of the fun, however, is
getting around, and that’s better if you can cycle faster.

Problem: The faster you ride, the more difficult it becomes to estimate
how much power you need for speed. I am no hunter/gatherer, I don't ride
that much. A quick back on the evelope calculation: last year I rode
less than 130 hours combined. When I was still working, it was about 220
hours - roughly one hour per work day.

I'm not that exited about power meters, but I see a use for these. One
of my sons has a pair, built into the pedals. I could try these, both on
my stationary bike (an old Tacx 1680) and indirectely, by him riding
closely behind me on one of my tours. The data gathered is quite
interesting. I'm going up gradients too fast and then I’m weakening when
it gets flat. This, even though I am well aware of the effect. Actually
I told beginners to avoid it, before. :-}


Anyway, I see a benefit for me, similar to the speedometer in our car.
That device is completely unnessesary, I rarely look at it. But so is
a lot of stuff on my road bike, lights, some bags, navigation device,
air pump, pedals, water bottle, some tools, a camera ... I could take
everything off my bike, except the gear and a single front brake and
would still be able to do my trips. I haven't used the pump in years,
could do without water for most of the year, etc.

A few months ago there was a Nova program on PBS focusing on fat. One
takeaway was that weight gain or loss is way more complicated than
simply "calories input vs. exercise."

I think it was that show that noted that hunter gatherers with extremely
active lifestyles don't require any more calories than sedentary people.
One way or another, efficiency does change with training..
--
Wir danken für die Beachtung aller Sicherheitsbestimmungen
Well, YOU know what you're getting and are willing to pay for it. That is one thing. But as I said, there is absolutely no NEED for a power meter for most sports riders because everything you need to know you learn in 20 minutes. A power meter will not improve your performance since if you've been riding for awhile you are probably as good as you are ever going to get. If one day you feel punk, looking at a lower than normal reading isn't going to tell you anything that your legs haven't. They are an unnecessary expense, though if you like to use them simply as a piece of instrumentation and you have the spare change, it isn't going to hurt anything.

I have a Garmin and it used to show speed and distance on the lead page. They they updated the program and it is very difficult to find distance - it is two or three pages away. This is really irritating to me since I like to see the difference in distance of various routes. But now I just wait until I'm home and plug it into my home computer.
My God Tom, you can adjust/delete any data page and data field on a data page, RTFM. If you are too lazy/stubborn go to youtube and do a search like 'how to change data field on Garmin Edge xxx.

Lou
Lou, I have an 800 and an 810. Neither of these allow you to change the data fields and the last time I updated the programs they went into this funny mode in which the data fields on both of the units cannot be obviously changed and there is no "change display" mode on either. If I go to "Display" the entries are "Backlight timeout", "Color Mode", "Screen Capture" and "Calibrate Screen". Perhaps you know better than the guy who is holding it in his hands? Not only that but since it updated the program it looks like it is adding the rotational speed of either the satellites or the Earth to the speed reading since at a dead stop it measures between .5 and 1 mph though it doesn't change mileage.
Jesus Christ you are stubborn. I had a Edge 810 myself for many years so I would now. It is not in the display settings it is in the activity settings IIRC. Anyhow I looked it up for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHDqLUiT-eU
I did a factory reset and it started working correctly. Believe me that these units started doing this after it supposedly entered a program update. I reset the 800 which also updated the unit the same way and it too came back to operating properly. Your references were not helpful because these units were not operating anything like was shown in the video.
That doesn't make sense. I bought my Edge 810 as soon as it came out and from day one it acted exactly as shown in the video. It had many updates but none of them changed the way the data pages and data fields were configured so a factory reset should bring you back to a software version that would act as shown in the video. How did your unit entered a 'program update'? Are we talking about the same units? Does your unit and the user interface even look like what you see in the video?
Seriously Lou? I just told you that both the 800 and the 810 failed identically after they updated the program. Obviously after they updated the program they didn't do a reset as the final step in their program. They both had the same displays that acted in the same manner and which you couldn't change anything. What exactly doesn't make sense about them not including a reset?
A lot of of things doesn't make sense to me:
- the edge 810 and edge 800 don't update their FW by itself. You either do that via the Garmin Express application on your PC or via WIFI, if connected. It case of the latter it ask you if you want to update,
- the edge 800 has a different user interface than the edge 810 so when turned on they look different and operate differently,
- after a factory reset I would expect that the edge 810 would operate like mine and in that case the data pages and data fields could be configured as shown in the video, because that is how it works out of the box.

Lou, By the way, the 800 and the 810 have the identical user interface. That is the two buttons and touch screen. The 705 I have has manual buttons and no touch screen.

Op vrijdag 7 mei 2021 om 15:44:02 UTC+2 schreef :
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 11:41:01 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Op vrijdag 7 mei 2021 om 00:18:47 UTC+2 schreef :
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 3:14:06 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Op donderdag 6 mei 2021 om 23:49:23 UTC+2 schreef :
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 12:02:48 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Op donderdag 6 mei 2021 om 19:56:24 UTC+2 schreef :
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 10:36:37 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Op donderdag 6 mei 2021 om 16:10:51 UTC+2 schreef :
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 2:10:28 AM UTC-7, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Tue, 4 May 2021 10:51:21 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
:
On 5/4/2021 10:23 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
...
Coincidentally, some of this was mentioned in today's Yahoo Lifestyle
article from _Buycycling_ magazine.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/burn...194200200.html



Interesting. At one point in the article it says that “the fitter you are,
the more efficient you are, and the less energy/fewer calories you use when
you ride at a given pace. �. However, later on it says that kJ and KCal
track at a 1:1 ratio (the assumed 25% efficiency of human muscles
offsetting the 4.3 Cal/J conversion). However, the energy required to ride
a certain speed is constant, based on the physics of the situation. Unless
the author is stating that as one gets fitter, one loses weight, buys a
bike with lower rolling resistance and assumes a position with lower CdA,
I’m not sure how to reconcile those two statements.

I assume one's metabolic efficiency for a specific activity (in this
case, bicycling) can improve with practice. It might be explained at
least in part by better coordination, so less firing of non-essential
muscles.
This, plus better aerodynamics. As you well know, because you commented
on it a while ago, I prefer to ride a bike in clothing that doesn’t look
like the latest ads in a sports magazine. But that doesn’t mean that I
don’t try to avoid avoidable air drag, by riding a road bike and using
the low positions on the drop bar.

I'm riding for fun, not as a matter of competition or to loose fat. Part
of that fun is getting around, though. Part of the fun, however, is
getting around, and that’s better if you can cycle faster.

Problem: The faster you ride, the more difficult it becomes to estimate
how much power you need for speed. I am no hunter/gatherer, I don't ride
that much. A quick back on the evelope calculation: last year I rode
less than 130 hours combined. When I was still working, it was about 220
hours - roughly one hour per work day.

I'm not that exited about power meters, but I see a use for these. One
of my sons has a pair, built into the pedals. I could try these, both on
my stationary bike (an old Tacx 1680) and indirectely, by him riding
closely behind me on one of my tours. The data gathered is quite
interesting. I'm going up gradients too fast and then I’m weakening when
it gets flat. This, even though I am well aware of the effect. Actually
I told beginners to avoid it, before. :-}


Anyway, I see a benefit for me, similar to the speedometer in our car.
That device is completely unnessesary, I rarely look at it. But so is
a lot of stuff on my road bike, lights, some bags, navigation device,
air pump, pedals, water bottle, some tools, a camera .... I could take
everything off my bike, except the gear and a single front brake and
would still be able to do my trips. I haven't used the pump in years,
could do without water for most of the year, etc.

A few months ago there was a Nova program on PBS focusing on fat. One
takeaway was that weight gain or loss is way more complicated than
simply "calories input vs. exercise."

I think it was that show that noted that hunter gatherers with extremely
active lifestyles don't require any more calories than sedentary people.
One way or another, efficiency does change with training.
--
Wir danken für die Beachtung aller Sicherheitsbestimmungen
Well, YOU know what you're getting and are willing to pay for it. That is one thing. But as I said, there is absolutely no NEED for a power meter for most sports riders because everything you need to know you learn in 20 minutes. A power meter will not improve your performance since if you've been riding for awhile you are probably as good as you are ever going to get. If one day you feel punk, looking at a lower than normal reading isn't going to tell you anything that your legs haven't. They are an unnecessary expense, though if you like to use them simply as a piece of instrumentation and you have the spare change, it isn't going to hurt anything..

I have a Garmin and it used to show speed and distance on the lead page. They they updated the program and it is very difficult to find distance - it is two or three pages away. This is really irritating to me since I like to see the difference in distance of various routes. But now I just wait until I'm home and plug it into my home computer.
My God Tom, you can adjust/delete any data page and data field on a data page, RTFM. If you are too lazy/stubborn go to youtube and do a search like 'how to change data field on Garmin Edge xxx.

Lou
Lou, I have an 800 and an 810. Neither of these allow you to change the data fields and the last time I updated the programs they went into this funny mode in which the data fields on both of the units cannot be obviously changed and there is no "change display" mode on either. If I go to "Display" the entries are "Backlight timeout", "Color Mode", "Screen Capture" and "Calibrate Screen". Perhaps you know better than the guy who is holding it in his hands? Not only that but since it updated the program it looks like it is adding the rotational speed of either the satellites or the Earth to the speed reading since at a dead stop it measures between .5 and 1 mph though it doesn't change mileage.
Jesus Christ you are stubborn. I had a Edge 810 myself for many years so I would now. It is not in the display settings it is in the activity settings IIRC. Anyhow I looked it up for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHDqLUiT-eU
I did a factory reset and it started working correctly. Believe me that these units started doing this after it supposedly entered a program update. I reset the 800 which also updated the unit the same way and it too came back to operating properly. Your references were not helpful because these units were not operating anything like was shown in the video.
That doesn't make sense. I bought my Edge 810 as soon as it came out and from day one it acted exactly as shown in the video. It had many updates but none of them changed the way the data pages and data fields were configured so a factory reset should bring you back to a software version that would act as shown in the video. How did your unit entered a 'program update'? Are we talking about the same units? Does your unit and the user interface even look like what you see in the video?
Seriously Lou? I just told you that both the 800 and the 810 failed identically after they updated the program. Obviously after they updated the program they didn't do a reset as the final step in their program. They both had the same displays that acted in the same manner and which you couldn't change anything. What exactly doesn't make sense about them not including a reset?
A lot of of things doesn't make sense to me:
- the edge 810 and edge 800 don't update their FW by itself. You either do that via the Garmin Express application on your PC or via WIFI, if connected. It case of the latter it ask you if you want to update,
- the edge 800 has a different user interface than the edge 810 so when turned on they look different and operate differently,
- after a factory reset I would expect that the edge 810 would operate like mine and in that case the data pages and data fields could be configured as shown in the video, because that is how it works out of the box.
Lou, By the way, the 800 and the 810 have the identical user interface. That is the two buttons and touch screen. The 705 I have has manual buttons and no touch screen.

We have a different definition of a user interface . I don't mean the buttons and the display but what you see on the display and how you navigate through the screens and how you change the setting. Had an argument with the user interface guy at work yesterday. They tend to over complicate/over think matters. Never mind this is going nowhere.

Lou

On Friday, May 7, 2021 at 2:46:58 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Op vrijdag 7 mei 2021 om 15:44:02 UTC+2 schreef :
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 11:41:01 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Op vrijdag 7 mei 2021 om 00:18:47 UTC+2 schreef :
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 3:14:06 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Op donderdag 6 mei 2021 om 23:49:23 UTC+2 schreef :
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 12:02:48 PM UTC-7, wrote:
Op donderdag 6 mei 2021 om 19:56:24 UTC+2 schreef :
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 10:36:37 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Op donderdag 6 mei 2021 om 16:10:51 UTC+2 schreef :
On Thursday, May 6, 2021 at 2:10:28 AM UTC-7, Wolfgang Strobl wrote:
Am Tue, 4 May 2021 10:51:21 -0400 schrieb Frank Krygowski
:
On 5/4/2021 10:23 AM, Ralph Barone wrote:
Frank Krygowski wrote:
...
Coincidentally, some of this was mentioned in today's Yahoo Lifestyle
article from _Buycycling_ magazine.

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/burn...194200200.html



Interesting. At one point in the article it says that “the fitter you are,
the more efficient you are, and the less energy/fewer calories you use when
you ride at a given pace. �. However, later on it says that kJ and KCal
track at a 1:1 ratio (the assumed 25% efficiency of human muscles
offsetting the 4.3 Cal/J conversion). However, the energy required to ride
a certain speed is constant, based on the physics of the situation. Unless
the author is stating that as one gets fitter, one loses weight, buys a
bike with lower rolling resistance and assumes a position with lower CdA,
I’m not sure how to reconcile those two statements.

I assume one's metabolic efficiency for a specific activity (in this
case, bicycling) can improve with practice. It might be explained at
least in part by better coordination, so less firing of non-essential
muscles.
This, plus better aerodynamics. As you well know, because you commented
on it a while ago, I prefer to ride a bike in clothing that doesn’t look
like the latest ads in a sports magazine. But that doesn’t mean that I
don’t try to avoid avoidable air drag, by riding a road bike and using
the low positions on the drop bar.

I'm riding for fun, not as a matter of competition or to loose fat. Part
of that fun is getting around, though. Part of the fun, however, is
getting around, and that’s better if you can cycle faster.

Problem: The faster you ride, the more difficult it becomes to estimate
how much power you need for speed. I am no hunter/gatherer, I don't ride
that much. A quick back on the evelope calculation: last year I rode
less than 130 hours combined. When I was still working, it was about 220
hours - roughly one hour per work day.

I'm not that exited about power meters, but I see a use for these. One
of my sons has a pair, built into the pedals. I could try these, both on
my stationary bike (an old Tacx 1680) and indirectely, by him riding
closely behind me on one of my tours. The data gathered is quite
interesting. I'm going up gradients too fast and then I’m weakening when
it gets flat. This, even though I am well aware of the effect. Actually
I told beginners to avoid it, before. :-}


Anyway, I see a benefit for me, similar to the speedometer in our car.
That device is completely unnessesary, I rarely look at it. But so is
a lot of stuff on my road bike, lights, some bags, navigation device,
air pump, pedals, water bottle, some tools, a camera .... I could take
everything off my bike, except the gear and a single front brake and
would still be able to do my trips. I haven't used the pump in years,
could do without water for most of the year, etc.

A few months ago there was a Nova program on PBS focusing on fat. One
takeaway was that weight gain or loss is way more complicated than
simply "calories input vs. exercise."

I think it was that show that noted that hunter gatherers with extremely
active lifestyles don't require any more calories than sedentary people.
One way or another, efficiency does change with training.
--
Wir danken für die Beachtung aller Sicherheitsbestimmungen
Well, YOU know what you're getting and are willing to pay for it. That is one thing. But as I said, there is absolutely no NEED for a power meter for most sports riders because everything you need to know you learn in 20 minutes. A power meter will not improve your performance since if you've been riding for awhile you are probably as good as you are ever going to get. If one day you feel punk, looking at a lower than normal reading isn't going to tell you anything that your legs haven't. They are an unnecessary expense, though if you like to use them simply as a piece of instrumentation and you have the spare change, it isn't going to hurt anything.

I have a Garmin and it used to show speed and distance on the lead page. They they updated the program and it is very difficult to find distance - it is two or three pages away. This is really irritating to me since I like to see the difference in distance of various routes. But now I just wait until I'm home and plug it into my home computer.
My God Tom, you can adjust/delete any data page and data field on a data page, RTFM. If you are too lazy/stubborn go to youtube and do a search like 'how to change data field on Garmin Edge xxx.

Lou
Lou, I have an 800 and an 810. Neither of these allow you to change the data fields and the last time I updated the programs they went into this funny mode in which the data fields on both of the units cannot be obviously changed and there is no "change display" mode on either. If I go to "Display" the entries are "Backlight timeout", "Color Mode", "Screen Capture" and "Calibrate Screen". Perhaps you know better than the guy who is holding it in his hands? Not only that but since it updated the program it looks like it is adding the rotational speed of either the satellites or the Earth to the speed reading since at a dead stop it measures between .5 and 1 mph though it doesn't change mileage.
Jesus Christ you are stubborn. I had a Edge 810 myself for many years so I would now. It is not in the display settings it is in the activity settings IIRC. Anyhow I looked it up for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHDqLUiT-eU
I did a factory reset and it started working correctly. Believe me that these units started doing this after it supposedly entered a program update. I reset the 800 which also updated the unit the same way and it too came back to operating properly. Your references were not helpful because these units were not operating anything like was shown in the video.
That doesn't make sense. I bought my Edge 810 as soon as it came out and from day one it acted exactly as shown in the video. It had many updates but none of them changed the way the data pages and data fields were configured so a factory reset should bring you back to a software version that would act as shown in the video. How did your unit entered a 'program update'? Are we talking about the same units? Does your unit and the user interface even look like what you see in the video?
Seriously Lou? I just told you that both the 800 and the 810 failed identically after they updated the program. Obviously after they updated the program they didn't do a reset as the final step in their program. They both had the same displays that acted in the same manner and which you couldn't change anything. What exactly doesn't make sense about them not including a reset?
A lot of of things doesn't make sense to me:
- the edge 810 and edge 800 don't update their FW by itself. You either do that via the Garmin Express application on your PC or via WIFI, if connected. It case of the latter it ask you if you want to update,
- the edge 800 has a different user interface than the edge 810 so when turned on they look different and operate differently,
- after a factory reset I would expect that the edge 810 would operate like mine and in that case the data pages and data fields could be configured as shown in the video, because that is how it works out of the box.
Lou, By the way, the 800 and the 810 have the identical user interface. That is the two buttons and touch screen. The 705 I have has manual buttons and no touch screen.
We have a different definition of a user interface . I don't mean the buttons and the display but what you see on the display and how you navigate through the screens and how you change the setting. Had an argument with the user interface guy at work yesterday. They tend to over complicate/over think matters. Never mind this is going nowhere.

I figured that is probably what you meant. Remember that I am a programmer and it means something quite different to me. I think that once I finally stumbled upon the means to reset the unit and it totally changed back to what it originally was I knew instantly what had happened. 100 to one if I were to update the software from this version it would not lose all of the data like it did last time.

Interesting thing - remember I said that the speed appeared to be following satellite or earth revolutions - when I reset the program and it was sitting there it said "speed is detected, should I start the time". So this latest version of the software is not calculating speed with the change in GPS coordinate or wheel revolution counts for total speed.

This tells me that the programmer really didn't know what he is doing. So I'm not surprised that he forgot to add a reset at the end of his download program.

On 5/7/2021 5:46 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:

We have a different definition of a user interface . I don't mean the buttons and the display but what you see on the display and how you navigate through the screens and how you change the setting. Had an argument with the user interface guy at work yesterday. They tend to over complicate/over think matters.

I often gripe about user interfaces, on everything from microwave ovens
to my wrist watch to web pages.

Microwave ovens: Why does every one have its control buttons arranged
differently and apparently randomly? Why are the functions not
standardized?

Wrist watch: Why is it as easy to change time zones as it is to start a
timer? And when I accidentally change it, why does it take 48 pushes of
a button to return to the time zone I want?

It may be worst on certain phone apps, where essential functions are
sometimes buried a couple levels down in menus. (Example: a "music speed
changer" app that can slow down a recording's sound file, change its
pitch, etc. but in which finding a sound file can take four or five steps.)

But it occurs to me, the problem predates modern electronics. I remember
printed equipment manuals in which a critical photo or diagram was
several pages away from its explanatory text.

I don't know if there is a specialized field of instruction that teaches
programmers how to communicate with human beings - "Control Psychology"?
- but there should be.

Never mind this is going nowhere.

Not unusual here.


--
- Frank Krygowski

On 5/7/2021 6:35 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/7/2021 5:46 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:

We have a different definition of a user interface . I
don't mean the buttons and the display but what you see on
the display and how you navigate through the screens and
how you change the setting. Had an argument with the user
interface guy at work yesterday. They tend to over
complicate/over think matters.

I often gripe about user interfaces, on everything from
microwave ovens to my wrist watch to web pages.

Microwave ovens: Why does every one have its control buttons
arranged differently and apparently randomly? Why are the
functions not standardized?

Wrist watch: Why is it as easy to change time zones as it is
to start a timer? And when I accidentally change it, why
does it take 48 pushes of a button to return to the time
zone I want?

It may be worst on certain phone apps, where essential
functions are sometimes buried a couple levels down in
menus. (Example: a "music speed changer" app that can slow
down a recording's sound file, change its pitch, etc. but in
which finding a sound file can take four or five steps.)

But it occurs to me, the problem predates modern
electronics. I remember printed equipment manuals in which a
critical photo or diagram was several pages away from its
explanatory text.

I don't know if there is a specialized field of instruction
that teaches programmers how to communicate with human
beings - "Control Psychology"? - but there should be.

Never mind this is going nowhere.

Not unusual here.


in re watches:
Vintage Swiss mechanical automatic[1].
When people our age die, their children sell those for just
nothing. No batteries!

[1]Right now I'm wearing a beautiful Rado
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Fri, 07 May 2021 19:32:37 -0500, AMuzi wrote:

On 5/7/2021 6:35 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/7/2021 5:46 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:

We have a different definition of a user interface . I
don't mean the buttons and the display but what you see on
the display and how you navigate through the screens and
how you change the setting. Had an argument with the user
interface guy at work yesterday. They tend to over
complicate/over think matters.

I often gripe about user interfaces, on everything from
microwave ovens to my wrist watch to web pages.

Microwave ovens: Why does every one have its control buttons
arranged differently and apparently randomly? Why are the
functions not standardized?

Wrist watch: Why is it as easy to change time zones as it is
to start a timer? And when I accidentally change it, why
does it take 48 pushes of a button to return to the time
zone I want?

It may be worst on certain phone apps, where essential
functions are sometimes buried a couple levels down in
menus. (Example: a "music speed changer" app that can slow
down a recording's sound file, change its pitch, etc. but in
which finding a sound file can take four or five steps.)

But it occurs to me, the problem predates modern
electronics. I remember printed equipment manuals in which a
critical photo or diagram was several pages away from its
explanatory text.

I don't know if there is a specialized field of instruction
that teaches programmers how to communicate with human
beings - "Control Psychology"? - but there should be.

Never mind this is going nowhere.

Not unusual here.


in re watches:
Vintage Swiss mechanical automatic[1].
When people our age die, their children sell those for just
nothing. No batteries!

[1]Right now I'm wearing a beautiful Rado

I've got a battery powered Rolex, cost me something like $1,000
probably 20, or maybe more, years ago. Now I see it for something like
$10,000 on e-bay :-) And, Rolex will still service the watch but I now
have to take it to a Rolex distributor
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Fri, 7 May 2021 19:35:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/7/2021 5:46 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:

We have a different definition of a user interface . I don't mean the buttons and the display but what you see on the display and how you navigate through the screens and how you change the setting. Had an argument with the user interface guy at work yesterday. They tend to over complicate/over think matters.

I often gripe about user interfaces, on everything from microwave ovens
to my wrist watch to web pages.

Microwave ovens: Why does every one have its control buttons arranged
differently and apparently randomly? Why are the functions not
standardized?

A strange problem. I buy my wife a "microwave" whenever the old one
dies. Carry it in from the car and put it on the kitchen table. It
somehow gets unpacked and moves the spot on the counter where the
microwave lives and apparently turns itself on and off in some
miraculous manner as I have, only once, tried to use it and then my
wife told me I was doing it wrong :-)


Wrist watch: Why is it as easy to change time zones as it is to start a
timer? And when I accidentally change it, why does it take 48 pushes of
a button to return to the time zone I want?

It may be worst on certain phone apps, where essential functions are
sometimes buried a couple levels down in menus. (Example: a "music speed
changer" app that can slow down a recording's sound file, change its
pitch, etc. but in which finding a sound file can take four or five steps.)

But it occurs to me, the problem predates modern electronics. I remember
printed equipment manuals in which a critical photo or diagram was
several pages away from its explanatory text.

I don't know if there is a specialized field of instruction that teaches
programmers how to communicate with human beings - "Control Psychology"?
- but there should be.

Never mind this is going nowhere.

Not unusual here.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sat, 08 May 2021 08:25:14 +0700, John B. scribed:

On Fri, 7 May 2021 19:35:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:


Microwave ovens: Why does every one have its control buttons arranged
differently and apparently randomly? Why are the functions not
standardized?

A strange problem. I buy my wife a "microwave" whenever the old one
dies. Carry it in from the car and put it on the kitchen table. It
somehow gets unpacked and moves the spot on the counter where the
microwave lives and apparently turns itself on and off in some
miraculous manner as I have, only once, tried to use it and then my wife
told me I was doing it wrong :-)

Our old one was just set the dials and press a button.
SWMBO'd just nukes everything at full power.
I'm more a 'where the hell is the manual' guy.

The real questions is 'who the hell has any use for those auto cook
options'?

On Fri, 7 May 2021 19:35:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Microwave ovens: Why does every one have its control buttons arranged
differently and apparently randomly? Why are the functions not
standardized?

Microwave oven digital timers are set in minutes and seconds. Frozen
foods specify the cooking time in decimal minutes.

Wrist watch: Why is it as easy to change time zones as it is to start a
timer? And when I accidentally change it, why does it take 48 pushes of
a button to return to the time zone I want?

Just buy a smar****ch. Instead of 48 button presses, you can program
it to do anything you might conceivably want to do, if you can find
the settings. Bigger menus do not make better a better UI.

It may be worst on certain phone apps, where essential functions are
sometimes buried a couple levels down in menus. (Example: a "music speed
changer" app that can slow down a recording's sound file, change its
pitch, etc. but in which finding a sound file can take four or five steps.)

Ummm... I just say "Hey Google. Play (name of tune)". If it's on the
device, it will play. If nothing found, my Android finds and plays it
from Pandora, while I think Apple offers to sell you the tune for $1.
The hard part is finding the music play so as to stop the music.
"Google Assistant: Listen to music"
https://support.google.com/assistant/answer/7539710
Soon you will be able to have a discussion or argument with your smart
devices.

But it occurs to me, the problem predates modern electronics. I remember
printed equipment manuals in which a critical photo or diagram was
several pages away from its explanatory text.

Printed manual? Nobody reads the manual until after they've made a
mess, and then only the specific part dealing with the problem at
hand. The most difficult part of using a printed or PDF manual is
finding it when one needs it. Products no longer include printed
manuals, which have been replaced by a "Quick Setup" pamphlet in 12
languages and a 50 page pamphlet in the smallest possible font
explaining why you don't have any legal recourse should something go
wrong, go wrong, go wrong, etc.

I don't know if there is a specialized field of instruction that teaches
programmers how to communicate with human beings - "Control Psychology"?
- but there should be.

"Software User Interface Design"
https://www.tutorialspoint.com/software_engineering/software_user_interface_design.htm
User interface design:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_interface_design
Basically, it defines how the user tells the device to do things, how
the device returns information to the user, and the workflow needed to
make things happen.

It's not that various industries are trying to make your life
difficult by failing to standardize the UI. The problem is that each
company wants to be creative (Apple "Think Different") and innovative.
They also want to have some kind of product differentiation to
separate their device from the competitions device. If everything
looked and worked the same, these companies would probably sue each
other for "look and feel" infringement, plagiarism, or theft of IP
(intellectual property). There's no major sales benefit if everything
looks and works the same. It's difficult to innovate if you can't
make changes. If microwave oven manufacturers were stuck with a
standardized package, UI, operational specs, safety specs, etc the
only thing left to compete on would be price and service. While
competitive price wars are initially great for the consumer, they tend
to eventually result in a consolidation of the companies involved,
resulting in something resembling a monopoly. Careful what you wish
for. It might not be such a good idea.

--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Fri, 07 May 2021 19:23:56 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Fri, 7 May 2021 19:35:08 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

Microwave ovens: Why does every one have its control buttons arranged
differently and apparently randomly? Why are the functions not
standardized?

Microwave oven digital timers are set in minutes and seconds. Frozen
foods specify the cooking time in decimal minutes.

Oops. That should be:
Frozen foods specify the cooking time in minutes and fractional
minutes (no seconds).

--
Jeff Liebermann
PO Box 272 http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Ben Lomond CA 95005-0272
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558