[ninetyninenine]

I don't have a problem with technology. I have a problem with technology trends that are irrational.

For example the smart phone. A physical button or even alexa is easier to turn off the lights. A smart phone menu is just stupid.

I want to decouple stupidity away from technology. That's not possible though. Most places where I worked... just a exploring the code for a couple minutes I encounter something stupid. So it's an impossible endeavor. Stupidity is intrinsic to humanity and since humanity builds technology, stupidity is therefore intrinsic to technology.

[insane_dreamer]

A good example of this is the glovebox on the Tesla Model 3. There's no button to open it with. Instead you have to press a button on the steering wheel to activate Google Assistant, then say "open glovebox" in a clear voice so it doesn't misunderstand, then wait a second or two, and then finally the glovebox opens. It bothers us to no end.

[canadaduane]

Incredible. This sounds like an ideological decision rather than a design decision.

> In The Design of Everyday Things, Don Norman discusses how poorly designed doors—often called "Norman doors"--fail to communicate whether they should be pushed or pulled. A well-designed door should naturally indicate how it operates through affordances (such as a push plate vs. a pull handle) and signifiers (like labels or arrows). This concept is part of a broader discussion on human-centered design and usability.

At a minimum, a poorly designed door can be opened!

[saurik]

I mean, the point that a physical button (even if it were backed by software, due to the PIN code lock feature) would be appreciated certainly resonates, but it's at least somewhat better than that ;P... open the menu--which probably defaults to Controls; but, if not, click Controls--and then there's a giant Glovebox button.

[insane_dreamer]

So three taps instead of one button. Exactly the problem with many other Tesla's controls, like defogging, for example. (At least they did have the sense to put control buttons on the steering wheel to which they have added some functionality.)

Tesla does get a lot of little things right -- auto sensing for seat and steering wheel heating, auto-setting seats to your profile as you enter the car based on your phone, automatically setting/unsetting the emergency break when you park, auto locking the doors when you leave, etc. But its "thou shalt not have physical buttons" dogma is annoying. The other thing I miss is the absence of a HUD right in front of you. Again, feels like dogma rather than good design. Other brands (BMW, Polestar, etc.) succeed in that regard (my favorite being the BMW where it projects the HUD onto the bottom of the windshield right where it doesn't obstruct the view but is extremely convenient.

I don't dislike the Tesla but even if Elon wasn't going full fascist, I'd pick another brand next time.

[AlexandrB]

Strong disagree on Alexa. Maybe it's the way I talk, but I find voice assistants wildly inconsistent. There's nothing more frustrating than having to repeat yourself to a robot.

Maybe AI will improve the situation in the next few years, but I'm not convinced.

[bluGill]

Alexa - when it works - can do things that cannot be done better in a different ways. There are times when turning on a light or unlocking a door with a phone is better than the alternatives as well. However there are a lot of times where the 100+ year old way of doing the task is better.

Even if voice assistants worked perfectly every time they would still be worse than the switch by the door for controlling the light as you enter/leave. However if you are in bed it may be that despite the current annoyances Alexa is better for controlling the same light.

[bitwize]

But "The Clapper" would do just as well in the case where you are in bed, and is less complex, less expensive, and doesn't send your claps to the cloud.

[ninetyninenine]

"Clapper set lights to red." I like to set the temperature of the lights to a single color at night so as to not mess up my circadian rhythms. Looks like clapper fits the bill.

[bitwize]

God only knows, you might get your wish. They're probably planning a revamp of the Clapper with built-in AI as we speak.

[bluGill]

which might or might not be good enough. Alexa can turn on other lights, play various types of music, give you the weather... Depending on what you want this might be worth it.

Home automation systems (Home assistant, openhab...) are making good progress on local only voice control as well.

[insane_dreamer]

In this case Siri not Alexa, but it does horribly at interpreting kids' speech. No end of frustration for my 8 year old who wants to play music on our HomePod.

[ninetyninenine]

Agreed. But repeating your self is an unintentional artifact. when it works it’s beautiful.

The phone app is just annoying by design.

[psadauskas]

I wouldn't mind it so much, if it benefited me in any way. Phones are listening all the time, Google and Apply know where I am constantly, they all have access to all my credit card purchases. Why can't I ask arbitrary questions I know they have the data to answer. Some examples of things I feel like should be trivial:

> Hey Google, when's the last time I bought gas for my truck? What did I pay, and how many MPG did I get?

> Hey Siri, the other day at the bar, my friend was telling me about a TV show he recommended I watch. What was the name of the show again? What service streams it? Play the trailer on the living room TV.

Instead, they just harvest all the data, sell it to whoever they feel like, just so everyone can show me intrusive adds for shit I don't care about.

[MrJohz]

> For example the smart phone. A physical button or even alexa is easier to turn off the lights. A smart phone menu is just stupid.

I'm not sure that's true. A physical button only works if I'm near that button. Alexa only works if I'm near a microphone (and comfortable with that microphone). Whereas my smartphone is always in my pocket, and therefore always useful.

That's not to say a button isn't also useful - it's usually more convenient if I'm already next to that button, which makes it great for turning room lights on and off if I'm moving from room to room. But if I'm on the sofa and I want to dim the lights without having to get up, the smartphone, for me, seems like the most practical choice.

I suspect what seems like stupidity to you may often be people catering to those with different desires and needs. Just because a smartphone isn't a useful way of controlling lights for you, doesn't mean that it's a stupid design decision for everyone.

[Aerroon]

>Whereas my smartphone is always in my pocket, and therefore always useful.

Sure. Now how long does it take you? Take that phone out of your pocket, unlock it, open the lights app, skip past whatever update/ad/welcome screen, find the correct light button and press it. Anything on a smartphone takes substantially longer than a physical button.

Not to mention that the physical button tends to be more reliable at doing what it's supposed to. People still buy alarm clocks and then put their phone next to it at night.

[the_snooze]

>Not to mention that the physical button tends to be more reliable at doing what it's supposed to.

This is the big problem with "smart" devices. They take an existing reliable solution to a problem (e.g., flicking a switch to turn on a light), sprinkle on some nice-to-have whiz-bang features (e.g., doing it from afar), but compromising the initial reliable solution in the process.

If those extra features were strictly optional and additive, then it wouldn't be a problem. But that's not how it works in practice.

[MrJohz]

I completely agree, but like I said, I don't always have the physical button next to me. Having a device that can always do the same as that physical button (at the cost of being more complex to use and taking longer to do any individual action) is a worthwhile tradeoff in some situations.

It's not the right tradeoff for everyone or at all times (there's a good reason why physical switches are the default in most homes!) but it's a useful feature. It is by no means irrational, as the previous poster was suggesting: it was designed with a lot of rationality to suit a use-case that that poster may not have.

[kemayo]

> Now how long does it take you?

Rather less time than it takes you, apparently. My process is: pull phone from pocket, swipe down, tap button.

I don't need to unlock it as a discrete step because it did that automatically when it saw my face. I use the built-in smart-home management, so all the controls are available in the system-level control center widget -- which doesn't have any sort of junky updates / ads / welcomes.

It's certainly slower than pressing a physical button if I'm standing next to one. But it's genuinely faster than standing up and walking over to press said button.

[bongodongobob]

I can still use light switches to turn off my lights. I can also turn them all on or off at once, change the brightness, color, and temperature. Smart light are great, I'm sorry they confuse you.

[kemayo]

My favorite thing about them is having a "good night" automation. When I get into bed I run it, and it turns off any lights that're still on in my house and locks the doors.

[ninetyninenine]

I just tell Alexa or Google home to do set the temperature and change the color. Superior technology less hassle.

It has nothing to do with me not being able to set it up. It more has to do with the stupidity of the user interface of pulling my phone out of my fucking pocket, navigating to the app, navigating to the menu and picking the lights and the color and flipping it.

[bluGill]

That depends on what you want to do. If you want to control one specific light in a large room the phone app may be best - try to explain to google which light you mean.

Most people don't have such a complex setup that this ever comes into play. However if you have a stage in your house (not a movie theater, a full stage) you would want that level of control. There are probably a few dozen such houses in the US.

[fsflover]

> A smart phone menu is just stupid.

You could try Simple X Mobile: https://sxmo.org/

[Aurornis]

> For example the smart phone. A physical button or even alexa is easier to turn off the lights.

These aren’t mutually exclusive.

I usually press the physical button for my lights but it’s great to be able to pull out my smartphone and turn off lights across the house, or even in the same room if I’m doing something like holding a baby who is falling asleep.

Putting the common light controls on easily accessible phone widget screens is really easy these days.

I think people who get irrationally angry at the ability to control things from a phone are missing out at this point. You don’t have to use it or buy it, but I’ve derived a lot of value from it.

> Stupidity is intrinsic to humanity and since humanity builds technology, stupidity is therefore intrinsic to technology

This is a deeply cynical and unhappy way to navigate life.

[tetha]

IMO it's about the question: Does it add utility and value, and does it take away functionality for silly reasons like profitability for someone else?

Like, one or two things really make me consider getting into the whole smart home stuff: Turning down the heating when windows are open. Or, controlling a couple of things when I'm not at home (aka my phone isn't on the local WIFI) - turn on the ambient light if it's late/dark and I'm at home, and turn it off otherwise. This would probably add phone controls to stuff, I guess. However, I would very much want these smart features to be "on top" of regular physical control.

But then there are also things like internet connected fridges, or cars playing ads. It'd be nice if my fridge could ping me if the internal temp is rising - though a loud obnoxious beep might work too, but it doesn't need to be internet capable to serve me ads.

[ninetyninenine]

>This is a deeply cynical and unhappy way to navigate life.

And deeply true. Here’s the thing I feel a lot of people think happiness is all that matters. What about truth and reality?

My claim is that stupidity being intrinsic to humanity is fucking absolutely true. It has nothing to do with cynicism. I’m baffled at how people don’t even argue the veracity of the claim they just claim it’s “unhappy” as if being delusional is the better alternative.

> I think people who get irrationally angry at the ability to control things from a phone are missing out at this point. You don’t have to use it or buy it, but I’ve derived a lot of value from it.

I work at a place where there are no keys. To unlock a door you have to use your smart phone. Imagine if they did that for lights. I rent an apartment with no physical switches and they force you to use your smart phone. Infuriating. I think if you were rational you would know I’m talking about smart phones in place of physical switches not smart phones paired in addition to physical switches in situations where you have no choice to use it.

[MrJohz]

> I work at a place where there are no keys. To unlock a door you have to use your smart phone. Imagine if they did that for lights. I rent an apartment with no physical switches and they force you to use your smart phone. Infuriating. I think if you were rational you would know I’m talking about smart phones in place of physical switches not smart phones paired in addition to physical switches in situations where you have no choice to use it.

I don't think that's so rational — I assumed that you were talking about smartphones in addition to existing switches and other tools, rather than completely replacing them. I have genuinely never heard of such a thing, and if you've had to experience that, then I agree with you that that is an insane concept that doesn't need to exist.

[ninetyninenine]

The place where I've seen this happen is the bay area. At least two companies I worked at exclusively only allowed phones to unlock doors.