Convenience Versus Variety ?

[Judge]

Is a desire for technological convenience a deliberate and individual choice, or something more akin to simple laziness?

Just wondering. It is frustrating to me at least, to see electronics manufacturers designing sophisticated devices with ever fewer swiches, buttons and knobs. I still prefer devices of the past to the present, with so many more ways to alter so many devices to match one's personal preferences.

Thinking of my 39-year old Sony receiver with some 58 buttons and knobs on the front panel. Conversely, my 13-year old Sony home theater receiver has only three buttons and one knob. With remote that makes it all very complicated in coordinating one button with four other buttons pointing all four directions. Which ultimately is anything but convenient IMO! Yet do consumers prefer less choices over more?

Personally I find those old 58 choices soothing and logical. One button for one process. You press it and it happens. Much better than one button used in combination with four others, for a multitude of processes.

At times I wonder what Sony is thinking, and whether or not they have an accurate understanding of what the people really want, and whether they have the ability to deliver it for better or worse. You'd think that a drive towards simplicity would evoke simplicity, but it doesn't to happen a lot. Knowing that one person's understanding of simplicity is not necessarily that of others. Or to engineers, designers and technical writers, is simplicity unimportant or irrelevant to them? I'm confused.

Sorry if I'm rambling, but I'm hoping there's someone out there who can relate to what I'm asking.

LOL...or not.

 

[Slime_Punk]

I think the modern designs are usually banking on people not even needing the 50+ other functions that the device is capable of, plus most end users don't want to be plagued with buttons and switches unnecessarily. Obviously this makes it tougher for everyone else when the interface for toggling things is annoying and slow, but I guess they can also cut costs by not even adding extra bells and whistles to the board.

Personally though, I can't remember the last time I bought a standalone gadget that wasn't a PC interface. Everything from media playback / hosting and anything else around the house is just done on a dedicated desktop or laptop running Linux or Windows. And of course, phones and tablets are pretty great on the go.

 

[Lysholm]

my 39-year old Sony receiver with some 58 buttons and knobs on the front panel. Conversely, my 13-year old Sony home theater receiver has only three buttons and one knob.

This is a question of economics: time, energy, attention, yada yada. 39 years ago people had how many electrical devices to use? And now how many? Add on the attention required to keep up with social media and you've got a populace too busy to master anything in their life. Saving money on manufacturing physical buttons on devices is just a bonus.

Personally, I think consumers prefer status over any other consideration. Even if the most expensive thing they can afford isn't ideal they will adapt to it simply so they can post about it on Facebook.

 

[Judge]

What actually motivated me to post this was as the result of a discussion with my NT cousin. I suggested she investigate the more sophisticated aspects of her televisions menus, to experiment with them to see how she could optimize the appearance of her picture.

Recently she decided to "cut the cord" and dumped her very expensive cable provider, relying on Roku for her usual tv viewing. But when she went to using another HDMI port, her picture defaulted to settings that definitely needed to be adjusted. When I suggested to her that she needed to access some internal menus to alter various things that impact the picture, she got rather hostile. She said she liked it as it is, and is frankly notorious for not wanting to bother with anything she considers to be "complicated".

OTOH, I try to take full advantage of such features to provide the best picture possible. And being acutely aware that in many cases the use of alternate HDMI ports may require picture readjustments depending on what is plugged into them. Just another technological thing that she doesn't understand, and frankly doesn't want to understand.

In essence, I just don't understand such a mentality that is so complacent over an obviously inferior picture. Where her only remark is always "It's fine- leave it alone!" Is she the rule, or an exception? Or am I the exception here?

Are people in general so prone to accepting less than they can achieve simply because they don't want to bother ?

Or am I just being my usual OCD self so prone to getting on the nerves of people ?

 

[Misery]

Yeah, I'll agree with this. It's one of those things that seems odd to me.

Particularly considering how many functions are mashed into one device. Like, that part I CAN understand, but if you're gonna mash 3000 functions into one gizmo, give me some blasted buttons and switches on it so I can use those without stupid happening.

My favorite example though is TVs/monitors/whatever. It's so, so stupid.

Like, I went to try to adjust something on the big TV recently, to dim the screen for my father who is still dealing with his eye injury. This SHOULD be simple, and would be if the designers werent all sharing a single overworked braincell. But the buttons for this are on the BACK of the thing. You cant see what you're poking, they all have the same feel, and there's no real way to get back there to look at them. And one of them is this weird little knob thing, like the world's most idiotic analog stick. So it's like, go back there, PULL THE LEVER, see if you hit the jackpot! And if you hit the wrong button, the dirt-slow TV interface will need about 30 years to recover from it. Seriously interacting with the horrid thing takes FOREVER. It's no wonder nobody even knows what half the options are...

And every single time I ask the same question: WHY? Why not just put the buttons on the FRONT? Oh but it wouldnt "look nice", blah blah blah, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh

My favorite part though is that the REMOTES for the big TV setup... of which there are 3 separate ones (seriously, three bloody remotes JUST for that) all have like 3000 buttons on them. Because someone realized they had to go SOMEWHERE... so let's put them on the thing that can be hidden from sight (or lost) because that "looks better". But then the remotes are also designed by a drunken maniac... it's clear they arent expected to be used much. They also dont really work right, none of them do.

Again, aaaaaaaaaaaaagh

Fortunately I'm not the one that uses that horrid thing. I use my small monitor here, and my whole setup IS designed to be practical (which is part of why the monitor is so simple). Heck, my PC is backwards so I can get at all the cables easier.

Personally, I think consumers prefer status over any other consideration. Even if the most expensive thing they can afford isn't ideal they will adapt to it simply so they can post about it on Facebook.

Well you got THAT part right.

I remember one comic I read, written by The Oatmeal (who does absolutely hilarious stuff), that was joking about the experience of owning an Apple device and how people would do anything to get one JUST to say they had one. Even if the new one was like, exactly the old one but with 2 more pixels.

Instead of the "iPad" or "iPhone", in the comic it was called the "iPride". Even as someone that has both of those bloody devices, I fully agree.

It's a viewpoint I've never been able to understand, either. Like, I got my stupid iPad primarily as an art device, which is exactly what it gets used for. So that purchase did make sense (though it still cost too much for what I got, in my opinion). I'm still not particularly fond of it, it's an Apple device. But it functions.

But then there's the phone. I dont like that thing. Never did. The only reason I have the accursed thing is because family declared that I must, and then gave me one. Safety device, you see, I can call for help when I'm out of the house if I ever get stuck somewhere. But mine is now... *ahem*... "outdated", which is a load of nonsense, the idiotic thing still functions just fine, but if I tell someone "no, I dont need to upgrade" when I COULD upgrade, they look at me as if an entire bear just crawled out of my ear.

I dont even like the one I have and almost never do anything with it, it's a glorified camera and flashlight as far as I'm concerned, so why in the funky heck would I "upgrade"? Do I need Flashlight 2.0? Not really. But that's not why most people upgrade. It's all about that iPride.

Bloody stupid concept, if you ask me.

In essence, I just don't understand such a mentality that is so complacent over an obviously inferior picture. Where her only remark is always "It's fine- leave it alone!" Is she the rule, or an exception? Or am I the exception here?

I think this part can depend on the individual.

Like, I wouldnt be doing any of that advanced stuff with a TV either, provided I even knew any of it existed. Chances are I WOULD know, as it just seems common sense for such functions to be there, but as a rule I cant be bothered to deal with it, particularly when the changes... at least by my damaged perception... are usually quite minimal.

It's the same reason why I've got THIS monitor instead of a different one. I could buy some big expensive 8k whatever thing. But no, I've got this smaller 1080p thing. 1920x1080, that's the max resolution for me, yep. Why? Because I cant see any difference past that. And I dont care enough in any case. To this day I still frequently play and enjoy old Atari 2600 games, with pixels the size of cats... I sure as bloody heck aint gonna care if the ultra tiny pixels on my screen are slightly more ultra tiny.

There is one exception though, which is the VR set. THAT I will care about. But then, the pixels are literally in my face on that thing, so it's harder to NOT notice that.

 

[Judge]

My own widescreen tv has at least 19 functions that can impact the picture whether they be subtle or obvious. Some are nested within menus within more menus. I've made a point of not only adjusting most of them to my own liking, but writing them down in case I must reset the tv and wipe all those custom settings.

Maybe I'm just crazy...but I do get obsessed with a lot of things on a visual basis. Always have...

 

[Nitro]

Maybe I'm just crazy...but I do get obsessed with a lot of things on a visual basis. Always have...

Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale score: 23

 

[Judge]

Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale score: 23

Yeppers. Makes life hell at times...moreso than autism.

 

[Uppity Creek]

I'm a tinkerer, and I like equipment with plenty of things to tinker on! Old TV sets and radios, old cars and lawn mowers and such. They were all imprecise, before the days of everything being on a wafer of silicon. They needed room for adjustment. So, plenty of screws for me to turn! In the meantime, my job provides me with an I-phone...not much joy there.

 

[Judge]

I'm a tinkerer, and I like equipment with plenty of things to tinker on! Old TV sets and radios, old cars and lawn mowers and such. They were all imprecise, before the days of everything being on a wafer of silicon. They needed room for adjustment. So, plenty of screws for me to turn! In the meantime, my job provides me with an I-phone...not much joy there.

From my own observation even modern widescreen tvs can be imprecise. I mean, with my Samsung television I was horrified the first time I turned it on based on the default settings. Over-saturated color and contrast. Made everything look weird and exaggerated. And when I began to have problems with it causing me to have to reset it, I went through this process all over again.

Still I find it puzzling that they would build them with so many internal menus and settings to tinker with. Especially if the consensus is that most consumers never bother with them or are put off by so many choices. Of course I'm one of those tinkerers, and make the most of all those choices.