Digital, but a regression

Digital screens are replacing mechanical switches in more and more places—from your car to your thermostat. It is certainly more modern. But is it more effective?

I noticed a stark difference in ease of use when apartment maintenance came around to replace our analog thermostat, the circle kind that you twist to set the temperature, with a digital one where you press up and down arrow buttons.

With the analog thermostat, I had gotten used to twisting the knob all the way to low (or high, depending on the season) when I left the apartment, because the outside temperature changes were not too dramatic during the day—I might as well save money and energy. A simple motion, a seamless flick of my wrist—that was all it took as I exited the front door.

With the digital one, it wasn’t as quick. There was no way for me to “flick” the temperate down to one extreme end. I had to press the up or down button ten times. This was a regression in usability.

I’ve heard people say the same about digital displays in cars. No longer can a function be activated with a single, tactile press, without even taking your eyes off the road. A flat display provides no such feeling as you reach over it. You have to look at it. A regression in usability. I recently heard that in Europe, cars might soon need buttons once again to pass safety tests.

I can see why companies do this. Digital displays and software have become so inexpensive and ubiquitous that it’s more cost effective compared to designing and manufacturing physical buttons.

However, I will always be on the lookout for those that design for the quick flick of the wrist—be it analog or digital.