DISPLAYS AND UIs
Interface Design for Embedded Systems: Challenges & Best Practices
When it comes to interface design for embedded systems, we must consider the context in which it will be displayed.
F
irst and foremost, it is crucial to have an understanding of where and how the device or product is used. Having this knowledge helps drive the design process and determines both the interactions and the way information is displayed.
For example, in boat systems, one must consider the type of user, either professional or amateur, and the fact that the interface can often be inside or outside the boat. Moreover, during winter, sailors might wear gloves, which must also be accounted for. Additionally, the boat is operated both during the day and at night, so natural light conditions vary drastically. The humidity level is also high; there is a good chance the screen will be covered with water droplets, making swipe gestures less feasible as they can lead to interaction failures.
When building interfaces for embedded systems, the designer must also consider the target touch area. According to an MIT Touch Lab study (Yablonski, Jon, Laws of UX, 2020), the 16-20mm in diameter. As a result, designing touch targets that account for the physical user-centred design. The “safe” minimum touch target also depends on the quality of the touchscreen; lower-quality displays tend to fail to accurately detect the user’s exact point of contact and require more applied previous ergonomic studies and found that
targets of 12.5 to 17.5 mm generally struck the best balance in terms of user accuracy and preference. The spacing between adjacent areas should be at least 3 mm. Providing such space between touch areas helps prevent user errors.
In high-risk interfaces, we recommend simple navigation. This means letting go of many gimmicks and useless interactions. Since it is much cheaper to produce screens without buttons, the risk of errors is considerably higher. Buttons help differentiate actions through touch, but as screens
interactions and animations, error risk becomes monumental.
Even if it is less aesthetically pleasing, it makes for better practice to consider the risks of involuntary user errors and simplify navigation as much as possible, to the point where it becomes predictable. For instance, in situations with many cards, users can eventually learn the on-screen location of each card and predict where they should tap. If the UX designer chooses to display those cards with sophisticated animations or multiple swipes, it becomes much harder for users to learn this path. As a rule of thumb, in high-risk industries, you should not design interactions that distract the user’s attention for more than two to three seconds. This is especially true for the automotive industry, where distracted drivers can cause life-altering tragedies.
We believe that any embedded system must have a clear approach to alert hygiene. Alerts are often treated with indifference or neglect, but they are the most important aspect of UX after navigation. They help the user detect and resolve problems. Alerts should be prioritised according to their importance and formatted in a manner that guides the user through the steps that need to be taken to prevent escalation.
10 NOVEMBER 2024 | ELECTRONICS FOR ENGINEERS
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54
