Why are touchscreens becoming popular in test equipment (scopes, etc)?

[Twigg]

Sorry, this might not be the right place for this question.

I've noticed newer model oscilloscopes, spectrum analyzers, AWGs, etc. are being made more and more with touchscreens and fewer buttons. Is there an economic incentive to this, or is it just a marketing gimmick? It bugs me because I've noticed the touchscreens fail quite often on some of the models I've used.

It makes sense on some of the really high-end stuff, like scopes that run a GUI almost at the level of computer, where you need a flexible interface. But some of the equipment I have in mind didn't have that kind of crazy functionality but still insists on having touchscreens. What gives?

 

[Borek]

I wouldn't be surprised if making a device with mechanical buttons is more expensive.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I wouldn't be surprised if making a device with mechanical buttons is more expensive.

I've noticed the touchscreens fail quite often

And more sales down the road!

 

[DaveE]

Buttons and switches have much higher assembly costs, NRE costs, component costs, and aren't as reliable as a single touch screen. In addition many instruments have so many features that a knob for every feature is completely out of the question. Look at a high end oscilloscope, for example, it will have a few knobs and buttons, whose functions often depend on the current UI state. But many features are accessed with a pretty complex menu structure. The ONLY REASON there are any knobs or buttons is that they know it's annoying for users to adjust things on a touch screen.

So, for the cheap instruments, it's cheaper to design/build. For higher end instruments it's a tradeoff between convenience, reliability, cost, and features.

User interfaces don't often get the attention they deserve. Why, in the last half century did Tektronix own the oscilloscope market compared to HP? It wasn't performance, it was the front panel.

Also, you get what you pay for.

edit: Also why did HP own the Spectrum Analyzer market? Same answer.

 

[DaveE]

If you ever get the opportunity to take apart a 1960-1990 era instrument with a significant user interface, it's worth the effort, IMO. The mechanical packaging design, manufacturing engineering, and component design is impressive. OTOH, there sure are a lot of things that could break.

I guess I'm showing my age, but I'd much rather set the resolution BW this way than on a touch screen.

 

[alan123hk]

It seems safer to use mechanical buttons under very serious, strict and zero fault tolerance situations.

 

[Twigg]

Buttons and switches ... aren't as reliable as a single touch screen

On paper, this makes sense to me. Fewer moving parts means fewer points of failure. What doesn't make sense is that I've seen at least three instruments with busted touchscreens, but I've never once seen a tektronix scope (or any instrument, to be honest) with a busted button. It's always the screens (touch or not) that I see broken, or a cracked enclosure one time (don't ask me how they did it, it's downright impressive to crack one of those shells). Is it just coincidence or do you see the same trend?

Kind of makes me wonder if this is the reason why there are so many SRS345's function generators floating around (they have no screen to break).

Looking inside that HP explains a lot. That's a lot of steel just to hold a knob. And I can't say I've ever seen a circuit board mounted to angle bracket, or bevel gears mounted on a potentiometer (or encoder, or whatever it is). I think I see what you mean lol. Thanks for sharing!

I guess I'm showing my age, but I'd much rather set the resolution BW this way than on a touch screen.

Most of these instruments are (much) older than I am, but I'm still with you. Honestly, if the bean counters at tektronix want to cut costs, they should just have a USB port for a wireless mouse (trackball mouse, doesn't need any extra room or a mousepad). Nowhere near as quick and easy as an all-knobs-and-buttons interface, but I'd take a mouse over touchscreens.

Why, in the last half century did Tektronix own the oscilloscope market compared to HP? It wasn't performance, it was the front panel.

edit: Also why did HP own the Spectrum Analyzer market? Same answer.

That explains a lot!

Now if only we could have some function generators and scopes with the packaging of the 1960-1990's but modern connectivity options (you know, options that don't involve NI scalping you for a couple hundred dollars every time you need a cable). Ah well lol now I'm just being greedy

 

[DaveE]

Now if only we could have some function generators and scopes with the packaging of the 1960-1990's but modern connectivity options

But would you actually pay for that? Would anyone else? That stuff is expensive.

 

[DaveE]

It seems safer to use mechanical buttons under very serious, strict and zero fault tolerance situations.

Yes. But the key thing here is the user interface. The pilots need what they need now, not 3 levels down in a menu. OTOH, Airbus may disagree. The avionics equation is that a good user interface and reliability counts; cost, not so much. Most often, it's the pilot that will crash the plane. So, don't make life hard for the pilot.

edit: I'll also add that I worked (several decades ago) on DoD designs, and often the reliability requirements virtually eliminate any chance of using newer technologies. Yes, sometimes they are on the bleeding edge, when they have to be, but usually they want proven reliability, the same parts they used last time.

 

[Rive]

they should just have a USB port for a wireless mouse

If I measure something really sensitive I'll ban even the mobile phones to the other room. Wireless whatever is just out of question.

It makes sense on some of the really high-end stuff, like scopes that run a GUI almost at the level of computer, where you need a flexible interface. But some of the equipment I have in mind didn't have that kind of crazy functionality but still insists on having touchscreens. What gives?

These times even some mobile chargers has a microcontroller
Joke aside, if you use knobs and buttons, then it gives trouble to more people (of different field) and once it's done it's done. If you design with a touchscreen, then it's far less people and to change it is just software.

I too prefer knobs and buttons (preferably the noisy kind, so you can feel when it go >>click<< - those slightly newer rubber things just goes on my nerves), but I can fully understand why things change.

 

[alan123hk]

Especially for the most widely used capacitive touch screen, I think it is easy for the enemy to interfere with its operation with strong electromagnetic fields, so it is not very reliable in unknown and harsh environments.

 

[256bits]

I guess I'm showing my age, but I'd much rather set the resolution BW this way than on a touch screen.

And by just looking at the front panel you can immediately see what the box can do.

 

[256bits]

a marketing gimmick?

to some extent - ie ... the incorporation of the latest touch screen technology ...

 

[sophiecentaur]

One of the troubles with a touch screen is that it's enormous and waving arms about over it gets in the way and involves a lot of effort. Otoh, the trackpad is a brilliant invention. At least, great when it works as well as on my Apple computers. The trackpads on early PC laptops was so clunky that it made a mouse (even on a wire) preferable.
Oily / food fingers on a touch screen leave a trace of who was using it last and what they had been doing or eating. And you can scratch touch screens that aren't the quality of the iPhones etc..

 

[Twigg]

If I measure something really sensitive I'll ban even the mobile phones to the other room. Wireless whatever is just out of question.

That's fair. I've never seen my mobile phone in the data, but I've definitely played pranks on people with my wireless car keys. "Hey, look there's your signal! Oh, it's gone!"

But would you actually pay for that? Would anyone else? That stuff is expensive.

You're right, I'm just whining I'll pay my dues to the NI overlords

If you design with a touchscreen, then it's far less people and to change it is just software.

Do they do firmware updates for scopes? I've never had that happen. I can see it working out for high-end scopes, but for the everyday workhorses I'd find it hard to believe that any customers would actually bother to ship it back.

And you can scratch touch screens that aren't the quality of the iPhones etc..

That's true! I bet Apple is using more robust touchscreens. It'd be nice if that became widespread, but I won't be holding my breath.

 

[sophiecentaur]

That's true! I bet Apple is using more robust touchscreens. It'd be nice if that became widespread, but I won't be holding my breath.

I tend to buy Apple stuff but have second thoughts when spending £1k on a 'phone. But then I have third thoughts and realize that I keep my phone in my pocket and the screen has stayed pretty good, year on year.
Anyone know how phone cameras manage to keep flare to an acceptable level when they're covered in fingerprints and worse?

 

[Rive]

Do they do firmware updates for scopes?

Happens, but it comes handy during development too.
Also, this way you can have multiple instruments with almost identical front panel, with only the GUI and a foil on the panel different.
Really a good cut on the development cost/time.

Ps.: as I think about this, it's around for some time already. Way back we had some HP logic stuff which had to boot, just like some PC.

 

[jsg2021]

Sorry, this might not be the right place for this question.

I've noticed newer model oscilloscopes, spectrum analyzers, AWGs, etc. are being made more and more with touchscreens and fewer buttons. Is there an economic incentive to this, or is it just a marketing gimmick? It bugs me because I've noticed the touchscreens fail quite often on some of the models I've used.

It makes sense on some of the really high-end stuff, like scopes that run a GUI almost at the level of computer, where you need a flexible interface. But some of the equipment I have in mind didn't have that kind of crazy functionality but still insists on having touchscreens. What gives?

The very same reason that iPhones replaced push-button mobile phones: the design and support results in more programmable, more useable, more updatable and overall cheaper to make things when using touch-screens replacing buttons. Literally controls become software instead of hardware which you can change after the product is shipped as well.

I work in this field of test equipment.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Literally controls become software instead of hardware which you can change after the product is shipped as well.

Labels in your chosen language and no need for arcane symbols.!