That is wrong. It makes a huge difference for the overwhelming majority of users.
In addition, you are trying to extrapolate the design choices of
+ an extremely specialized UI,
+ for trained experts,
+ intended to never break,
+ designed decades ago,
+ to be used while in combat,
+ etc.
You may be right or not, but comparing web pages with cockpits does not make any sense at all.
Why not? It is a user interface whether 2D (on a monitor) or 3D (cockpit). It has common purpose - to allow the user to interact with the machine or Human-Machine-Interface/HMI. Why are they fundamentally different?
As the light rays hit your retina, process through V1-V4 regions in the occipital lobe, and your limbic system acts on it - to me, a website UI, a door knob, an audio amplifier front panel or a cockpit are all forms of user interfaces that allow the user to interact with the machine. There is no difference besides the context you mentioned.
I presume all interactions map to:
- enums/ints (dropdowns, DPST, DPDT, rotary selectors, radio buttons)
- bools (toggles, SPST, SPDT, checkboxes)
- floats (sliders and continuous rollers, including 2d pads and 3d joysticks)
Fundamental types in programming languages, I need to think about this a little more - just guessing.
Give me any UI and I can probably boil it down to fundamental types in a programming language. Or a circuit element.
Edit: I can't respond to you anymore, so here it is, quoting your comment which I found as personal jab:
> You are taking design decisions made in a wildly different context and assuming they were made that way because it fits your UI vision.
How do know my "UI vision"? I've distilled every response with logical reasoning to which you respond with this?
Pointing out a flaw in your argument has nothing to do with your person or condition, which as you say I have no clue about. You have made your UI preferences crystal clear in this thread, and I disputed your arguments supporting them. Discussion is the goal of this forum, by the way.
If you really believe you have been attacked, then may I suggest we leave the discussion here and please flag the comments you find disruptive and let a moderator work it out.
As a friendly side note: claiming "all someone has to say is attacking ad hominem" is quite ad hominem itself, because you are attributing an implicit trait to that person (eg pushy) or a motive irrelevant to the discussion (eg not "liking you" or whatever).
(I am also sure such software exists, and it fares poorly, otherwise it would be a standard accessory on trucks and everyone would have forgotten how to do it "by ear" by now.)
https://www.wired.com/2015/05/ford-makes-backing-trailer-eas...
But there's also a fundamental difference between a fighter pilot and someone driving a car. For a fighter pilot, everything they have to be able to do has to be at a hand's reach in a second. This is an operational requirement for both the "fighter" and "pilot" sides. Driving a car is different; there are many tasks that normal car drivers don't need to do while driving. It's okay for them to do them parked, after fiddling with a bunch of other stuff.
My point: it's not just cost which determines the difference, but training and task requirements.
Point noted. Commercial airplanes also have that in the form a FMS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_management_system
A menu system just like cars except no touchscreens, although I heard that's changing.
Please don't dig too much into the bluetooth thing, it is just a example that I want to use to make the more general point.