When I was a wee small boy, my mother had a hand operated Singer Sewing Machine. It was my job to wind new bobbins and thread new cotton. I also wound the handle sometimes when she was sewing hems etc.
Packets of soy sauce. I mean seriously, have you tried to open one of those things without teeth or tools?
That’s the most interesting definition.
I wrote a column about ease of use, and in researching it came across an article by someone from IBM who said that almost all the features of some product (a PC?) people asked for were actually there but hidden under three layers of menus.
However I think smartphones are worse, due to the limited number of buttons. I found to my surprise that hitting the volume control when your text screen is open increases or decrease font size. Wha? You’ve got PC complexity, or more, with a small screen, few buttons, and with a layout that makes hitting the wrong button very easy. If you have lots of apps each of which works differently it is worse.
Steve Jobs refused to allow the volume buttons on the iPhone to activate the camera in the photo app. It took several iOS versions before this feature finally made it into the wild - it’s just too useful, and he finally had to back off on his pathological aversion to over-loading UI features (i.e. - having a control be context-dependant).
I’ve written code where I had to overload buttons, so I know exactly why they do it. It works if each button is tied to a concept. The further it gets from that concept, the harder it is to use. Volume control for volume - no one has a problem with that. Font size? Maybe. Focus in a camera - pushing it. Z dimension movement in a game - iffier. Using it to move on a menu - no way.
No way around it without building more smarts into an assistant who listens - smaller font size, HAL.
[QUOTE=Finagle]
At least chain saws are pretty obvious in their function – chain with teeth on it goes real fast and cuts wood. Sewing machines are * magic *.
[/QUOTE]
And at least as temperamental as a two stroke engine, maybe more. Some will happily sew with anything from proper sewing thread on down to dental floss or kite string, and others are fussy, cantankerous things that may only work well with one or two specific brands of thread.
If you really want to see magic, check out an embroidery machine. Those critters mix a personal computer, sewing machine and an x-y positioning robot into a technological package that’s simple to use. Like Go or Othello, you can learn how to use one in an hour, but need a lifetime to master it.
I thought that plastic was to keep dust in the box. At least that’s what Kimwipes say.
That may be true, but it’s also partially because these devices are too cheap to repair.
This. Not only is the car mind numbing complex so is the user interface on some high end cars.
It is a daily experience where some stops in to find out how to do this or make the display read that.
I think a very complex consumer product to use would be a chess set.
Here’s a complicated consumer product from the past: the calculator. Specifically, non-electronic calculators, from the 1920’s through the 1960’s.
For example, the Marchant Calculator from the 1950’s, the size of a typewriter, had over 4,000 parts and weighs over 34 pounds. It weighs as much as an engine block of the equivalent size.
As if the number of moving parts isn’t complicated enough, try to figure out how to actually run one. I’ve yet to get a good handle on how to multiply two numbers on the thing. I know how to program in C# and PHP, use Ajax and XML, pivot tables in Excel, and MySQL is no problem, but these early calculators are just too complicated!
Nah, I used to thread up my mother’s sewing machine from scratch (and use it) when I was about 8. I can still do it. Compared to the spawn of Beelzebub that is my sodding chainsaw it is a pussycat.
For complexity and moving parts, I’d go with a small cabin cruiser style boat. I’m ignoring yachts and jets as I don’t think they’re really consumer items, and the owner rarely (probably never) actually works on them or operates them.
For our small cruiser, starting at the stern is an outdrive. This contains the propeller, the transmission, 2 separate hydraulic systems (one for steering, one for raising and lowering the unit), a drive shaft which changes directions twice (two 90 degree gears) an internal oil system and oil pump, a water pump to lift water from the sea and lines/hoses to route it upward to the engine, a universal-joint to connect to the engine main shaft, control lines for the shift actuation (from the driver’s controls) and a series of bellows, tubes and channels to route the engine exhaust and spent cooling water downward and returned to the lake via the center of the prop hub, and two separate external sensors for driving the guages showing the outdrive’s current tilt position.
And we haven’t even gotten to the engine yet…
Moving upward and forward, there are two trim tabs controlled by the driver which move up and down to keep the craft level in winds. (we now have 3 separate electrically-driven hydraulic systems)
Then to the engine… It’s as complex as an auto engine, but with an additional water system. The raw (sea) water is routed from the outdrive into a secondary radiator to cool the internal coolant in the engine (much like air does in a car), but this water, once used, passes thru a series of channels and is added to the exhaust system for cooling and muffling. This passes thru (usually) 2 or 3 sets of backflow valves, or “flappers” to ensure it can only go one way (out of the boat). Water backflow into the engine is usually fatal to it.
And then we’ll pass the Halon system, which triggers automatically in case of overheat or fire.
And then the internal water system, consisting of fresh water tank, piping, demand pressure driven fresh water pump, sink and faucet, and the head (toilet). This usually has a “macerator” pump (I’ll leave that to your imagination) and a series of one-way valves to route the waste to another holding tank.
Add a small stove, and the usual complement of lights, guages and a mildly complex multiple battery/switching set up and it’s starts to seem complex.
Now this entire village of moving parts rests on a large trailer, and it has 4 wheels, its own wiring and electrical system (although fairly simple) for lights, and it’s own braking system. Also an electric winch to drag it aboard.
Finally a weight distributing hitch, with sway control, tension bars, wiring connections and the coupler… and we haven’t even considered the truck which must pull it (with 4-wheel drive, brake controller, oversized alternator and cooling system, etc.)
In terms of just moving parts, the trailered small cruiser looks pretty complex to me.
That’s because they slipped a PC behind the dashboard.
I think this is just a meme that has become very outdated. Ten or 15 years ago, maybe flatpack furniture was complicated, but all Ikea stuff I’ve bought recently has been extremely simple to assemble. Typically it only needs one or maybe two tools: a hex key that is included in the package and perhaps a screwdriver. Most such furniture uses round cam bolts these days which are more or less impossible to mess up.
Cars, on the other hand are effectively a “black box” with no user-serviceable parts if anything goes wrong with the engine these days.
The only thing I hate about putting together IKEA furniture is when the instructions suck. Sometimes the diagrams are somewhat ambiguous, or the parts in the diagram don’t look exactly like the parts in the box. Now maybe they have gotten better at this, I haven’t put together any IKEA furniture in a long time.
I always thought the Swedes needed to get together with the Danes on this. Lego instructions are impeccable. Putting together a Lego set, if you ever run into a step where you think the instructions are flawed, you’re either not looking at them closely enough, or you screwed up an earlier step. There is never ambiguity.
This isn’t true today, in my experience. I have a lot of IKEA furniture and it’s all been very simple to put together, except for the one time they supplied two left-hand bits instead of one right and one left. That took a week or two to sort out. 
And they have to consistently build millions of them. Most consumers can’t comprehend the amount of research, development and testing that goes into making a modern car safe and reliable. And they are constantly trying to make the parts cheaper at the same time.
If the average Joe were to attend some of the meetings I go to they would scratch their heads and wonder how anything ever gets built. Either that or they would run away screaming that there is no way that they would ever get in one again.
Here is one you will not think of,
Sewing machines, you can have the older crank and cam operated machines, these can have plenty more parts in them than the average car, and they need to be set correctly or you can run into real problems.
The newer ones are mechanically simpler, but are actually far more complex, this is because they are computer controlled, so now you have software and hardware to deal with.
As for the factory machines, such as bar tackers and the like, very much more complex again.
Not too long ago the VCR would be on this list. And before that the remote control. How far humanity has progressed!
You really underestimate the technology in a car, but that’s okay because most people do. I could go into great detail about the design, development and manufacture of just braking systems alone that would be more vastly complicated than sewing machines or factory equipment. When your sewing machine fails people don’t die and companies don’t get sued for millions and millions of dollars. Then we can move on to tire technology, which is an entire industry in itself. The car is in fact dozens of technologies rolled into one. The coordination of these technologies is what the car manufacturers do, they leave the individual component and system development up do the thousands of suppliers that feed their end product, which is the car you see in the show room. Sewing machines while impressive are just a one trick pony.
Fighter jets are pretty complicated too, but I’d give cars the edge due to the mass production aspect. Still, car people pay a great amount of respect to the jet fight because many of the technologies used in car development started with planes.