Improve tap responsiveness on Charge 5 screen

[stevefal]

1. In standby mode where 1-tap is valid for display, ignore any tap within N milliseconds of actuation by one tap. A proposed value for N might be 2X the 2-tap timeout.
2. In clock mode, disable 2-tap detection.

Moderator Edit: Clarified subject

[stevefal]

More detailed explanation:

I'm always confused how to simply look at the time on my Charge 5, because the watch does not always display when I lift my wrist. For example, I might be lying in bed reading, and my wrist is already upside down. When flipping does not work, what do I do? Tap? Double tap?

If the watch was just on, 1 tap works. But after a while, I need to use 2 taps. That alone is confusing because the "right" way to activate it is a mystery.

Forget that 1 tap ever works, because it does not always work. So fine, I always use 2 taps. This is consistent with the "go to clock" feature from anywhere in the UI - 2 taps. I'll call this my SURE THING rule.

BUT, here's the problem. When I am already on the clock screen, looking right at it, 2-tap does NOTHING. I suppose the code that discriminates between a 1-tap and a fast 2-tap is still running on the clock screen. This makes other functions like rotating clock face readouts difficult.

• 1-tap is slow to respond because the code is waiting a timeout to determine if you're doing a 2-tap.
• 2-tap does nothing because I am already on the clock screen - the 2-tap's global function is pointless if I'm already there.

I'll call that the 2-TRAP. Try these on Target clock face:

• tap once = readout rotation (after a delay)
• tap twice slow = two rotations (after delays)
• tap twice fast = NOTHING
• tap three times fast = one readout rotation. This is because the first two taps are eaten by the global function, and only he third is used.
• tap four times fast = NOTHING
• tap five times fast = one rotation, as above
• tap 200 times fast = NOTHING
• tap 201 times fast = 1 rotation

Here is the insidious case that I hit all the time:

1. Set "Target" clock face to HR readout.
2. Type for a while on a keyboard (this will undermine a wrist-flip actuation).
3. Tap twice, not necessarily fast, to actuate using the SURE THING rule above (OBSERVE: display ON, HR readout as expected)
4. Wait for display to timeout and go black.
5. Tap twice, again not fast, using SURE THING. (OBSERVE: display ON, rotates HR to STEPS: BREAKDOWN - I did not want STEPS)
6. Note that HR is 4 rotations from the current readout, and therefore should take 4 taps.
7. Tap 4 times fast, to get quickly back to HR (OBSERVE: BREAKDOWN - nothing happens due to 2-TRAP above)
8. Tap 4 times more slowly (OBSERVE: rotated to HR as expected.

Of course, if any two of the 4 taps are too fast, they will result in NOTHING, so I have to be deliberate in timing.

So here are the suggestions, with brief justification:

1. In standby mode where 1-tap is valid for display, ignore any tap within N milliseconds of actuation by one tap. That will eliminate inadvertent readout rotation when the user employs 2-taps as a surefire method of display. A proposed value for N might be 2X the 2-tap timeout.
2. In clock mode, disable 2-tap detection. That will eliminate unexpected null operations when the user taps quickly in order to rotate readouts quickly. It will also increase maximum UI response and speed of rotation as the 2-tap detection timeout is removed from processing.

Thanks in advance for considering.

[LukmanC]

Very detailed analysis and explanation. Upvoted

[BarryMW]

Yes, tapping on this thing is driving me crazy. 
The phantom taps changing the screen data away from my selection is terrible. 

Upvote

Barry

[LizzyFitbit]

Hi @stevefal, and thanks for taking the time to share this suggestion about improving the tap function responsiveness on the Charge 5 screen with us. Your detailed explanation was very helpful. We rely on feedback like yours to help us develop products and features that we know our community wants to see. If this suggestion receives votes from other customers and gains popularity, it will be shared internally with various teams at Fitbit. To learn more about how Fitbit decides which suggestions get developed, visit our FAQs.

Watch this space for status updates. In the meantime, try visiting Health & Wellness to talk with other members about all things health and fitness.

[stevefal]

Thanks @LizzyFitbit 

I understand the logic behind letting customer popularity drive submissions to teams at Fitbit, but I propose that some suggestions should fall outside that constraint.

The reason is that some suggestions might relate to opportunities or pain-points that customers suffer, but do not consciously realize, because to do so requires some kind of interaction design, human factors or engineering effort or insight that they might not naturally possess.

I myself, as an interaction designer, did not consciously realize the nature of this issue except after considerable analysis of the clock face issue at https://community.fitbit.com/t5/Feature-Suggestions/More-clock-faces-for-the-Charge-5/idi-p/4976617/....

That is, I subconsciously took it as a given that the tap model I complain about here was immutable, and so was focused in that thread on getting a clock face with heart-rate as the only readout - since that's what I always want to see.

It's worth highlighting here that my case is not unusual. It is common in situations of user confusion or cognitive dissonance for the user to blame themself, if not only unconsciously, for stumbling or failing at a task, because they implicitly assume that the product must be behaving perfectly. That assumption stems from assigning authority to an official product that appears popular, valuable, and refined in every other dimension. It's only upon suspending that assumption might a user question the actual source of their confusion, and then embark on solving the true source of the problem.

That's what happened to me. After considering my clock face objections more deeply, and employing the kind of problem-solving that comes with my nature and professional experience, I realized that the true problem with my chosen clock face was not its design (which I actually like very much), but the associated interaction model which confounds its practical use.

I am certain that many subjects would not reach the same conclusion as I, not because they would not prefer the resulting solution, but because they would not, in advance, have conducted the analysis and thought experiments necessary to realize the problem and opportunity to solve it in the first place.

As a symptom of this dilemma, I expect that many customers seeing the title of this thread, "Improve tap responsiveness on Charge 5 screen", will not realize the meaning and implication of the actual suggestion herein, and how it relates to seemingly unrelated problems like clock face functionality. They could easily interpret it as increasing sensitivity so you don't have to tap so hard; or speed, so a tap is recognized faster.

In fact, the suggestion does not relate to responsiveness as a function of time or force, but as a function of interaction logic. Insofar as that fact would be lost on people perusing items to upvote, I think the title change to this thread s a disservice to the cause. By generalizing the actual issue which pertains specifically to *2-tap* interaction logic, it could be hard for people to mentally connect problems they might have with the actual suggestions in this thread.

Then again, maybe people who have assigned some fault for their tapping woes to the product would not characterize it as anything but a "responsiveness" issue. Therein lies the problem and point of my comment.

The primary issue I'm trying to raise is that some suggestions, like this one, are not "features" in the sense of product checkbox functionality, but are more specialized design/engineering tactics that would benefit all users even if they never understood their logic or description. These kinds of suggestions should have a lower threshold for consideration because the population who infers their technical implications is much smaller than those wishing for classical "features".

For example, Anybody knows what "Include weather on clock faces" implies. It is a discreet, outward facing feature- a direct benefit. You could advertise "Weather at a glance" on the box.

But very few will know what "Improve tap responsiveness"  or "Improve 2-tap model" specifically implies here. Both refer to a set of nuanced design tactics with indirect benefits that most users may not understand technically, but will benefit from experientially.

It's also possible that each of the suggestions here require a few lines of code to implement, minimal test requirements, no documentation, no globalization/localization, and no content creation. Contrast with including weather on clock faces, where all of that work may be required. The point is, a lower threshold for consideration makes sense when there is more bang for the buck.

Anyway, I understand the purpose of this customer-driven democratic suggestion system, and I appreciate that it's here and how you all use it to interact with customers in a positive way. Hopefully this long explanation will help influence how the process evolves, so that suggestions like this have a chance "break through" and earn team visibility even if not exclusively by the force of numbers.

Not all design needs are requested. Some are observed.

[Jim_in_Texas]

I admit that there are tapping issues... 2 taps don't always work because of the force or speed used, and after successfully activating with 2 taps, it appears that 1 tap will frequently bring back the screen after it times out, unless I wait too long... And sometimes I accidentally do 2 taps too soon and end up changing my primary focus (heart rate) on my preferred clock face, "Target".

But all that could be fixed by allowing access to Fitbit Studio for Charge 5, where I could develop a clock face that is truly oriented to heart rate, my primary focus at my age, 74.

It seems that there are many issues that could be fixed/addressed by providing the Fitbit Studio access for the Charge 5 product.

And, BTW, when accessing this forum via Android, there does not appear to be a way to "upvote" the suggestions/requests in this forum! (Conveniently giving Fitbit the excuse that suggestions aren't wanted by your customer base!)

[DPinOz]

Sometimes, I find have to "whack" my Fitbit quite hard for it to register a tap, especially when trying to turn on or off waterlock in a pool.

Quick double taps are quite difficult given the degree of force required to register a tap.

[Devonian]

I’ve discovered that to unlock after swimming you have to hit it like a demented woodpecker

[JoeDirt]

I have no issues with one tap. But two taps is a joke! I have to tap at the upper screen very hard that the device will accept it. Most of the times I have to hit it at least 4 times!