…coming to a government building near you!

I’ll grant that the user interface for all this functionality isn’t as simple as it should be. And I’m by no means trying to defend the switch or its manufacturer (I certainly don’t have any of these myself). But if people are trying to glean the meaning of the sticker on the switch then that is my interpretation.

As for why not just using a dimmer – that requires a level of motor skills that some people simply don’t have, and even for those who do it makes turning the light on to a specific, repeated brightness level more of a task than simply whacking it once with your finger. I don’t think this switch is appropriate for every lighting application, but for those that require adjustable output it’s not a horrible compromise.

(In the future, anyone who is inclined to use something like this will probably instead use a smart-house system that does away with this kind of sub-optimal interface. Of course, they will instead be vulnerable to a whole-house BSOD, but that’s another matter :-)

The switch combines multiple functions in a single device. If you want a simple On/Off switch, install that instead. This adds the capability of presetting how bright you want the associated light to be when it comes on. Think of a ceiling hall light over artwork, which you don’t want flooded under normal circumstances, but can turn up to full output when vacuuming.

The alternative to this multi-function switch would be a sliding dimmer, either as a separate interface or as the only interface to the light in question.

For newcomers to the switch, it operates like any other conventional rocker switch and turns the lights on or off to the (slightly dimmed) preset value.

There’s a Perl lightswitch? :o scared o’ that!

Controls really are just:
- tap
- tap tap
- tap and hold
- (Optional) Save as preset

Java starts off simply enough — especially when compared with its older cousin C++ — but through its evolution, picked up a lot of what I like to call “yak shaving” in which you have to do lots of setup. The individual steps are simple; the combination of simple steps turns into a complex mass.

It’s sort of like the rules about where to hang your coat in the Monty Python movie The Meaning of Life…

Headmaster: All right, settle down, settle down. [He puts his papers down.] Now before I begin the lesson will those of you who are playing in the match this afternoon move your clothes down on to the lower peg immediately after lunch before you write your letter home, if you’re not getting your hair cut, unless you’ve got a younger brother who is going out this weekend as the guest of another boy, in which case collect his note before lunch, put it in your letter after you’ve had your hair cut, and make sure he moves your clothes down onto the lower peg for you. Now…

Wymer: Sir?

Headmaster: Yes, Wymer?

Wymer: My younger brother’s going out with Dibble this weekend, sir, but I’m not having my hair cut today sir, so do I move my clothes down or…

Headmaster: I do wish you’d listen, Wymer, it’s perfectly simple. If you’re not getting your hair cut, you don’t have to move your brother’s clothes down to the lower peg, you simply collect his note before lunch after you’ve done your scripture prep when you’ve written your letter home before rest, move your own clothes on to the lower peg, greet the visitors, and report to Mr Viney that you’ve had your chit signed.

Simple individual steps, overly complicated final result.

(Here’s where I found the script for the movie.)

Yes, this Luton switch is, in fact, exactly like most Java apps that I’ve encountered. But then again, it’s like most apps, period, because ’simple dimmer’ thinking in app design is exceedingly rare.

Furthermore, the simple dimmer requires equal or fewer hand manipulations to achieve the desired effect in every case.

So, no, this design is not ‘elegant’. It’s a braindead reinvention of something that wasn’t broken.

Liking one language more than another is all well and good, but if someone finds Java to be too complicated they’re probably not cut out to be a developer. It’s a simple language with most of the complications already handled for you. I believe that was grrr’s point in referencing the other languages.

They present a very small “surface area” to consider: a plate, it might rock from top to bottom, it might just click. It’s easy to figure out how to turn lights on and off.

If you made the advanced functionality more obvious, you might make the basic functionality harder to learn.

And finally, like iPods, light switches are a design element. Thank God these are minimalist. Who needs to boot Windows Vista Home Electronics and Media Device Edition 1.1 SP5 to turn a light on?

What I’m saying is that organizations like things that look or act like them. Kind of like Conway’s Law, which boils down to “Any piece of software reflects the organizational structure that produced it.”