We’re considering removing the timer from the device interface. We’d love some feedback on that from our developers.
By “device interface”, are you talking about the removing the timer control on the physical device? If so, If so, I agree that simplifying the hardware makes sense. Timers are tied to recipes and would be suited to whatever app is being used to manage the recipe and control the cooker. For use without an app, most kitchens have plenty of timers at hand.
unless there’s some reason to remove it, i’d like to see it stay.
As someone who has an iDevice, it is common that you have to leave (with your phone) and so lose contact with the BT device. If you can not set and start the timer from the phone, once you leave or loose contact, you might miss your time end. Also, I think this interface could be used for mobility impaired people, and being able to do all thing on it, like setting the timer, would be key.
Sous vide recipes for meats are never time-sensitive: you usually can keep sous vide going for hours after you reach your goal. Not so for fish or egg recipes, but in this case you can’t let sit the food in very slowly cooling water bath. So the only reason to have a simple timer on the device is not to turn it off, but to sound the alarm at the end of timed cooking. And, as kberskin noted, we do have plenty of other timers at hand to do this.
By "device interface", are you talking about the removing the timer control on the physical device? If so, If so, I agree that simplifying the hardware makes sense. Timers are tied to recipes and would be suited to whatever app is being used to manage the recipe and control the cooker. For use without an app, most kitchens have plenty of timers at hand.
Yes. We’re talking about removing the timer control from the physical device.
unless there's some reason to remove it, i'd like to see it stay.
The reason is to simplify the interface.
I think the loss of functionality of the timer outweighs the “simplification” of the interface. Adding another device would probably mean buying another timer. My kitchen is not overloaded with timers. BTW, many other cooking devices (ovens, microwaves, elec skillets, etc.) have their own timers, tho, granted, they turn the device off at the end. In this case, the timer would beep to indicate the time has elapsed, not turn off the device. Also, just because there is an app doesn’t mean the app is the only interface, and despite how high tech I am, most of my friends are not, and they wouldn’t use an app.
@inavickas, Thanks for the feedback. Some people may argue otherwise, but many sous vide cooked meals don’t really require a strict time limitation. It’s very difficult to overcook many things.
Simpler is generally better. The timer adds an extra button to the interface for swapping between the temperature input and the timer. It also doubles as an indicator that the timer is active. It is currently not a simple design.
I did try using the timer last time I cooked and it worked well for me the first time. My kitchen is full of timers and I’m looking into timers that can go over 24 hours.
The interface is simple and clean enough and I like the convenience of the timer so I know exactly what the timer is for (the bath vs something in the oven or range etc). I’m also the type of cook that doesn’t like loose timers that get knocked around and mixed up.
I posted this in another thread already. I would like the timer to count up once the bath reaches the set temp. I like to do veggies in the morning, and it’s nice to drop them in and walk away. I could then see how long the food had been at temp as opposed to just how long the food had been in the bath.
I like the idea of keeping the timer for several reasons:
- I often have somebody else start my SV cooks for me while I’m on my way home from work, and I like to know how long they’ve been in for when I get home so I can plan the rest of the meal around the finish time.
- I’m often running around the kitchen doing other prep things or talking to guests, so for those dishes that are time sensitive, it’s one less thing I have to remember.
- I’m planning on using the unit quite a bit away from my home kitchen, so more in-built functionality the better
- if you keep the timer control but people don’t use it, no harm. If you remove it, you can’t ever add it back on.
having spent time with it this weekend, I appreciate the timer and would hate to see it go.
I used the developer unit a lot during recent weeks. Never used the timer.
I would welcome the simplification of removing the timer.
I think you should keep the timer. Make it easy to use. If you remove it, you’ll constantly have to explain to your users why it’s not there. As a UE professional, that’s an important criterion for me - if you make a UE decision that you have to keep explaining to your users, even if it seems obvious or clever to you, then it’s probably not a good decision. I can think of a few reasons to keep it:
- Folks are used to the timed cooking process. For conventional timed cooking, the cooking time is both a minimum and a maximum. For sous vide, there is still a minimum time. So the timer answers the question, “has enough time gone by?” This would suggest that the timer should count down and once it reaches zero, start counting up with an indication that the minimum time has elapsed.
- Reaching for your phone when in the middle of food prep isn’t always convenient. I’ve just seasoned the meat and sealed it, and my hands are messy and slippery. There’s water everywhere. Not a good time to grab a $600 device out of my pocket.
- Having the remaining time-till-minimum-required visible at the location of cooking is useful when orchestrating a complex meal. This, of course, is different from being able to set the time from the head interface, but it is inconsistent to have only one of the two cooking parameters settable from the place where they’re displayed.
The state machine behind setting up the device, in particular the timer, from the head interface doesn’t seem to be as simple as it could be; this is discussed in another thread.