[HN Gopher] Some new BMWs won't have touchscreens thanks to chip...
___________________________________________________________________
Some new BMWs won't have touchscreens thanks to chip shortage
Author : elorant
Score : 116 points
Date : 2021-11-06 11:05 UTC (11 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
| h2odragon wrote:
| I hope they prove to be extremely popular, and car makers realize
| what a stupid idea touchscreens in cars were in the first place,
| and give up the idea completely.
|
| ...and then there will be unicorns and flutterbugs and cotton
| candy, and everyone will be happy and nothing bad will ever
| happen again.
| vardump wrote:
| I can't understand why no one mentioned voice control. Isn't
| that safer than both physical knobs or touch screen?
| javajosh wrote:
| I'm glad I'm not the only one that feel strongly anti-screen in
| the car. I feel so strongly about it that I drive an old car. I
| want an electric car eventually, and I hope that the automakers
| start building all cars, including electrics, with fully
| tactile control surfaces (didn't Honda say they'd eliminate
| screens in their cars? What happened with that?). It looks less
| Star-Trek sexy, but it also works 50x better.
|
| You know who gets this? Airplane pilots. They use screens but
| with a great deal of care.
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| The difference is that cars are mass-produced while airplanes
| are effectively bespoke.* And everything-on-the-touchscreen
| is cheaper to manufacture than physical knobs, so saving 25
| cents per car matters. Airplanes are much more expensive than
| cars because they're all basically made by hand, so they can
| afford to spend more money on a better human interface.
|
| I'm not suggesting touchscreens in cars are "a good thing",
| but I get the economics.
|
| *Boeing makes around 700 aircraft per year. GM makes that
| many cars every hour.
| javajosh wrote:
| Oh I am aware that screens are generally a lot cheaper.
| Plus you can update them over the air! (OTA updates being
| another anti-feature I do not want on _any_ vehicle that I
| own or operate).
| madengr wrote:
| Avionics are going touch too:
|
| https://www.garmin.com/en-US/p/166058
| FDSGSG wrote:
| Not to mention the fact that literally every pilot has an
| iPad mounted in the cockpit for foreflight. Pilots
| fucking love touchscreens, avionics just change very
| slowly.
| madengr wrote:
| If only this cost less:
|
| https://bollingermotors.com/bollinger-b2/
| chrisseaton wrote:
| They aren't removing the screens - they're removing the touch
| functionality of the screen.
|
| Screens are vital for safety - how do you back-up safely
| without a screen to show you what's behind you?
|
| Aeroplane pilots use an absolute ton of screens, front and
| centre.
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| It's now mandated by law that new cars have back-up
| screens. That's a helpful safety feature, but I fear it's
| also teaching new drivers that one cannot back up a vehicle
| without a screen. If such drivers find themselves pulling a
| trailer, driving a rental truck that has no screen, or
| driving an ordinary car with a bike rack on the back that
| obscures the camera's view, they'll suddenly find
| themselves unable to reverse the vehicle. Don't get
| dependent on the screens; learn to use the mirrors and
| swivel your head.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| No amount of swivelling your head allows you to see the
| blind spot right behind you - not using a screen is
| really dangerous which is why they made them mandatory.
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| And yet making them mandatory does not mean they will
| suddenly appear everywhere, so it's still a good idea to
| have a backup plan (npi).
|
| It sounds to me like you think I'm against backup
| cameras, but I like them. My concern is that they are not
| always going to be present and working, so it's still a
| good idea to learn to safely reverse a vehicle without a
| camera. Speaking as someone who frequently drives fire
| trucks, ambulances, and large RVs, it's simply incorrect
| that it's somehow impossible to safely reverse a vehicle
| without a camera. Cameras are helpful tools but training
| and care should still be a driver's #1 safety priority.
| Melting_Harps wrote:
| > No amount of swivelling your head allows you to see the
| blind spot right behind you - not using a screen is
| really dangerous which is why they made them mandatory.
|
| I've worked in the auto Industry for a large part of my
| life in some form, and even when cameras are installed
| their are a lot of owners (mainly older) who don't use
| them.
|
| I can use them or not since I've spent enough time
| staging cars, so while it's a useful tool to have them
| it's specious reasoning to think they are an absolute
| answer to all accidents that happen when you back up.
| It's just as odd as thinking as somehow cars with auto-
| dimming headlamps when the turn signals are on are what
| was necessary for others to see you want to turn--I have
| no problem seeing this even on motorcycles as I ride and
| tend to be rather vigilant to these lights just to not
| get hit. It's akin to thinking that all cars must have a
| self-parking feature.
|
| Honestly, I place more blame on mobile phones for
| needless accidents than anything else on the road these
| days, second only to tired or careless drivers. Both of
| which I have been guilty of at some point, too.
| javajosh wrote:
| Chris, you've made many, many comments in this subthread,
| all basically saying the same thing. Yet I've never heard
| anyone express concern about auto safety and backing up.
| Not once. It concerns me that you may have an agenda, so I
| have flagged your messages.
| Koshkin wrote:
| > _how do you back-up safely without a screen_
|
| The way they've been doing it for the past 100 years?
| dghughes wrote:
| > how do you back-up safely without a screen to show you
| what's behind you?
|
| Always-on silicon dioxide transparent amorphous solid with
| a sublayer of vacuumed deposited silver: a mirror.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| You have deadly blind-spots when you rely on mirrors.
| dafoex wrote:
| Then use your eyes and neck joint to check your blind
| spots? You'd fail a UK driving test if you relied
| entirely on your mirror (or camera, for that matter) when
| reversing.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Unless you have a three-metre articulated neck you are
| not going to be able to get your head out the car and
| round the back to see right behind your own car while
| driving it - I can't believe people aren't aware they
| have blind spots there? That's how small children get run
| over.
|
| Why do you think they made backup cameras mandatory? Why
| do you think they believe they save lives?
| dafoex wrote:
| Who made them mandatory? When and where? You have other
| blind spots, too, and manufacturers know that relying on
| a camera makes drivers neglect their other blind spots -
| Skoda cars even pop up a toast notification saying "Look
| around, is it safe to move?" to try and discourage lazy
| drivers thinking the computer is a replacement for a
| brain.
|
| But all this feels like a moot point, anyway. I
| understood the main argument to be advocating the use of
| physical controls, not the removal of safety sensors and
| cameras.
| nzmsv wrote:
| I'll be another voice so that it's not just Chris :)
|
| Backover accidents are real. Cameras help a lot.
| Arguments about "but they are not in all cars" forget
| that seatbelts, airbags, and ABS were also once in that
| category.
|
| If you are worried about drivers not being hardcore
| enough and relying too much on cameras: do you know how
| to use a choke? What about a crank start? An
| unsynchronized gearbox?
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > Who made them mandatory?
|
| US, Canada, EU (I think they allow an alternative
| 'detection system'), possibly others.
| javajosh wrote:
| It's funny, but I wasn't reading authors very closely in
| this sub-thread, and my general impression was a lot of
| mirror hate and fear. But then I noticed that it's ALL
| coming from you, Chris.
|
| TBH I have never heard anyone, not once, talk about
| mirrors being dangerous or about this even being an
| issue. Yet to hear you say it our children's blood is
| running in the street.
|
| Who are you, and why are you pushing this so hard?
| mindslight wrote:
| The technical issue is that the center rear view mirror
| cannot see below the bottom of the rear windshield. And
| so small children, perhaps on bikes etc, aren't visible
| in the mirrors.
|
| It it possible to mitigate this by visually checking that
| blindspot before you get in the car, and keeping aware to
| make sure nothing sneaks into it while you're getting in?
| Sure, just like it is also possible to backup with no
| mirrors whatsoever by getting out of the vehicle and
| surveying your surroundings.
|
| But on the whole, enough people don't do this that backup
| accidents are indeed an issue.
|
| What my neck really wants is an auxiliary backup camera
| that you can stick on a towed trailer.
|
| (Also I'll just chime in here - "screw touchscreens". The
| damn things should be illegal for any function the driver
| might need to used while driving. Software defined
| display screens are fine, but should be fully navigable
| through straightforwardly-predictable states using
| directional buttons on the steering wheel)
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > TBH I have never heard anyone, not once, talk about
| mirrors being dangerous or about this even being an
| issue.
|
| Then you're under-informed. They introduced laws about
| requiring backup cameras in multiple countries - I
| obviously didn't legislate them myself!
|
| https://www.fatherly.com/health-science/car-backup-
| camera-la...
|
| > 210 fatalities and 15,000 injuries are caused every
| year by backover crashes
|
| No mirror is showing you where you need to see to avoid
| these fatal accidents.
|
| People saying they want cars without screens are like
| people arguing for cars without seatbelts because they
| find them uncomfortable.
| javajosh wrote:
| _> Then you're under-informed._
|
| Always an excellent (if mis-spelled) rejoinder, if the
| burden of proof is on you, and you are failing to meet
| it.
|
| _> They literally introduced laws_
|
| You've claimed this 5 or 6 times in this sub-thread, and
| yet I've not seen a single reference or link. Here, you
| link to "fatherly.com", which I will not visit. Link to
| something reputable, ideally the law itself, or major
| news coverage of the law.
|
| _> 210 fatalities and 15,000 injuries_
|
| I know a case is weak when they start quoting absolute
| numbers at me on national issues. The order-of-magnitude
| of people in the US is 10^8. 200 dead is close to the
| noise floor on unlikely death. Literally 1-in-a-million.
| It's like the number of people that die from snake bites
| and shark attacks and lightning strikes.
|
| _> No mirror is showing you where you need to see to
| avoid these fatal accidents._
|
| Here's where you get to the actual danger of what you are
| saying. Because screens do not come without considerable
| cost, not just in terms of hardware, but in terms of
| distraction. Do you think the number of fatalities caused
| directly or indirectly by screen-use-while-driving will
| exceed 200? (I would bet it's at 20k right now).
|
| BTW I will carve out an exception - it's probably a good
| idea to have a dedicated backup screen, as with a 3rd
| party dashcam you can install yourself. However this is a
| very different beast than the center console infotainment
| center that, for that brief moment it becomes vital
| safety equipment, becomes a massive, constant, deadly
| liability to the safety of everyone within eyeshot.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > which I will not visit
|
| This is a bizarre reason to refuse to understand
| something - you can find these laws yourself in seconds,
| either the original legislation, or references to it in
| the media, by Googling for them.
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/02/backup-cameras-now-
| required-...
|
| https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-110publ189/pdf/P
| LAW...
|
| > I know a case is weak
|
| Well take it up with the US and EU governments! I didn't
| write the laws - I'm just telling you what it is and why
| they introduced it.
|
| You have to follow the law - and have a backup camera and
| screen in a new car - for other people's safety whether
| you like it or not! Just like you have to wear your
| seatbelt.
| javajosh wrote:
| _> I didn 't write the laws_
|
| Not sure what your angle here is, but you clearly aren't
| an unbiased commenter. You have gone on and on about how
| many lives this law has saved, and how dangerous it is to
| drive without a screen and so on. So yes, I do expect you
| to make a better case rather than walk around acting as
| if yours is the foregone conclusion, obvious and right
| (of course, because it's for the children!)
|
| You still have not responded to my central claim that
| these screens claim far, far more lives than they save.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| My position is supported by the professionals in the US,
| Canada, and EU who spend their entire working lives
| studying safety issues and trade-offs and making
| recommendations for legislation.
|
| https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.gov/files/811024.pdf
|
| > a statistically significant 28 percent reduction in
| crashes
|
| You:
|
| > You still have not responded to my central claim that
| these screens claim far, far more lives than they save.
|
| Them:
|
| > no evidence to support the hypothesis that driver's
| backing behavior (i.e. speed and acceleration) was
| influenced by the presence of absence of an RV system
|
| People said the kind of things that you're saying about
| seatbelts when they came out - they thought they'd get
| trapped and didn't want to wear them. At some point you
| have to listen to the studies not just gut instinct.
| prepend wrote:
| > how do you back-up safely without a screen to show you
| what's behind you?
|
| Turn your head and look behind you.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| You have blind spots doing that - that's how children get
| run over and why it's illegal to sell a new car without a
| screen these days.
| snypher wrote:
| I often mow my yard nowhere near a child however my mower
| is unable to mow in reverse due to some regulations. I'm
| dissatisfied I'm held to a safety standard which does not
| apply to my use. Should I be wearing a seatbelt too,
| because some people fall off? Some burden should fall on
| parental supervision, rather than x million reverse
| cameras etc that people don't require.
| binarymax wrote:
| Wow. I guess I'm really old and remember the days of using
| the rear view and side mirrors to back up.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| No mirror lets you see right behind the back bumper. It's
| dangerous.
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| And yet drivers managed to (mostly) not back into kids
| for over 100 years, without rear cameras. You walk around
| the car before you throw it into reverse. The screens fix
| the "mostly" problem, but they're not a substitute for
| driving skill.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > managed to (mostly) not back into kids for over 100
| years, without rear cameras
|
| They reckon the mandatory backup camera law saves 95
| lives a year.
| dafoex wrote:
| Getting out of the car would save 95 lives, too
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > Getting out of the car
|
| Some cars do have remote-control drive features these
| days, so you can reverse it from outside the car, but
| that's a super high-end feature (designed for getting in
| to and out of extremely tight city parking spaces) and
| relies on the chips that are in shortage, so that's not a
| solution.
| dafoex wrote:
| We are but muggles, so I don't think we need to worry
| about teleporting children appearing in the time it takes
| you to get back in the car. You know your blind spot is
| clear and can see where your future blind spot is now.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| This is like arguing against seat-belts because you think
| you can brace yourself sufficiently.
| nzmsv wrote:
| Kids also used to stand in the back while being driven
| around. I certainly did. Not only were there no car
| seats, there weren't even seatbelts in the back. Putting
| kids and their toys in the back of a station wagon for a
| road trip used to be a thing. Everyone mostly made it out
| alive, and yet we still have laws against all of the
| above now, everywhere in the world.
| grp000 wrote:
| I don't really remember it being an endemic issue of
| people getting run over by backing up cars that had that
| small blindspot. Could have been an issue of unattended
| children/pets or tall car/short people, but I think it
| was more a big convenience boost.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| > but I think it was more a big convenience boost
|
| They don't make laws to force cars to add features for
| convenience.
| dafoex wrote:
| Laws in what country?
| chrisseaton wrote:
| The backup camera? At least the EU and the US.
| dafoex wrote:
| I guess Skoda was breaking the law when they made the
| citigo. That didn't even have radar reversing sensors as
| standard.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| Did it come out before the end of 2021? I'm guessing yes.
| That's when the EU law comes into effect.
| dafoex wrote:
| Oh, so this law isn't even in force yet? No wonder I'm
| not aware of it.
| grp000 wrote:
| Most people are idiots/lazy, and I say that on both sides
| (walkers and drivers). I see it more as making a robust
| solution a law, but doesn't necessarily benefit me to the
| extent that I want a mandated backup in my car
| personally.
| Pyramus wrote:
| That's a false equivalence - just because it's not an
| 'endemic' issue doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed. I
| don't see why things getting run over by cars (think of
| immovable things as well) shouldn't be fixed?
| FDSGSG wrote:
| Why are you posting this under an article about BMW? They've
| done the best job at this out of all the carmakers.
|
| You can go buy a brand new 7er, all the important things have
| physical buttons. The screen is really only there for
| navigation and more complicated settings.
| midasuni wrote:
| Touch screen for CarPlay stuff - changing map to overview,
| selecting a different route when you're stuck in traffic,
| pressing back 15 on Spotify etc, that's great. Non essential
| stuff, alternate is a phone in a cradle with a worse
| touchscreen.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > and car makers realize what a stupid idea touchscreens in
| cars were in the first place, and give up the idea completely.
|
| Why such a binary view of the world? Agreed, putting
| _everything_ sans turn light and wiper control behind a
| touchscreen is a pretty reckless form-over-functionality
| idiocy, as you cannot operate vital functions of your car
| safely while driving.
|
| But that does not mean a touchscreen does not have its uses:
| Navigation, for one - a proper keyboard to enter addresses and
| phone numbers instead of that awful rotary thing (or the
| embedded write-a-single-letter touch thing) that BMWs use is
| _so_ much faster to operate. Speech recognition is outright
| unusable outside of the English-speaking world or if you have
| children or a loud party going on in your car. Not to mention
| that it is insanely practical on a phone to be able to quickly
| rotate and zoom a map view for complicated intersections, and
| having that as a proper part of the car would be perfection.
|
| Media is the other major case - there absolutely need to be
| rotary dials for volume, station change and muting (e.g. if you
| get in a police stop and your music is blasting, or you hear
| sirens and need to know from where they come), but playlist
| selection and creation is so much better on a well-designed
| touch UI than (again) using knobs of any kind.
| h2odragon wrote:
| I'll expound further: Any user interface that requires
| removing attention from the road _should not_ be in reach of
| the driver while the car is operating.
|
| Let the passenger run the laptop that controls the media
| center and engine profiles and flamethrowers. Have a "next
| track" "off" and "volume" buttons for the driver.
| pw6hv wrote:
| Totally agree with you. However, some times I think most of the
| people take what they're given and the 'radicals' are just a
| small percentage of the total. Manufacturers simply decide to
| make what is cheaper for them (see for example 16:10 vs 16:9
| for monitors).
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Perhaps it's not that most people take what they're given but
| that the manufacturer does a good job discovering what people
| want.
| DavidPeiffer wrote:
| Unfortunately I think it's more driven by cost motivations.
| As noted in the Mk8 VW GTI review [1], the interfaces are
| often straight up awful, this being a particularly bad
| design. They're the biggest source of complaints/issues
| shortly after buying, and three years later.
|
| Additionally, distractions are already abundant in a
| vehicle. A crappy user interface, which most are, is a
| safety concern. At minimum, lag between screens loading
| should be extremely minimal. Staring at a screen for an
| extra second or two while it registers that you pressed a
| button and updates the screen is incredibly dangerous and
| has surely lead to some number of deaths.
|
| Two years ago Mazda announced they were moving away from
| touchscreens, which was very well received on HackerNews.
| [2]
|
| And I can't find the thread right now, but 1-3 years ago
| there was a really good discussion on here about an eye
| tracking study in a variety of car models.
|
| Touchscreen-only interfaces in cars are kind of like
| electronic-only voting machines. Technical people who know
| about computers breath funny thinking about it and see
| issues left and right while large swaths of people really
| want it.
|
| [1] https://youtu.be/XGbPHp6QfkQ?t=6m45s
|
| [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20200335
| grvdrm wrote:
| As a recent Mazda buyer, absolutely love the Mazda
| approach. The physical interface makes sense to me. The
| buttons feel right and work with a near-perfect
| springiness.
| q-big wrote:
| > Unfortunately I think it's more driven by cost
| motivations. As noted in the Mk8 VW GTI review [1], the
| interfaces are often straight up awful, this being a
| particularly bad design.
|
| The car producer could save even more money if they
| released the non-security critical user-facing parts of
| the software as open source and let car enthusiasts fix
| the bad user interface.
| DavidPeiffer wrote:
| I'd be good with that. I casually started looking at
| adding openstreetmaps in place of my outdated maps on my
| 2009 CR-V. From what I can tell, it's a proprietary
| system with proprietary formats. It doesn't look like
| it'll work, but I'd love to achieve it.
| darkerside wrote:
| It's that they optimize for 1) what people like when they
| see it in the showroom, 2) costs, 3) what people like when
| they actually drive. In that order.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| No, I argue it's exactly what GP says. Consumers choose out
| of what's available on the market, not out of space of all
| possible products.
|
| When purchasing complex goods like cars (or smartphones),
| there's way too many things to simultaneously optimize for,
| and enough confusion (mostly intentional) about relative
| performance, so most consumers focus on few major
| indicators like price, availability, cost of ownership,
| appearance, etc. Few people are going to trade on those
| major points to optimize something more specific, like lack
| of touchscreen (or having a headphone jack), so there's no
| meaningful market feedback on this, and vendors are free to
| dictate the choice to the market.
| Gargyle wrote:
| When I got a coin everytime I watch people in newer SUVs
| being entirely confused why the damn thing doesn't start now
| completely stunned by the sheer number of stuff on the
| dashboard and middle screen. Or tell their passengers to go
| fiddle with the aircon system because the cognitive load is
| too high while driving. Old cars with knobs you learn it once
| and you can use it without eyes.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| Unfortunately, in this case it sounds like the alternate input
| is a touchpad, which is no more tactile and clearly worse.
| samjmck wrote:
| BMWs actually use a dial that you can rotate in the centre
| console of the vehicle. It's actually very intuitive and easy
| to use, and a _lot_ less distracting than a touchscreen is.
| jcims wrote:
| I don't mind a touch screen for GPS/CarPlay. But control of the
| vehicles operation, environment and entertainment systems
| should have robust, tactile and intuitive physical input
| devices that don't require eyeballs to use.
|
| Not to get too far on a tangent but one of the best ways to
| increase intuition of a control is to provide haptic feedback.
| This guy has a few projects related to that, this video
| summarizes them pretty nicely. https://youtu.be/9Eh1p_rUQMA
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| > I don't mind a touch screen for GPS
|
| Yup, it's basically the only time when I use the touchscreen
| in mine: I start the car, enter the GPS coordinates/address
| and then I control everything from my steering wheel, using
| buttons with real feedback and without needing to take
| neither my hands off the steering wheel nor my eyes off the
| road.
|
| My car also happens to have a gimmick: "voice control / voice
| command" but it's only good when you're alone in the car. As
| long as there are people talking, it sucks. It also
| interrupts the music and I hate that. I do use it once in a
| while but I'm not a big fan.
|
| Touchscreen sucks and those who don't even have haptic
| feedback: I don't even have words for that.
|
| If I recall correctly there as least one major japanese car
| manufacturer who decided to get rid of touchscreens a few
| years ago. Good ridance, it's a poor system.
| dv_dt wrote:
| The car ui's to get to car play usually make me want to
| poke my eyes out.
|
| Car maker supplied GPS is terrible too. Just give me car
| play and Siri or the android equivalent.
| dafoex wrote:
| I generally like car UIs (I'm a fan of glossy things
| rather than flat things) but no amount of polish will
| make the layout not suck. Its usually designed for left
| hand drive cars and clusters common actions near the
| wheel, but won't change when you're in a right hand
| drive, causing you to lean across the centre console to
| use it. Android auto (and I'm hoping Apple's equivalent)
| mostly handles this amazingly, putting common functions
| actually close to you.
|
| Its not all good, though. The Skoda Karoq has this split
| personality thing going on where it comes with its own
| sat nav, and that tries to take over your experience when
| you start navigating in Google maps. Its only a (first
| world) problem when you have the overly fancy glass
| cockpit, but it likes to replace your speedometer with a
| full screen map from the internal sat nav, which has none
| of the information from Google such as your next turn or
| the blue line showing your route.
| romwell wrote:
| In the world of unicorns and ponies, sure.
|
| In the real world, once you put a screen anywhere, that's
| where the entire UX will go.
|
| The temptation to do so it's seemingly irresistible.
| FDSGSG wrote:
| You can look at literally any non-electric BMW to disprove
| this. Everything important has physical controls.
|
| BMW doesn't exist in some world of unicorns, it's a very
| real carmaker.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| Porsche too: up until a few years ago they had a very
| strict policy of "one physical button / one function".
| Now lately they stuffed a bit too much gimmicks in their
| cars so they couldn't put everything behind buttons and
| they picked some kind of a happy middle ground: they've
| got a panel which physically moves and gives a great
| feedback (I think they're using quality microswitches
| underneathh the panel), but the icons showing on the
| panel can vary. They _also_ have a touchscreen for the
| gimmicks, but everything important has physical controls.
| rjzzleep wrote:
| I rented a car in Germany ones but unfortunately I dont
| remember if it was a BMW or Mercedes. It had a fancy but
| horrendous touch nob and I just couldn't figure out how
| to move the car. Car makers consider everything touch a
| premium feature. The more touch the better/expensive. But
| to be fair I'm also extremely turned off by how Tesla
| "reimagined" the door knob.
| FDSGSG wrote:
| BMWs have a touch nob clickwheel thing, there is no part
| of the UX that requires or even strongly encourages you
| to use the touch functionality.
| rjzzleep wrote:
| I think we might be talking about different things. It
| was a touch knob where the gear shift would be.
| Everything in that car was off in my opinion.
| jcims wrote:
| Oh yeah I totally agree. You're going to need a brand
| manager with brass balls and knuckles to match to maintain
| that separation.
| misnome wrote:
| > But control of the vehicles operation, environment and
| entertainment systems should have robust, tactile and
| intuitive physical input devices that don't require eyeballs
| to use.
|
| Last time we looked at cars we avoided anything like this, it
| was depressingly common.
|
| Worst, I think, was Peugeot - the volume and (I think) AC
| were completely controlled by the touch screen - but you
| couldn't just press and hold, when you pressed it, it only
| moved one "setting" and you needed to tap-tap-tap to change
| more than one notch. Also, the above-steering HUD screen had
| frame-rate issues! It's completely absurd that they both sell
| this and people buy it.
|
| We did end up going for a brand which had touch for radio
| channels/Carplay, but physical buttons for controlling AC,
| volume, start/stop/skip controls etc.
|
| I really, really hope this trend goes away.
| moron4hire wrote:
| I had my heart set on a Toyota RAV-4 hybrid, until I actually
| sat down in the thing and saw the touch screen. Drove it
| around, other than the touchscreen it was nice, thought I might
| just have to suck it up and learn not to change settings while
| driving.
|
| On a whim, I checked out the Mazda CX-5. I'd never considered
| buying a Mazda before, but I found out they had institutionally
| banned touchscreens in their cars. And the CX-5 was so much
| more of a joy to drive than the RAV-4 that it made for a pretty
| easy decision.
| op00to wrote:
| Also everyone clapped. Really this time.
|
| I think I would much prefer a controller than a touch screen.
| ahartmetz wrote:
| I have worked on touchscreen UIs for cars. I have a car with
| touchscreen UI. As a user, I hate them. They are unergonomic
| and irresponsible.
| nextaccountic wrote:
| Here's a way to stop them: make it illegal to have car
| controls without tactile feedback. Changing volume or radio
| stations, changing AC, everything the driver might do in the
| car, should never be done only through a touchscreen, which
| is too distracting and unsafe.
| [deleted]
| throaway46546 wrote:
| It's illegal to use your smartphone while driving, but
| somehow if you integrate the same technology into the car
| it is perfectly fine.
| FDSGSG wrote:
| In many EU countries it's definitely not illegal to use
| your smartphone while driving. Distracted driving is
| illegal, but using your smartphone doesn't automatically
| mean that you were distracted any more or less than using
| your car touchscreen would.
|
| The real truth is that enforcement is non-existent and
| almost nobody gets in trouble for using a phone while
| driving even if it's specifically forbidden.
| foxfluff wrote:
| Maybe they can start selling a hands-free add-on kit for
| the car's controls..
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| Don't most of these systems support voice control?
| theshadowknows wrote:
| I've got a 2016 civic and the entire touch screen is taken over
| when you make a right turn or go into reverse. And it takes
| several seconds for the system to boot when you turn the car on
| which is especially irritating in very hot or very cold
| weather. That and the response is laggy and slow. And sometimes
| it just stops responding entirely and you have to reboot the
| touch screen. It's very annoying "feature" of an otherwise
| lovely car.
| mc32 wrote:
| I hope all that goes the way of most digital speedometers and
| tachometers from the 90s where most are back to analogue dials
| and a testament to tackiness.
| bruce343434 wrote:
| I actually enjoy digital speedometers, they are quicker to
| read than a "clock" dial
| shostack wrote:
| I'm curious how touch screen glass cockpit pilots feel. Flying
| and messing with a touchscreen seems a lot more risky and
| dangerous on the surface, not to mention more difficult in
| turbulence thanks to bouncing around in three dimensions.
|
| In an industry arguably more obsessed with safety (from
| regulators down to pilots), surely this would be a more heated
| debate in that space?
| snarfy wrote:
| You might want to buy a Mazda next time.
|
| [1] - https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1121372_why-mazda-is-
| pur...
| BoorishBears wrote:
| BMW does it right though
|
| Originally their interface could only be controlled by a knob,
| so the knob is a 1st class citizen in navigation.
|
| The touchscreen is there, but you never need to use it to
| navigate.
|
| My 124 Spider uses a Mazda infotainment system, and that takes
| it a step further by only enabling the touchscreen at a
| standstill. Once the car is in motion only the knob works
| dml2135 wrote:
| How about cars just have built-in phone mounts? We're all
| carrying a touch screen with us already.
| littlecranky67 wrote:
| Touchscreens in Cars are a prime example of copying someone
| else's solution to the wrong problem. Smartphones and Tablets
| have touchscreens because you are looking at the device when
| operating it - in contrast to cars, where you are supposed not to
| look at the control while using it but keep your eyes on the
| street.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Nah, it's just a good example of value engineering making
| things cheaper by sacrificing value. Touchscreens didn't get so
| widely adopted because they worked well for tablets - they were
| because they're _cheaper_. You no longer need to account for a
| changing set of physical controls in designing the interior of
| a car - all you need is to designate where the magic rectangle
| goes, and all the rest of the UI work can be done
| independently, without interfering with labor-intensive
| processes.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| I don't get why people can be so obsessed with cars and have no
| thought for the non driving parts in these discussions.
|
| You'll be setting up adresses, contacts, switching climate
| control patterns, connect playlists, pair and delete devices,
| setup accounts, manage diagnostics. Why wouldn't you want a
| touchscreen for all of these tasks ?
|
| Be mad at car makers for being dumb at UX, intrinsically
| touchscreens have nothing to do with that though.
| dafoex wrote:
| I'd say the problem with touch screens is that they encourage
| car manufacturers to be dumb at UX (see also: that German who
| crashed because Tesla thought window wiper controls needed to
| be in the iPad). When I'm cold on my night time commute home,
| I want to reach for a knob and turn up the heat, when my
| music is loud and I'm approaching a roundabout, I want to
| thumb a rotary encoder and turn it down, when a call is
| coming in I want to feel a button and push it to answer, same
| for pausing music or skipping that song I don't like but is
| still in my playlist for some reason.
|
| All the common tasks that may have an impact on safety while
| driving need a physical control, and anything else can be
| relegated to the magic rectangle because I've no need to use
| them. As it stands I only use Android Auto to tap "Maps>Work"
| or "Maps>Home" just so I can have the best route through
| Milton Keynes with it's ever changing traffic.
| [deleted]
| c0nfused wrote:
| I think the biggest thing about car touchscreens is that they
| have historically sucked. They have always been a place to do
| vendor locking or a geewhiz upgrade. I don't think the touch
| screen approach is inherently flawed but in a world where you
| build a working car without one and then add it as an extra trim
| feature the experience is always going to be bad.
|
| I actually think the Tesla touchscreen approach works fairly well
| especially when coupled with the level of automation they tie
| into it. Turning your wipers on by touch screen inst great, but
| if you just automate turning on the wipers as needed it doesn't
| matter.
|
| It also eliminates the where is x control game you end up playing
| in some cars. You either find it via the UI or open the manual in
| the same place.
| Robotbeat wrote:
| I actually agree. And there's a secondary benefit: by requiring
| the touchscreen for some controls like wipers, it means they
| have to, by law, fix the touchscreen and infotainment computer
| if it fails early. So if your infotainment computer runs out of
| write cycles, you can get it fixed for free.
| romwell wrote:
| Good.
|
| Also thanks to common sense, I hope.
| desktopninja wrote:
| I commend Mazda for taking the initiative:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20200335
|
| Maybe its just my age but I distinctly remember driver
| advice/instructions of having no bright lights in the car cabin
| because it would adversely affect one's vision at night.
| Kaibeezy wrote:
| classic Saab night panel ftw
|
| Also knobs
|
| Saab ftw
|
| rip Saab
| Robotbeat wrote:
| FWIW, I had problems with the buttons on my Saabs.
|
| I get the touchscreen hate. But honestly, I prefer them.
| rsj_hn wrote:
| Wait, Saabs are still around? They made it to the
| touchscreen era?
| Robotbeat wrote:
| Well, I was still using my Saab in the touchscreen era...
| rsj_hn wrote:
| Lucky you! I miss those quirky cars.
| Kaibeezy wrote:
| I recently bought a 2003. Removed the aftermarket
| touchscreen, replaced it with the original audio system
| and dug out my box of tape cassettes. Here come the warm
| jets!
| breckenedge wrote:
| Born from jets.
| albertopv wrote:
| Thanks God, I hate cars touchscreens, give me physical switchesp
| please.
| benjamir wrote:
| Funny considering a spokesman from BMW boasted on Deutschlandfunk
| (German broadcast), that they selling a lot of cars because they
| aren't affected by supply chain issues because they, contrary to
| the other car makers were having fair agreements with their
| suppliers... Yeah. So much for that :-)
| jokowueu wrote:
| Main reason why I didn't buy a Tesla was because of touch screens
| .
|
| I really hope they will not be the norm in the future for other
| cars
| cunidev wrote:
| To be fair, I hate to be distracted by screens _even_ while
| driving. Even if the car could drive itself with 100% safety
| while I was operating the device, being forced to look at a
| screen for a long while just to find the equivalent of a
| physical switch (or, in the future, to watch a movie?) leaves
| me a bad taste.
|
| The dashboard of a Tesla is covered with unused surface, so it
| makes very little sense to put no physical commands on it, and
| then over-fill a tablet UI with those in the strangest places.
| The "big tablet" trend just sounds like an interface for
| digital addicts.
|
| On the other hand, Mazda's infotainment systems
| (https://m.faz.net/media1/ppmedia/aktuell/technik-
| motor/27493...) fix at least part of this, which makes me guess
| what my next car will be.
| jcims wrote:
| I rented a model X and was blown away by the drivability of the
| car. It's truly one of the best driving experiences I've had in
| my life.
|
| However i very quickly developed disdain for how much of a
| dependency there was on the screen. It made the car feel very
| vulnerable and was super annoying.
|
| It was great for the gps though.
| capableweb wrote:
| Same here. Made a test drive of the Model S, love almost
| everything about the car and would have bought it for sure if
| it wasn't for the unholy touchscreen that felt outright
| dangerous to use. I don't understand how it's legal to even
| put essential controls behind a touchscreen and I don't
| understand people who drive Teslas daily.
| ericmay wrote:
| What essential controls are you using from the touchscreen
| while driving? The music player? Navigation?
| bdonlan wrote:
| Windshield wipers.
| natch wrote:
| Windshield wipers literally have a dedicated physical
| button and are usually in automatic mode anyway.
| ericmay wrote:
| Oh you can just leave those on auto and just tap the
| handle on the left if you need it
| jontro wrote:
| At least on Model S 2020 the windshield wipers are
| controlled normally on a stick to the left of the wheel.
| Maybe it's an EU/US difference.
| bdonlan wrote:
| I have the 2021 model 3, you have a physical button to
| fire them off once (and to do the cleaning cycle), but to
| manually set the speed you need to use the touchscreen.
| There is an auto mode, of course, but sometimes you do
| need to adjust it manually.
| natch wrote:
| I agree... and to amplify the point, pressing the
| physical button, in addition to kicking off a needed
| wipe, also brings the adjustment right up unobtrusively
| on the screen in case it's needed.
|
| And then, not that anyone needs to touch the screen
| normally (because auto mode as you say) but if they
| aren't all triggered by such a possibility and want to,
| those multiple layers of on-screen UI (that the haters
| are always imagining having to click through) simply are
| not there because it's already been surfaced.
|
| A driver can even learn to use it with muscle memory
| without looking, since it comes right up in the same
| closest corner of the screen with the same layout every
| time. Again not that anyone would ever need to because
| auto mode.
|
| I don't know why people have to have such strong opinions
| on things they know nothing about.
|
| OK, got a little excited ranting there :-)
| jcims wrote:
| 2021 has no stalks on the steering column.
| jcims wrote:
| In the newest models the drive selection is on the
| screen. There's a 'hidden' set of touch selectors down
| low on the console but they aren't intended for daily
| use.
|
| https://youtu.be/dJdhzFCVkg8?t=49
| sdflhasjd wrote:
| Nevermind the touchscreen controls, that wheel is
| something else. I can't believe it's even legal.
| lqet wrote:
| Great. Now can we get rid of them on washing machines,
| dishwashers, fridges, radios, clocks, and doorbells?
| rightbyte wrote:
| My washing machine is so annoying. Instead of a nob I need to
| press a touch screen to set temperature. And the selector goes
| in a circle for each press so to go one step colder I need to
| press around the circle ... old dishwasher UX were so much
| better.
| dusted wrote:
| That's great news! I don't want a fcking touchscreen in my car.
| qwertyuiop_ wrote:
| I drove my brother's Landrover recently and amount of cognitive
| overload and distraction in just getting to change the volume on
| the touchscreen is so much it almost made me hit the car in front
| on me on a 25 mph traffic.
|
| On the other hand my Mazda CX-5 has a CarPlay touchscreen as well
| as knobs and real switched for volume, Nav and phone. It's orders
| of magnitude easier to drive.
|
| This whole touchscreen started when the MBAs at automakers
| started to barge into design rooms under the assumption that the
| "millennials are attracted to and at home with touchscreens".
| DecoPerson wrote:
| The control dial on BMWs is incredible. Having used both
| extensively, for both in-car entertainment systems and CarPlay, I
| far prefer to use the control dial. Even if it didn't have the
| safety advantage, I would still use it -- it's just so easy.
| Rnewbs wrote:
| My BMW was delayed for a few months due to a screen shortage
| years ago, seems to happen fairly often.
| lbayes wrote:
| I have a 2015 Audi A3. I didn't want the brand at all, but loved
| (and still love) the dial control.
|
| I've been dreading getting a new car specifically because I do
| not want the touch screen.
|
| Fortunately, I still have a few years left of good life in this
| machine, otherwise I'd jump on one of those immediately!
|
| I still wish something like this UI would have caught on.
|
| https://youtu.be/XVbuk3jizGM
| jarek83 wrote:
| Just been chatting with a local dealer guy, and he said that just
| after the covid outbreak the car manufacturers made 2-3 year
| commitments into smaller orders for the electronic parts, so the
| chip producers shifted sales to other markets. So by his point of
| view there is no real shortage, just wrong decisions were made.
| Wonder how true is this.
| philistine wrote:
| At some point in our recent history, car factories were the
| most important and complex factories in our global economy. Now
| fabs have clearly taken that cultural crown from them.
| akmarinov wrote:
| Very true
| cletus wrote:
| Touch screens work on phones because phones have limited real
| estate. Even then some people doggedly held onto their physical
| keyboards for years (eg Blackberrys).
|
| To me, touch screens are usually an excuse for terrible UI/UX.
| Why? Because it makes the maker lazy. "We'll fix/update it later"
| I'm sure is the mantra as they cut corners to get it out the
| door.
|
| Physical buttons force you to do more work up front and think
| about how the UI works.
|
| And of course that "later" rarely ever happens. It's onto the
| next model.
|
| Physical buttons, knobs and switches allow you to use the
| interface without looking at the screen, something incredibly
| important for a driver of a vehicle. You shouldn't have to look
| away from the road to adjust the AC, for example.
|
| This may be a blessing in disguise.
| raisedbyninjas wrote:
| Physical buttons aren't practical for the amount of features a
| modern luxury car has. I was just trying to use a point and
| shoot camera yesterday without a touchscreen and the physical
| buttons were a UI disaster
| hulahoof wrote:
| This seems like the same case the parent raised about touch
| screens, in that a camera also has limited real estate
| m-app wrote:
| I LOVE the iDrive controller and it is a definite plus for
| choosing a BMW over another car with a touchscreen only. My
| current BMW also has a touch screen, but I rarely use it. The
| iDrive controller is perfect for the BMW-specific UI, but also
| works pretty OK even with Apple CarPlay. I would not miss the
| touch screen at all.
| elevanation wrote:
| My pre-touchscreen cars (past and present) were, and are, much
| easier to use.
|
| Of course there are good uses for touch screens, but like many
| technologies, we sometimes over-apply them for the wrong
| functions.
| jcims wrote:
| I think that's the main problem with having them in cars. They
| just attract functionality because it's so easy to add to the
| screen.
| varispeed wrote:
| I hope something will be done with Chinese speculators who buy
| all stock of certain components as soon as it becomes available
| and then resell at 10x margin. What is a chip manufacturer
| gaining when they sell components to them rather than to
| businesses that actually use them in their products? Currently my
| friends company had to hire two more engineers to redevelop
| product to use a different chip manufacturer who so far has not
| been badly affected. But this may become a kind of whack-a-mole
| game. If this causes so much harm to businesses, why agencies
| don't treat this as a national security problem and actually put
| these Chinese companies on terrorist list?
| tim_cookie wrote:
| I got a relatively cheap Honda for daily commute and the car is
| perfect except that it has got touchscreen and it is needlessly
| difficult to use when driving. Never misses to piss me off daily
| romwell wrote:
| I paid more for my old Honda Fit maintenance than the car is
| worth, and will continue doing so until this touchscreen
| nonsense becomes passe.
| sebiw wrote:
| I own a 7 series that has both, touch controls and the iDrive
| knob with physical controls. I mostly use the physical controls
| because BMW's user interface works quite nice with it and the
| physical controls are positioned where the driver's arm is
| resting, making it kind of natural to use. Touchscreen requires
| more leaning towards the screen, making it impractical to use
| while driving (of course, always be cautious while interacting
| with your infotainment while driving).
| drewg123 wrote:
| Read the article: They are replacing touch-screens with a non-
| touch screen and a touchpad controller thing. They are not doing
| the sensible thing and moving back to analog controls!
| stephencanon wrote:
| BMW is quite good about this; they have physical controls for
| almost everything, and voice controls for the rest. Our 2018
| 3-series wagon has a touch screen, but you don't have to use it
| ever for normal driving functions.
| eganist wrote:
| They're not replacing anything; they're simply not installing
| the required components to make touch screens work.
|
| The idrive module has been in every bmw with an infotainment
| system since the 745i in 2003; a touchpad was slowly introduced
| to the center control wheel about a decade later.
|
| The one in the video was also present in my 2014 model. It
| works well; they haven't had much of a reason to change it. The
| touchscreen was intended as an added input method.
| drewg123 wrote:
| Thanks for the clarification.
|
| The impression that I had from the headline, and what seems
| like a large percentage of others had, is that they are doing
| away with modern infotainment and going back to 90s style
| analog controls, which they are not. I think this is
| unfortunate.
|
| It would be nice to have a new, modern retro performance
| sedan with totally analog controls. I think car controls were
| the best in the mid-late 90s, when there were levers and
| switches and dials for everything, and very few computers.
|
| And I say this as a long-time Tesla (X) owner. The Tesla
| climate control never fails to piss me off. Its amazingly
| hard to get it to just blow outside air at me. In an older
| car, nothing would change the fan speed or enable/disable
| recirc if I had the audacity to park my car overnight.
| eganist wrote:
| BMWs still have physical backup controls for most of the
| important things.
| dntrkv wrote:
| This thread is a great example of the HN bubble.
|
| All else being the same, the vast majority of people will opt for
| the car with the bigger touch screen.
| Bayart wrote:
| Sadly, there's no chip that's responsible for their dreadful font
| and color choices.
| wabbu wrote:
| what about blinkers?
| dafoex wrote:
| What, those things you put on horses eyes?
| smitty1e wrote:
| Correct me if I'm wrong, but automobiles predate integrated
| circuits.
|
| One could offer zero-chip models that would:
|
| - continue production in times of chip scarcity, and
|
| - roll on through EMP events with gusto.
|
| Niftier than an NFT, these low-tech solutions.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-11-06 23:02 UTC)