[HN Gopher] Automakers are starting to admit that drivers hate t...
___________________________________________________________________
Automakers are starting to admit that drivers hate touchscreens
Author : NN88
Score : 1229 points
Date : 2023-04-26 22:29 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (slate.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (slate.com)
| teo_zero wrote:
| Let's be clear: the Porsche Cayenne 2024 is still the deathly
| oversized SUV it used to be, just a tiny bit less so because they
| put buttons back in one specific spot!
| StillBored wrote:
| Its just bad UI, companies in the past tested their products and
| solicited feedback before casting it in stone. Be that OS
| vendors, or car manufactures. I'm not sure where to lay the
| blame, but maybe a lot of it has to do with modern CAD, etc which
| allows most of the design to be done virtually before anyone
| actually tries it out.
|
| So its not just an argument of touchscreens vs buttons, its how
| you interact with those buttons too. My pet peve as a driver of a
| car that still has a _key_ is that pretty much all the automakers
| have standardized on a single start button to reflect a state
| machine with 4+ distinct states and the process for transitioning
| between the states varies slightly from vehicle to vehicle. And
| now you might have to differentiate between short pushes and long
| pushes, and spend a moment considering what state its in before
| performing it. A tactile knob with off-acc-on would probably be
| just fine but wouldn't have been as "cool" and costs $.10 more a
| car.
| kshacker wrote:
| > Its just bad UI, companies in the past tested their products
| and solicited feedback before casting it in stone.
|
| I think touch screen has changed the landscape. The rapid
| development of touch user interfaces has put a tremendous
| pressure on car companies with time to market needs and they
| somehow got misled into thinking that they can do the same with
| "we can fix it in the software" mentality. Wish it was that
| easy.
| aardvarkr wrote:
| Lay the blame on the buyer. These things get focus group tested
| out the wazoo. They don't care as much about the actual user
| experience but they sure do care about what the buyer thinks
| about it at the time of purchase. Unfortunately these
| touchscreens look incredibly slick and hyper modern in the show
| room, even if their usability sucks. I can't deny that the
| first time that I saw the Tesla touchscreen I was super
| impressed and thought it looked sexy.
| StillBored wrote:
| maybe they need a couple curmudgeons in their focus groups
| then.
| bedobi wrote:
| Audi have some very recent cars that are completely screen free -
| they have a screen which _completely_ retracts into the dashboard
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_F2dpj5Kas&t=42s
|
| and if you have analog gauges too, there are no screens. (except
| the tiny one between the gauges which doesn't count imo)
|
| They're also completely piano black free. Best car interior maybe
| ever. Thread here
| https://old.reddit.com/r/Audi/comments/w9dkcm/what_models_ha...
| ytreyrty wrote:
| I hate that Porsche has gone all in on the touch screens
| instead of buttons, as they had been one of the last holdouts.
|
| My 911 has physical buttons for pretty much everything, and the
| small touch screen can be turned off so it is completely dark.
| The new models are not interesting to me as they have replaced
| all the gauges and physical buttons with touch screens and
| touch sensitive buttons
|
| and dont get me started on the fact that barely any 911s come
| in manual anymore
| bdavbdav wrote:
| Unfortunately these ones arent the recent ones (that A3 has
| been gone for a couple of years). They went from these style
| screens with MMI controllers in the centre, but if you buy an
| A4 or better now, you get 2 touchscreens and no tactile
| controls for climate etc sadly.
| bedobi wrote:
| Yup the new ones are trash unfortunately, all screens and
| piano black plastic interior
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| Also the VW group, but on the high-end luxury side, the
| rotating display (three positions) of the Bentley Continental
| GT (that car shares its platform with the Porsche Panamera,
| also from the VW group, but the Panamera doesn't have that
| rotating display):
|
| https://youtu.be/JZNGniDpJ-s
| bedobi wrote:
| the side with the analog dials looks amazing
|
| shame they made the dash shiny black though :P I hate it as
| much as I hate touchscreens haha _shakes walking stick_
| LeftHandPath wrote:
| They have many options for the veneer - carbon fiber,
| aluminum, and a number of gorgeous wood options.
|
| If I find the dough I really hope to buy one before they're
| forced to go all EV.
| tom9729 wrote:
| It's a neat feature, but I'd be worried about it getting stuck
| and being unable to retract.
|
| Later model years removed the ability to retract the screen on
| demand, due to backup-camera laws, and the 2021-ish refresh
| ditched the retractable display for an in-dash display similar
| to the 10th-gen Honda Civic (which amusingly, ditched the in-
| dash display in its 11th-gen for the previous A3 style).
|
| This might be cheating but if you want a mostly screen-free
| recent Audi your best bet is probably the TT (or its big
| brother the R8 :-), the only screen is the entire gauge cluster
| and it's certainly not a touch screen.
|
| Just do _not_ get a modern VW with its touch sensitive steering
| wheel controls...
| jimmySixDOF wrote:
| They have also just been promoting the Activesphere Concept Car
| in the last few months that uses Mixed Reality / AR glasses
| developed in collaboration with Magic Leap.
|
| https://youtu.be/f0MC1D3c0m8
| anderspitman wrote:
| Touchscreens are great for developers, but generally terrible for
| users.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| They are cheap, let's face it. Knobs and switches with wiring
| cost money, space, and weight. A flat screen plus voice input
| is simply an economy to save money, space, and weight.
| docorc wrote:
| Cars can use a single button to activate most of the controls by
| using Android Auto/Apple/Tesla style voice commands so they do
| not have to visually do it on touchscreen.
| vrglvrglvrgl wrote:
| [dead]
| throwfaraway9 wrote:
| Now just wait until they realize how most people feel about
| electric cars.
| rc_kas wrote:
| I would buy one if the controls were simple enough. I do not
| want an android with wheels though.
| pfannkuchen wrote:
| I think this mostly applies to bad or cheap touch screens, which
| most cars today have. I used to be strongly in the anti touch
| screen camp, but after getting a car where the touch screen is
| basically an iPad in terms of display quality and touch input
| quality and size, I surprisingly don't really mind it. Good voice
| control also helps a ton.
| zouhair wrote:
| When I'm driving I don't like look away from the road to push a
| "button".
| lolinder wrote:
| The question isn't whether _you_ mind it, the question is
| whether you 're more likely to get in an accident because of
| it.
|
| Without the tactile feedback of a physical button or dial, and
| _especially_ in cases where button position varies based on
| which mode you 're in, it's hard to imagine even a high-quality
| touchscreen being safe.
| sar009 wrote:
| there are only 2 use case for digital screen in a car 1. help
| driver see while reversing 2. navigation
|
| and only one use case for touch-screen 1. navigation
|
| Other than that every use cases can be fulfilled by physical
| buttons. There is certainly no use case for a 16 inch screen.
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| Screens or touchscreens are useless without full visual focus.
|
| Physical buttons can still be used without constantly looking at
| them, this is a huge difference.
|
| Touchscreens should be considered as a low-cost fallback when
| better solutions are unpractical or too costly.
|
| They rarely provide a better experience.
| trollied wrote:
| I can move my left hand down to leg height, and feel 4 buttons
| and a jog dial (and that's for things that aren't on the steering
| wheel). I know what all of them do. I don't need to look. The
| menus are at eye level so I don't need to look away from the
| road. This sort of thing should not be changed to touchscreens.
| liendolucas wrote:
| Screens in cars are completely unnecessary, we have been driving
| without them for 80 or 90 years. You don't really want to get
| distracted when driving. Car makers are putting entertainment
| systems in front of drivers.
|
| I'm shocked that no government hasn't stepped in and regulated
| its push. People are already looking at mobile phones while
| driving despite being told that is extremely dangerous to do so
| and on top of that we also now have theaters on 4 wheels.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Touch screen suck because is hard to remember vs same spot and
| single function. You get 3-4 layers or pressing before getting
| the it. But if you need more features, you also cannot make your
| dash like a 747. So touch screen it is.
| Slava_Propanei wrote:
| [dead]
| danielvaughn wrote:
| It will always amuse me that anyone thought this was a good idea.
| Like everyone looked at the iPhone and thought "hey yeah let's
| put that _everywhere_". Put it on thermostats, put it in cars,
| heck let's put it on a friggin space shuttle. Absolute insanity.
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| I think there are maybe also a fair bit of car manufacturers that
| are simply rushing old converted ICE models with a battery to
| market that also really suck at doing anything with software
| (like VW). It's easier for them to do what they have been doing
| for decades than do something new. It's not so much that they
| don't like touch screens but that they lack the ability to
| develop good software for them. Particularly most manufacturers
| mentioned in the article.
|
| As for dangerous trends and Tesla, they do have excellent safety
| related metrics. There's very little evidence of their cars being
| more dangerous. The opposite actually.
| bombolo wrote:
| No amount of UX genius can make a touchscreen visible when the
| sun is glaring on it.
|
| For the Teslas records, it might be because they're exclusively
| used for short urban trips.
| bottlepalm wrote:
| The roof, back and back side windows on a Tesla are tinted,
| how are you getting screen glare? I've never had that issue.
| concordDance wrote:
| I expect the person you're replying to is speculating
| rather than speaking from experience. People tend to opine
| a lot more on Teslas than other cars when they haven't
| driven them.
| bombolo wrote:
| The first part of your comment didn't mention tesla. It was
| just about the records of accidents that you mentioned
| tesla.
|
| I can only know what you write, not what you had intended
| to write.
| zouhair wrote:
| Besides phones and tablets, seldom touchscreens bring anything
| positive.
| NoZebra120vClip wrote:
| The cab company I use has a touchscreen and POS for use by
| passengers, as is customary.
|
| Cab drivers often try to reach around back and manipulate the POS
| for me, which I detest. They are not supposed to be touching
| that, especially when I am deciding their tip for them.
|
| Anyway, the touchscreen, upon flag drop, immediately invites you
| to tap it thrice if you are vision-impaired, to activate an
| accessible voice interface. I did this once, and it apparently
| disabled the POS and we could't figure out how to pay my fare.
| Never again!
| Unklejoe wrote:
| Can we talk about capacitive buttons while we're at it? Worse in
| every way from a usability perspective. Supposedly more reliable,
| yet I've had plenty of failures.
|
| My damn dishwasher has capacitive buttons...a dishwasher -
| something you use while your hands are wet like 90% of the time.
| Infuriating.
| every wrote:
| Driving itself is an analog activity. Turn a wheel. Press a
| pedal. Check a mirror. Glance at a gauge. Judge a distance. No
| place amongst all that for fiddling with a touch screen. Voice
| commands may be another matter, however...
| blackhaz wrote:
| I wonder what F-22/F-35 pilots think of this. I can't imagine
| messing with touchscreen while pulling 8-9 Gs.
| steveBK123 wrote:
| It's not just the touch screens, it's the contextual menus &
| moving buttons from version to version (ahem, Tesla). It
| completely breaks your muscle memory.
|
| I had to take my car to the dealer for service and they gave me a
| loaner. Both my car & the loaner had physical buttons, knobs and
| dials in addition to touch screen (BMW iDrive). However they were
| different model years / models / iDrive versions so all the
| buttons/dials were in slightly different places.
|
| It felt like driving my Tesla again where the muscle memory is
| lost for adjusting HVAC/wipers/radio since suddenly moved on me.
| It is noticeably more distracting and less safe since you need to
| take eyes off the road more often, for longer.
|
| The ultimate for me is the on-wheel controls & HUD for some basic
| radio, nav, ADAS, speed, etc so you barely even need to look at
| your dashboard, let alone center touch screen.
| davidthewatson wrote:
| Great point, along with the top 3 comments making the case that
| latency and design are huge issues in a moving vehicle, because
| without good will, it's a weapon.
|
| Why do we cover the brake lever with the index and middle
| finger of the right hand on a motorcycle hurtling at barely
| legal speeds?
|
| Because the coming impact is the space between your fingers and
| the brake lever, plus reaction time. Reaction time is a
| function of focus, but the fact that you'll hit the stationary
| object in about a second at 60 MPH depending on its distance,
| governs everything else, save for traction.
|
| https://www.interaction-
| design.org/literature/article/fitts-....
|
| Sadly, in UI/UX design this is well understood. For whatever
| reason, in the last several decades of the ascendance of
| design, we've not seemed to apply Fitts' Law to car driving
| design, presumably because cup holders.
|
| I had hope when Peter Schreyer left Audi and became one of the
| presidents at Kia years later.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Schreyer
|
| However, given the current state of affairs, it's clear that
| cars have won the battle for our hearts and minds. The kids had
| a point when they stopped getting driver's licenses.
|
| Much like autonomy as a general design idea in the culture. I
| can only hope that we have an inflection point where the
| realization is that, as cars get smarter, the resultant
| behavior of the car is a collaboration between car and driver.
|
| That may not have been true when a car was just a mechanical
| object governed by physics, but it clearly is true now.
|
| We could quote any one of McLuhan, Postman, or one of their
| contemporaries, but while their insights portended the dark
| future we occupy, none of their contemporaries intended that
| future.
| fuzzy2 wrote:
| I like touchscreens. They're great for some types of operation,
| like selecting a destination from the map (not by entering an
| address). Or for entering text using an on-screen keyboard (when
| a physical keyboard is not available). So yes, cars should have
| touchscreens!
|
| However, this is all stuff you wouldn't do while driving. So
| while driving, you need something else: physical controls. I
| believe BMW's iDrive knob is the best solution. It's so good,
| other manufacturers copied it. So yes, cars should also have
| physical buttons!
|
| Also, physical buttons _must not_ be touch surfaces. They must be
| actual mechanical physical buttons. My EV has capacitive buttons
| on the steering wheel. They're horrible.
| notorandit wrote:
| > The 2024 Porsche Cayenne. The 2023 model had touchscreens on
| the steering wheel.
|
| It depends on where you out them. Touchscreens on steering wheel
| seems a big thinko to me.
| eschneider wrote:
| If I can't operate it by feel with gloves on, I don't want it. I
| usually turn off the dash lights at night to improve night vision
| so big displays are no good anyways. CarPlay is ok as it'll do
| most of what I need by voice and if it doesn't, it's not
| critical.
| sakex wrote:
| A touch screen with driver buttons and voice command would be
| ideal. The passenger should still be able to man the touch screen
| and the driver should be able to control the interface without
| having to look at it.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| Nothing wrong with touchscreens, just don't rely exclusively on
| them for basic vehicle operations! Thoughtless trend-following
| caused all these UX complaints in the first place, and it sounds
| like the automakers are hoping it will fix them as well. It
| won't.
| water-your-self wrote:
| Going against a trend and being wrong hurts more than following
| the trend and being wrong.
| culi wrote:
| Yeah but being the only one to not follow a trend when the
| trend goes wrong also has a huge advantage. I feel like it
| balances out. Ultimately, designers just need to be more
| thoughtful and purposeful about the choices they make
|
| I also find it really difficult to wrap my head around how
| Tesla's turn signal buttons on their "yoke" could possibly
| have made it through any testing. Did none of the people they
| tested it on use turn signals?? Did they just not test at
| all? It seems like the smallest effort of UX testing would've
| immediately pointed out how terrible this is
|
| Tbh it feels like ultimately it's just companies deciding to
| skimp out on design. Tight deadlines and lazy cost-cutting
| measures probably contribute
| m3kw9 wrote:
| It's either space shuttle controls vs touch screen. There are
| just too many features to fit it in all hardware buttons
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > There are just too many features to fit it in all hardware
| buttons
|
| Operation critical controls are best delivered with buttons.
| The remainder can go on a screen that discourages use while
| driving - where most folks can safely ignore them forever (the
| same way they do for over-featured smart appliances).
| spullara wrote:
| OMG the world is full of whiners these days. Glancing at a touch
| screen doesn't kill you. It is people looking at their phones in
| their hands for minutes at a time.
| VBprogrammer wrote:
| Our car has a decent sized touch screen and I think it's great. I
| can browse Spotify rather whatever CD I left in the car 3 years
| ago, I can use Google maps rather than the rubbish build in
| navigation, I can set the clock to BST without getting the manual
| out etc.
|
| However, none of the cars primary controls are on the touch
| screen. Air-conditioned, volume, gear selector, menus for range
| and fuel consumption all have physical buttons.
| perlgeek wrote:
| That's the optimal solution, IMHO.
|
| You don't want to enter an address in the navigation system
| with buttons or a scroll wheel, that's just horrible. So you
| still need that touchscreen, but hopefully not while driving,
| or only very rarely so.
|
| All the functions that you often need while driving should be
| accessible with buttons or other forms of UI that give you
| tactile feedback, and which you don't have to see to engage.
| andrewmcwatters wrote:
| I wouldn't mind touchscreens as long as these imbecile developers
| would strictly limit UI response time to under 16ms.
|
| In no world where you're barrelling 3,000+ lbs of mass at tens of
| miles an hour should you be distracted by some moronic app or
| subsystem failing to respond in time because it was written by
| under-experienced software "engineers."
|
| Any software running as a part of a motor vehicle should be
| federally regulated to not fail response time tests, and if they
| do, they should be deemed unlawful to be equipped by either the
| manufacturer or the owner.
|
| It's absolutely ridiculous that this still happens today, and it
| doesn't have to.
|
| So what? You've got physical buttons? Big whoop. That physical
| button that takes 500ms to respond is still as dangerous. You've
| just removed one problem.
| blarghyblarg wrote:
| I worked on an infotainment system some years back. Trust me:
| we hated the response times more than you do, and I'm sure you
| hate them a lot. There were, and are, layers and layers of
| issues leading to it.
| krsdcbl wrote:
| I'd like to strongly disagree!
|
| When I'm barreling down the road with 2 metric tons of steel
| under my ass I'll prefer the shittiest tactile UI that let's me
| FEEL by touch alone if a) the command I'm about to issue is the
| desired one and b) if i actually issued the command!
|
| I'll take a physical button or dial for my AC over a touch
| screen submenu slider any day in a car, even if the touchscreen
| was <18ms and button had a second or two of delay.
|
| In this scenario the responsiveness of UI is completely
| irrelevant if it requires me to take my eyes off the street to
| find it and to validate my input in the first place. When i
| operate a secondary control in a car i technically already have
| to shortly compromise ideal safety by taking one hand off the
| steering wheel and thinking about an additional process. That
| might be brief, but things happen FAST at 100 km/h. If __on top
| of that__ I have to stop observing what my car and other cars
| around me are actually doing, hence interrupting the control
| mechanism that would let me interrupt the current action and
| react in the case of imminent danger, I'll be compounding the
| risk of the whole operation (driving) by orders of magnitude.
|
| "Waiting for response" might feel annoying, but it's nowhere
| near the safety concern "looking at a screen on the center
| console to hit the right thing on a glass pane while moving and
| experiencing inertia" will always present. And that's even
| without additional complications like "hitting the wrong thing
| because I didn't look and having to visually debug what i just
| did on the fly, all still while driving".
|
| Touchscreens aren't an issue because their software is bad, but
| because they're the wrong interface in the first place.
|
| If the UX is bad, the best UI won't fix it. And this goes x1000
| for tools that can literally kill me and others.
| adrr wrote:
| I don't know that would be helpful. I hate digging through my
| Tesla's menus to control the wipers even though it is very
| responsive.
| dotancohen wrote:
| In a Tesla, you can press the physical button on the left
| stalk to operate the wipers. Pressing that button performs
| two actions at once:
|
| 1. The wipers perform a full sweep, clearing the windscreen.
|
| And
|
| 2. The wipers' configuration appears on the screen, ready to
| be set to any configuration with a single tap.
|
| I did not like it at first, but after some practice it really
| works well. I still hate the AC controls, though, and must
| enable lane keeping before even trying to adjust the climate.
| fossuser wrote:
| You can put the wipers icon at the bottom bar now, that makes
| it much better.
| ascorbic wrote:
| I'm not sure how they got the idea that it's _ever_
| acceptable to need to press a button to open a menu in
| order to turn wipers on. Particularly when the rain sensor
| is so bad that auto is basically useless.
| davnn wrote:
| The problem is that there is no rain sensor :)
| ascorbic wrote:
| Well, _something_ is trying to make the wipers work
| automatically. It 's just not very good at it.
| nixass wrote:
| That's us solving a problem that hasn't existed until few
| years ago nor should exist in first place. Tesla is really
| trying to reinvent the wheel here
| tomashm wrote:
| In newer software versions, you should be able to control the
| wipers with the left scrolling wheel, right after you have
| activated them with the push button on the left arm.
|
| https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/modelx/en_us/GUID-A5C33F3.
| ...
| Lolaccount wrote:
| Small consolation ... but it's no substitute for poor
| design.
| adrr wrote:
| Two poor decisions. One is to not use a real rain sensor
| and the second is not to pay a couple bucks to put a
| physical dial on the stalk. My other cars i don't even
| need to mess with the wiper controls because the rain
| sensor works great.
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| This is basic soft realtime programming 101, but unfortunately
| it doesn't seem to be taught in schools much. Nor do many
| managers seem to understand that it's even a thing, much less a
| desirable thing, much less a dealbreaker if it's not done.
|
| I also suspect many of these in-vehicle infotainment systems
| are using a non-realtime OS like plain-vanilla Linux without
| PREEMPT_RT.
| bick_nyers wrote:
| Let me see if I am understanding what you are saying correctly.
| Docker microservices running a python backend and a JS frontend
| with 1000 dependencies for a web-based UI for basic car control
| systems?
|
| Edit: Fuck it, let's put some AI in there too. Volume
| adjustments should pass through a 100M parameter model first to
| determine if we should change the volume and by how much.
| hinkley wrote:
| Signing off on interactions has usually been an iterative
| process and so on most projects there's a bit of frog boiling
| going on.
|
| The logarithmic increase in set/insert times as your user base
| swells by orders of magnitude, for instance. This was all fine
| when we had 100 test users in our database. Response time is
| not so great with 100k. The first app I ever did performance
| tuning on essentially had time series data and (when I got
| there) quadratic search time with 2 criteria. Nobody before me
| had bothered putting a year's worth of data into the sample
| data, let alone 5. They also hadn't dreamed of 3 search
| criteria (surprise, cubic time!) Of course before me the app
| was too slow to care - literally could watch the UI paint it
| was so slow.
|
| When you have two buttons on the interface everything is
| snappy. Each new button should reasonably expect logarithmic
| overhead, decent designs often add square root overhead (memory
| costs on real hardware are n^0.5), and bad designs add constant
| or quadratic overhead, and either nobody checks or is so
| focused on the deadline that they can't see the project burning
| down around them. Every day that click takes a few milliseconds
| longer.
| neuronic wrote:
| Hard disagree.
|
| Point 1: I think the failure to respond in time is, while
| annoying, a minor problem. The real issue is that you HAVE to
| look to navigate 3 different incosistent submenus instead of
| just turning a knob using haptics only (unless you own the car
| < 1 week when you are still getting to know it).
|
| I drive a lot of VW ID.3 and Audi A6. The ID.3 is hot garbage
| when it comes to its interface. It regurlarly crashes and
| freezes as well. Winter and freezing temps outside? Too bad the
| software for climate control just crashed. Have fun with your
| frozen windows and mirrors.
|
| The Audi lets me turn all knobs without looking just by feeling
| their surface and clicks. No eyes off the road at any point
| once you know the car.
|
| Point 2: it's much less the software than some assume although
| the engineers aren't entirely blameless. The CPUs used for
| these systems are the absolute ass low end crap you can find on
| the market to drop manufacturing costs by another $200 on your
| $50,000 car. Also management of the engineers is TERRIBLE from
| what I heard from colleagues at 2 different car makers (one
| being VW).
| wkat4242 wrote:
| > That physical button that takes 500ms to respond is still as
| dangerous. You've just removed one problem.
|
| Major accidents are almost always a cascade of errors. It may
| not be perfect, but not having to take eyes off the road can
| really break the chain of a big accident in progress.
|
| A touchscreen UI probably won't cause an accident on its own,
| but it will be a link in the chain of a driver already tired
| and lost in the area, trying to find the button to press to
| turn on the headlights. Because yes recently there was one car
| manufacturer that moved that function to touch also, and
| proudly claimed their software was 100% bug-free. I'm sure the
| audience here knows how ridiculous such a statement is.
| jaclaz wrote:
| Though all in all it is a minor nuisance, my car navigation
| system has this _safety_ feature of randomly displaying over
| the map a popup (that you have to touch /click OK to have it
| go away) about how you shouldn't be interacting with it when
| driving.
|
| For _some reasons_ it tends to pop up every time I am
| approaching or already inside a roundabout, preferrably one
| of those where if you miss the right exit and take the wrong
| one it will take you 20 minutes in the traffic to get back to
| where you were.
| byyll wrote:
| Is there a reason not to have auto start and auto stop
| headlights?
| kaba0 wrote:
| That's only one part of the problem (somewhat mitigated by
| solutions like Apple/Android auto), but the very fact that you
| are expected to touch a small area on the screen when you are
| on a somewhat bumpy road should have never left the engineering
| desk.
| ricardobayes wrote:
| Believe me it's not about the developers. Even just a few years
| ago premium, even luxury makes used a 333 MHz processor in the
| head unit to power their onboard entertainment. Again, it's no
| such much about software - in safety critical automotive ECUs
| load must never reach above 33% or so. The hardware is
| ridiculously underpowered in most cases due to cost cutting.
| Remember most car makers operate on razor thin margins, often
| (much) less than 1k USD per car sold.
| sublinear wrote:
| I agree, but blaming the devs is completely incorrect. In any
| nontrivial piece of sotware most of the latency is added by
| synchronous network requests. I'll leave it to your imagination
| what those are for and whether it was the devs who wanted it or
| the PMs and execs.
| sircastor wrote:
| > because it was written by under-experienced software
| "engineers."
|
| I used to be an infotainment software engineer for an Auto
| maker. There's this idea in the software industry that because
| the software behaves poorly on your car's system, it must've
| been written poorly by someone who didn't know what they were
| doing. In my experience it was almost always a matter of the
| hardware being stretched way past its limits. Your brand new
| 2024 car's system has been in development for 4 years. Product
| people have been picking at the design and asking for changes
| way too late, and someone in accounting has asked the hardware
| contractor to cut more cost off the BOM.
|
| My colleagues were tremendously talented. Some of the brightest
| engineers I've had the pleasure of knowing. The developers
| aren't lazy or inexperienced, they're just being asked to turn
| lead into gold and often get silver.
| chinathrow wrote:
| > In my experience it was almost always a matter of the
| hardware being stretched way past its limits.
|
| Then someone else didn't know what they were doing.
| servercobra wrote:
| Meanwhile some car company is putting a Ryzen APU capable of
| playing Steam games in the infotainment system.
| prng2021 wrote:
| It's great to get your perspective on this. Aside from the
| GPS/navigation features, aren't car infotainment systems
| extremely basic?
|
| We've been controlling heating, cooling, audio source, and
| audio volume since the dawn of time.
|
| How are technical requirements related to these basic
| functions changing such that their UIs haven't been
| absolutely perfected by now? Is the entire infotainment code
| being rewritten all the time so there's no chance to iterate
| and improve on the previous versions work?
| the_overseer wrote:
| Yes. The infotainment code is rewritten every time. By
| different devs. Because that is how automotive industry
| works. This time BMW wants infotainment and a third party
| wins the contract (because it's the cheapest usually). For
| the next BMW car another company wins the contract.
| Everything is rebuilt from scratch.
|
| The components that make up the infotainment a lot of times
| are actually developed by different companies. So
| navigation is one company, media player another etc.
|
| Also, the deadlines usually make no sense and there is zero
| time for any optimization work. It's not the devs, it's the
| way the automotive industry works outsourcing every little
| button on the dash to another (cheapest) company. They just
| don't understand that that mentality doesn't work with
| software. Most of them are mechanical engineers not
| software people.
| concordDance wrote:
| > It's not the devs, it's the way the automotive industry
| works outsourcing every little button on the dash to
| another (cheapest) company.
|
| One thing Tesla did well was inhousing a lot of this.
| kgwgk wrote:
| > Because that is how automotive industry works. This
| time BMW wants infotainment and a third party wins the
| contract (because it's the cheapest usually). For the
| next BMW car another company wins the contract.
| Everything is rebuilt from scratch.
|
| Yeah, that's how the automotive industry works. For each
| car BMW will change the third parties manufacturing each
| piece and every model is completely rebuilt from scratch.
| They literally reinvent the wheels all the time.
|
| You shoudn't read too much into the fact that you have a
| dozen or two of models listed under each version in
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_iDrive because it's
| just a concidence that starting each time from scratch
| they arrived at the same thing.
| the_overseer wrote:
| I've never understood why that is happening. Are they
| trying to make sure there is no knowledge accumulation at
| a single tier 1 supplier? Kind of make sure nobody can
| create a competing product and just sell it to different
| OEMs?
| hyperhopper wrote:
| The poster you replied to was being sarcastic
| the_overseer wrote:
| I actually know for a fact that a new iDrive version was
| reimplemented from scratch even though it was just an
| upgrade from the previous version and there would have
| been enough code to reuse. Maybe he was sarcastic but
| this actually happens a lot.
| kgwgk wrote:
| Do you also know for a fact that each version of iDrive
| has been reimplemented from scratch twenty or thirty
| times - once for each car model?
| the_overseer wrote:
| I don't think that they are reimplemented for every car.
| But the lineup for 2024 will basically have 90% rewritten
| code from the, say, 2022 lineup.
| kgwgk wrote:
| Ok.
|
| That's very different from "This time BMW wants
| infotainment and a third party wins the contract [...]
| For the next BMW car another company wins the contract.
| Everything is rebuilt from scratch."
|
| (And "code being rewritten" is very different from "no
| chance to iterate and improve on the previous version"
| when it comes to perfecting the UI - but it wasn't you
| who introduced that confusion. Rewriting the code could
| actually facilitate incremental improvements to the
| interface - and arguably that's what BMW tries to do.)
| mschuster91 wrote:
| For what it's worth, at least in German auto companies
| it's becoming the norm to demand source code and build
| tooling, precisely to avoid lock-in and constant
| reinventing of the wheel.
| itsoktocry wrote:
| > _Most of them are mechanical engineers not software
| people_
|
| Ah yes, the trillion dollar industry (that's been writing
| software in many forms for decades) just _doesn 't_ have
| people that understand software.
|
| Meanwhile, you have the "software" people at, say, Tesla,
| who has the worst driving interface of all and the iPads
| were melting out of the dash in the summer time. But at
| least the latency was low!
| londons_explore wrote:
| Of those two, I would far prefer to use a Tesla UI than
| any of the other 'infotainment' systems...
|
| Slightly yellowing screen I can deal with. Lag on every
| button press, and random crashes I cannot.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| I'm currently going through a quote cycle and one of my
| requirements for the component is a sub 8min boot, which
| the tier 1/2s are pushing back on as unreasonable. The
| insanity is real.
| carlmr wrote:
| 8 minutes? What component takes 8 minutes to start?
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| That can include booting after an update and self tests,
| but yes, nothing about the component should take that
| anywhere near that long. We just needed a number to
| design the manufacturing workflow and assumed it was a
| reasonable ceiling. They simply don't want to do the
| (potential) optimization work as part of their initial
| contract if they somehow manage to exceed it.
| jes5199 wrote:
| the thing is, even the brightest of us are still terrible.
| There's no such thing as a good software developer
| ryan-allen wrote:
| My top of the line Android Auto compatable head unit is
| pretty ordinary. A RAM mount on the windscreen holding my
| phone is significantly more responsive!
| DanielHB wrote:
| my experience working with industrial manufacturing is that
| there is ALWAYS a push to cut costs and the SoC that runs
| your software is usually the first thing to get to the
| chopping block. Given it is extremely hard to gauge how well
| software will perform before it is actually built and the SoC
| is chosen way ahead of time it leads to bad performance
|
| And from the other side, there is a big push to add more and
| more fluff to make the UI design sleek, you could make it
| performant if you used DOS-style interfaces but no product
| manager is going to allow that and making animations from
| scratch (vs using a platform like Android or browsers that
| has a ton of abstractions to create fancy UIs) is extremely
| costly
| closeparen wrote:
| Car infotainment as responsive as a 2004 iPod would be earth-
| shattering. I refuse to believe that in 2019 the hardware to
| do this was a material expense on a $25,000 car.
| andrewmcwatters wrote:
| That still just sounds like people not knowing what they're
| doing.
|
| In no world would automakers say, "Hey you know, we just did
| all of this tire engineering with this rubber, but let's
| change the composition at the last minute and not retest all
| of its physical properties."
|
| So, why should it be any different with software? Because
| some sucker PM didn't have the brains to say, "We can't
| actually do that."?
| teeray wrote:
| It feels like there's some derision towards the
| infotainment software engineering since it's perceived as
| not safety critical. It's in the name, "infotainment"! Fun
| and optional! It's not like you're working on the
| PFD/MFD/EICAS on an Airbus. "So what, the seat heater
| button lags sometimes. Not gonna kill someone like the
| tires. Ship it" says some MBA higher-up.
|
| But then the seats kick on automatically when the car
| starts and the driver tucks in with her morning coffee for
| a commute down the highway. The coffee kicks in, the cabin
| heats up, and suddenly that warm seat is like sitting on a
| griddle. She taps on the menu to bring up the seat
| controls, then lag, then has to hit the seat heat button
| twice to go from "high" to "low" to "off", lagging each
| time. Oh, she hit it three times, now it's on high again.
| Tap, tap, tap, tap... Meanwhile she has crossed three lanes
| of traffic and is staring down a jersey barrier at 70+ mph.
| switchbak wrote:
| I know you're getting a lot of pushback here, but you're
| totally right. Qt (among others) has been a thing in the
| embedded space for decades, and we've had snappy UIs on sub
| gigahertz CPUs for decades. I just don't buy that's it's a
| matter of under specced hardware.
|
| I'd actually buy that it's more a matter of the corporate
| sausage making machine that turns ok hardware and talented
| developers with good intentions into an output of barely
| usable poorly performing crap. Ie: exactly how we end up
| with something like Spotify.
| pySSK wrote:
| > I'd actually buy that it's more a matter of the
| corporate sausage making machine
|
| This. The devs don't have a say in the tech stack. The
| decsion is usually outsourced to the lowest bidder. Other
| than Tesla and Rivian, I can't think of any OEMs that
| I've dealt with who have full control over control over
| their display. Almost everyone outsources it to the
| Koreans who have a lock on that market - i.e. OEMs send
| in their designs but it's actually implemented by LG,
| Samsung etc. From what I've seen, any changes or new
| additions to any on-screen components has a 2 year lead-
| time unless (not a typo) it's safety critical or
| catastrophic in some other way.
| hikawaii wrote:
| The corporate sausage making machine is merely only doing
| what it's customers want, for the price they'll pay,
| nothing more, nothing less.
|
| A lot of these are good impulses but also feel like an
| unfunded mandate, like rear back up cameras being
| mandatory - obligating everyone pay a thousand dollars
| more every year.
|
| The feel good comes from the DOT, the cost gets paid by
| the customer.
| pySSK wrote:
| It's not that that the sucker program manager doesn't have
| the brains, or at least less so than PMs in other fields.
| It's that the PMs in automotive are not empowered to say
| that. There are 7-8 layers of management above them, all of
| whom are being shat on by the layer above them, and there's
| a greater disincentive to causing delays to a vastly
| interconnected program vs. staying in their lane and
| polishing the turd they've been assigned the best they can.
|
| Another big problem is a very high employee turnover and
| there is no redundancy in roles and skillsets because of
| severe cost cutting through the ages. Tech is chosen by
| senior engineers but vision, knowledge and experience are
| lost and implementation suffers every time anyone moves
| companies. My company has been working on an automotive
| project for the last 3.5 years. I deal with around 10
| people on at least a weekly basis. Out of those 10, only
| one was around at the start of the project. We're also
| working with another Tier 1, where only 2 out the 12 have
| been around for 3 years.
| 4gotunameagain wrote:
| A computer running at 2.048 MHz and with 2048 words RAM took
| men to the moon.
|
| I don't buy it that a 4 year old SoC cannot run GPS
| navigation, play music, do whatever a car infotainment system
| does, without half a second delay
| berkle4455 wrote:
| Dude Winamp was a clean, simple and wickedly responsive UI
| that allowed a multitude of real-time audio tweaks and
| supported playlists with thousands of files. This was in the
| late 90's running on 166Mhz processors with maybe 16MB of
| system ram.
|
| Are you saying modern car infotainment systems have fewer
| resources allocated to the UI?
| gjadi wrote:
| I haven't yet worked on automotive stuff but I work in the
| embedded space.
|
| We're using small MCU (not CPU) to drive 480x272 or 800x600
| screen. 240Mhz, 8MB of RAM. For example on ESP32-S2 or
| ESP32-S3.
|
| If you had GPS, bluetooth, wifi, etc. to the mix, yeah
| that's a challenge and you need to make your UI pretty
| simple.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Nearly everything automotive now has a GPU. When you have
| a GPU, even a very low power one, graphics get far
| easier. simple operations like "fade from this screen
| into that screen at 60 fps" become easy. They would be
| impossible with CPU graphics, simply because a slow CPU
| can't update every pixel on the screen at 60 fps anyway.
|
| Despite that, automotive graphics ramain laggy because
| they normally build something barely gpu accelerated
| using java or QT or something else laggy by nature...
| jlokier wrote:
| At the highest resolution of the GP comment, 800x600, and
| a 240MHz CPU/MCU and 8MB RAM, 60fps smooth updates for
| things like scrolling, scaling, and drawing new buttons
| and icons should normally be possible with the CPU alone.
| Fading and blending large areas of the screen won't be,
| but small areas will be fine.
|
| Basically anything that involves copying pixels or solid
| fills without per-pixel calculations. 60fps at 800x600 is
| 28.8Mpixel/s. Copying and filling at that rate should be
| achievable by a 240MHz CPU with some tight coding. The
| rest is 2d geometry, mostly axis-aligned, with relatively
| few edges. That's not demanding at all.
|
| (I used to write 2d and 3d rendering engines for slower
| CPUs than that.)
|
| A GPU is necessary for fancier effects like fades and
| shading, but the basics can be smooth on a CPU and the
| fancy stuff too if confined to smaller areas.
|
| Also, for the car, people would be happy enough if it
| could do a consistent 30fps I think.
|
| Those annoyingly slow GUI updates you tend to see on TV
| set top boxes are not slow because of the hardware...
| it's usually the software not being written with sleedy
| rendering in mind.
|
| All that said, you're right that if there's a GPU or even
| just a Blitter, it should be used and then the CPU speed
| almost doesn't matter as the geometry calculations are so
| simple.
| gjadi wrote:
| Yeah a GPU makes things easier. Note that you can do it
| with Java, we do it at $work.
|
| Anyway, when you're designing your UI, you've to take
| into account the computation power available and design
| around that, otherwise you're doomed.
| antisthenes wrote:
| Automotive is different. They're selling a $30,000 car
| attached to every CPU, there's no reason to have to
| penny-pinch on the hardware, when an additional $50 would
| quadruple the specs.
| Dalewyn wrote:
| >Are you saying modern car infotainment systems have fewer
| resources allocated to the UI?
|
| _Relatively_ speaking: Yes.
|
| Response lag is always because the hardware is _chugging_
| to process all the bits in time (they 're not in time).
| Between underprovisioned hardware and shittily written
| software, hell yeah fewer resources are allocated to the
| UI.
|
| We need a small supercomputer's worth of resources
| allocated to bring the software of today up to snap like it
| was the 90s.
| philsnow wrote:
| You've just reminded me that I lived in a time when my
| desktop machine was not powerful enough to decode and play
| MP3s in real time. I had to decode to wav files and play
| those.
|
| This was in a time when far fewer instructions were
| accelerated on the cpu, and my cpu at the time was
| something like a 66MHz 486-dx2, and even the (Frauenhofer)
| mp3 codec wasn't as optimized as it was later.
| berkle4455 wrote:
| Gotta use that turbo button bro
| randomdata wrote:
| Are you saying that you want to control a car's
| infotainment system with a keyboard and mouse while staring
| at a CRT monitor?
| uncletaco wrote:
| Yes, unironically. Give me tactile buttons and a near
| zero latency screen.
| P_I_Staker wrote:
| Yeah this is nonsense. If not for hardware considerations,
| probably some bureaucratic nonesense. Disputes between teams,
| or suppliers*, something fell through the cracks because it
| was nobody's problem; stuff like that.
|
| Probably not because they lack 10x l33t coding skills, and
| have fat fingers.
|
| * I'm not sure if people realize that many automotive dev
| teams are buying enormous stacks of software from outside
| parties that often have motivation to throw you under the
| bus... if it's not an external supplier, it's probably
| another team on a different continent... but maybe it's
| different in infotainment?
| tasuki wrote:
| > In my experience it was almost always a matter of the
| hardware being stretched way past its limits.
|
| What aspects of the hardware would lead to 500ms response
| times?
| zamnos wrote:
| Underpowered CPU being asked to do way more work than it
| properly has capacity for.
| tasuki wrote:
| I bet the "underpowered CPU" is way faster than the
| supercomputers of not that long ago.
|
| Way more work, as in, turn up the volume or display
| another thing on the screen?
|
| How do you explain that not that long ago, when CPUs were
| slower, interfaces were faster?
| fps_doug wrote:
| Plus 400 layers of abstraction because the lowest bidder
| doesn't know any actual software engineering and every
| time they face a problem they add yet another library to
| the project that someone on SO mentions because the
| accompanying sample code in the answer has the least
| amount of lines.
| vultour wrote:
| This absolutely boggles my mind. I had to do some
| javascript recently, and every time I had what I thought
| was a very basic question the most upvoted answer was
| "just npm install this library, and use this one-liner".
| I honestly never experienced this before with any other
| language, it's horrifying.
| alkonaut wrote:
| Unless the hardware can and will be upped from a $20 to a
| $200 SoC because it's required to keep response times low,
| then someone isn't doing their job. There has obviously been
| mountains of specs during these projects, but the most
| important one - the response time - was obviously overlooked.
|
| I'm not saying like the GP that this indicates inexperienced
| developers, but it does indicate poor technical leadership
| and priorities. Further, good/senior developers would have
| been more likely to call this out.
| londons_explore wrote:
| A higher powered SoC might help make it lag-free... But the
| real solution is simply to put in the requirements that 90%
| of taps must be fully responded to within 100ms. Animations
| must complete within 350ms and be 60 fps. Dragging must
| have a glass to glass latency of under 50 ms. Booting from
| door open to usable must be done in 5000 ms.
|
| While we're there, lets put in the requirement that a
| random joe from the street, with no training, when given
| the UI and asked to complete a task (eg. Play me some
| coldplay, turn on the window defroster, pair a bluetooth
| phone, get directions to the nearest gas station), must be
| able to figure it out within 20 seconds and 6 taps on
| average.
| ambicapter wrote:
| There's a 0% chance 4 yr old hardware can't handle what GP is
| asking it to do.
|
| > Product people have been picking at the design and asking
| for changes way too late
|
| Sounds like classic everything-bolted-on-never-refactored-
| always-add-features you see in the vast majority of
| companies. Which is fine if you're making a social app or CRM
| but not okay when talking about heavy machinery. No company
| ever prioritizes making things snappy and it's ultimately
| always on the engineers to push back. Sorry, this one is
| still on the software developers to me.
| kaba0 wrote:
| 4 yr old what hardware? There are many many categories
| ranging from microchips barely using any electricity.
| randerson wrote:
| Even if the infotainment has been in development for 15
| years, all new cars I've played with seem less responsive
| than a 1st-generation iPhone despite having a UI that is no
| more capable. Either the engineers aren't making the most of
| the hardware or the hardware is underpowered by a few
| decades.
| ihatepython wrote:
| > all new cars I've played with seem less responsive than a
| 1st-generation iPhone despite having a UI that is no more
| capable.
|
| The first gen iPhone is highly responsive and has a highly
| capable UI, more so than even the current gen iPhone.
|
| It's not the engineers, it's you who doesn't have a clue.
| taeric wrote:
| Seem is doing a lot of lifting there. For one, there is no
| generation of iPhone that is safe to use while driving.
| Such that you have a ton more tolerance for a phone than
| you would a car system. Mostly for good reasons.
|
| It doesn't help that iphones from that time frame aren't
| really in use today. Car systems are.
| kaba0 wrote:
| Yeah, CarPlay is definitely not a thing..
|
| Also, maybe the expected lifetime of something used to
| turn up and down the volume and show a map while being in
| a fixed case and not even having its own battery is
| different than a device running on battery, thrown around
| in everyday life and literally being pressed on 0-24. And
| even then an iphone from the last 5 years might well be
| expected to run for 5 more with a battery replacement at
| most. Mobile hardware went over a huge change in this
| timeframe.
| taeric wrote:
| I confess I am not a frequent driver. I do frequently get
| mad at my phone. And my computer. Though, not as often as
| it seems the average hn visitor does. :)
|
| I did not mean my post to dismiss the idea that we should
| expect better. I'm just worried that the practices we put
| up with elsewhere in software would not, necessarily, be
| the answer.
| masklinn wrote:
| > or the hardware is underpowered by a few decades.
|
| Wouldn't surprise me, automotive-grade components tend to
| trade power for durability & certs, and then you cut down
| on BOM.
|
| And then the infotainment is hardly ever a visible make or
| break, people will shrug, then sigh heavily for years as
| they try to use the POS.
| Vespasian wrote:
| I can imagine that customers are annoyed by laggy UIs but
| don't weigh that very highly when deciding to buy a new
| car.
|
| Especially if the competition is roughly equally slow, the
| costs to engineer a responsive solution might be to high
| for its impact on sales.
|
| Consumers, being used to feature rich phones, may indeed
| value feature count over quality (for the entertainment
| System). Despite what OEMs claim a car is first and
| foremost a means of transportation and a "software
| Plattform" only after that.
| donalhunt wrote:
| I think it's a growing factor and the linked article
| would indicates that manufacturers are receiving feedback
| about it.
|
| It's not clear whether that feedback is from sales
| channels (i.e. potential customers are shunning
| particular products) or from service channels (customers
| are reporting issues that require additional development
| spend resulting in profits being eroded).
|
| Personally, I've been looking for a new car for 3+ years
| and the quality of controls (which are nearly all
| touchscreen based these days) is a major factor.
|
| This is also a reflection that trust in car manufacturers
| to address software related issues is low - they are used
| to designing and building cars that are churned out in 3+
| year cycles. Moving to a scenario where the product is
| changing monthly is a huge change. My 13 year old current
| car is extremely solid and the controls don't change
| month to month - something that does happen without any
| customer choice in more recent times. :/
| wruza wrote:
| _customers are annoyed by laggy UIs but don 't weigh that
| very highly when deciding to buy a new car_
|
| UI is not something you can evaluate on a 30 min test
| drive under sales pressure. Sometimes there's no way to
| test it (no rain, no snow, no free straight road, no
| immediate glitches). And there's no reviews that cover
| it. It's not a weighted decision, it's a decision out of
| only parameters that are most obvious.
|
| The same way you play a lottery with e.g. a washing
| machine, whether it beeps after unlocking the door or you
| have to go and sit near it like an idiot for a whole
| minute.
| amluto wrote:
| I'm willing to credit this type of feature creep for some of
| the problem, but only some.
|
| Decades ago, we had hardware that was so much less capable
| than anything anyone has put in a car in ten years that the
| comparison is absurd. Nonetheless, those old systems were
| often very capable of doing useful things, and the UIs were
| often very, very fast by modern standards. And a lot of this
| was that the software stack was tuned for performance and
| latency and did not do things that hurt latency too much, and
| this came at a substantial modularity cost.
|
| Back when a TI calculator with a whole OS running on a Z80
| was an order of magnitude or so faster than your average new
| car, it didn't have a compositor (which still eats a good
| frame or so of latency, maybe more, and, as an industry we
| still don't know how to solve this). It ran an OS that was
| surely far harder to tweak than a modern car stack, but it
| had fewer layers and could be kept performant. An Apple ][
| and its clones were, of course, much faster than a TI
| calculator, and we still can't match that level of
| performance.
|
| A group of engineers that were willing to keep the managers
| away and make a simple, limited-purpose system, could surely
| get excellent performance out of any currently available car
| computer hardware, but it would come at a cost. Buzzwords
| would not happen :) Also, the software developers had access
| to full data sheets for the hardware, and when you told the
| hardware to put something in its framebuffer, it was there,
| and no blobs or firmware were in the middle.
|
| I still remember when Windows 2000 launched with "layered
| windows": an application could opt in to being composited,
| and it would gain the ability to be translucent, but it came
| at a very obvious performance cost. Sadly, 23 years later,
| that performance cost is still there, but it's not opt-in any
| more.
| klodolph wrote:
| The kind of development you're describing happens in
| aerospace. I know some people who work in aerospace.
| They're not any smarter than the people who work in
| automotive, but the people in aerospace have a much higher
| tolerance for dealing with bureaucracy, and management is
| much happier to get something less impressive but reliable.
| DanielHB wrote:
| automative main problem is the constant push to cut costs
| which leads to worse SoC being shipped. Aerospace profit
| margins are much higher (or don't matter for gov
| programs) so they don't need to cut costs that much on
| computer hardware
|
| > management is much happier to get something less
| impressive but reliable.
|
| ^ this is accurate though. Management wants bells and
| whistles (animations) which are hard to build without
| abstraction layers
| hulitu wrote:
| The automotive's industry answer to safety and security is
| complexity. And it is only getting worse.
| nyanpasu64 wrote:
| Even as someone who believes in the indefensible bloat of
| modern software, I'd say TI-OS on my 84+ (from using it in
| high school and college several years ago) is not exactly
| the fastest to use:
|
| - Graphing a plot was slow due to slow CPU and high-
| precision math libraries (could take 3-10 seconds depending
| on function complexity and detail)
|
| - MathPrint mode slows down printing expressions to an
| extent, IIRC even moving the cursor through history felt
| sluggish.
|
| - The B&W LCD screen with slow color transitions adds more
| latency than a compositor does.
|
| - Garbage collecting the flash memory could take _dozens_
| (IIRC) of seconds, and would happen unannounced when
| manipulating saved programs (IIRC not in regular
| calculations).
| stonogo wrote:
| I beat Doom on a TI-84. I'm not sure I buy this.
| onion2k wrote:
| Doom does very little work to draw each frame. It does a
| handful of small calculations to update the game state,
| and then traverses a BSP tree and draws some vertical
| blocks for walls followed by a flood fill for the floor
| and ceiling (although I suspect that was missing on the
| TI-84 ports because filling is slow). Calculating and
| drawing a complex graph often requires far more
| operations.
| Lio wrote:
| That's what's wonderful about Doom. The simplicity of
| what it does belies the effort put into achieving that on
| limited hardware.
|
| When it come out it was mind blowing and I think it's a
| testament to what can be done when people actually care
| about the product.
|
| I suspect the issue with software for consumer goods in
| general is a stake holder/project management one and not
| software engineering.
|
| If the stake holder cares more about a tick list of
| features than how well the features work there's not much
| the engineer can do. In my experience stake holders are
| often much more interested in their burn down graphs and
| Gantt charts than in getting a really polished core which
| could later scale quickly with just config.
|
| You need a product owner with real vision and
| understanding of what good looks like. It's almost a
| cliche now to reference Steve Jobs but he really did get
| that a few really excellent features are better than a
| laundry list of stuff that sucks.
| john_the_writer wrote:
| Yep.. and oddly the stake holder who want more features
| are the customer.
|
| I want a radio, a cd player and AC. I don't even use the
| Bluetooth, because I don't talk on the phone when I
| drive.
|
| The features on these new cars do IMHO too much.
| Gordonjcp wrote:
| I adapted the very old FM/AM, cassette, and external CD
| changer in my very old Range Rover to have Bluetooth
| because it doesn't have an aux input and my phone doesn't
| have a headphone jack anyway, and I want to listen to
| music or audiobooks off it when I'm driving.
|
| I looked into reversing the protocol between the CD
| jukebox and the stereo, and using an Arduino to inject
| the appropriate commands - maybe even get the "next" and
| "back" track buttons working too - but in the end I just
| fitted a cheapy bare-PCB bluetooth deelie into the
| cassette deck and wiring it to permanently think it has a
| tape in.
|
| It works pretty well, and it looks pretty standard. My
| phone sticks to the flat 1990s dashboard (remember when
| cars didn't have to have swoopy curves everywhere?) with
| a couple of bits of double-sided sticky Velcro, and plugs
| into a USB-C socket fitted where the lighter socket used
| to be.
|
| Good old farm truck technology.
| George83728 wrote:
| > _Doom on a TI-84_
|
| Not really though. You played a different game using a
| much simpler sort of engine (probably a raycaster,
| similar to wolf3d) with much simpler level geometry
| (probably square on a grid, and probably without stairs,
| windows through walls, elevating platforms, etc) There
| are several games like that on the z80 line of TI
| calculators, for instance Gemini: https://www.ticalc.org/
| archives/files/fileinfo/247/24742.htm...
|
| But the real Doom isn't a simple raycaster, it uses an
| engine that exists in the space between a raycaster and a
| true 3d game like Quake. A so-called "2.5D engine". The
| level geometry had height data, but couldn't overlap
| itself (so no navigable bridges unless you fake it using
| raising and lowering platforms (or teleport the player to
| another part of the level, like the Build engine did.)
| Rooms could have arbitrary polygonal shapes, walls
| weren't all at right angles to each other, which
| complicated the process of rendering and necessitated the
| use of BSP trees to traverse the level geometry
| efficiently.
|
| I know of one instance of such a game engine being
| created for the 83/84 z80 lines of calculator, detailed
| in a series of blog posts here:
|
| http://www.benryves.com/journal/3720656
|
| http://www.benryves.com/journal/3724115
|
| http://www.benryves.com/journal/3725786
|
| http://www.benryves.com/journal/3728004
|
| http://www.benryves.com/journal/3729994
|
| http://www.benryves.com/journal/3735869
|
| http://www.benryves.com/journal/3739423
|
| AFAIK these gifs represents the pinnacle of a Doom-like
| engine on the z80 line of calculators:
|
| http://www.benryves.com/images/nostromo/bsp/2010.11.28/Mo
| vin...
|
| http://www.benryves.com/images/nostromo/bsp/2010.11.07/Wa
| lkt...
| amluto wrote:
| The main latencies in TI-OS (from memory) boil down to
| actual computation (graphing, solving equations, etc),
| the really slow LED, and those occasional slowdowns (GC).
|
| Of course computation was slow on the slow, under-
| featured CPU, but that was to be expected. My car's
| touchscreen system doesn't do anything that is
| computationally complex -- a computer from the late 90s
| could run a media player and do work at the same time,
| and my car's CPU is faster.
|
| The LCD is what it is. I'm talking about latency too when
| the pixels start trying to change. Anything with a CRT
| avoided this problem.
|
| And GC is a fair criticism. But my car's touchscreen is
| _always_ slow. Oh, and it also often. takes a minute or
| two to start working when I get on the car.
| DanielHB wrote:
| if you make the UI software more performant the sourcing
| team just picks a cheaper SoC in order to cut costs. There
| is little incentive to bend your ass backwards to make
| performant software when cutting SoC costs doesn't come up
| on your team's KPIs for upper management
| barrkel wrote:
| I guess that's why you only remove the delay loop just
| before shipping.
| john_the_writer wrote:
| Feature flag it :)
| airtonix wrote:
| [dead]
| [deleted]
| bluSCALE4 wrote:
| I buy this. Did you all forget the GTA5 loading delay caused
| by a JSON added after the game was developed in game purchase
| items.
| hsbauauvhabzb wrote:
| A talented software developer should know how to use the
| phrase 'no' Effectively.
| the_overseer wrote:
| And a talented manager should know when to say "Ok. I will
| find somebody else to do it then. For cheaper". You are
| easily replaceable.
| hsbauauvhabzb wrote:
| The kind of manager I'd happily walk from. Either way, I
| won't be doing pointless work that inevitably leads to
| failure - said manager can enjoy their low quality
| development team and failed outcomes.
|
| When the managers bosses see the manager failed a project
| after firing all the people who said it would fail, it
| won't look good for them.
| wiseowise wrote:
| > And a talented manager should know when to say "Ok. I
| will find somebody else to do it then. For cheaper". You
| are easily replaceable.
|
| Our hiring rate disagrees.
|
| That might be true for run-of-the-mill sweatshops, but
| not for any tier 2+ companies.
| ISO-morphism wrote:
| I believe that the engineers are competent at developing
| software, and think that a lot of the quality issues are due
| to engineers abdicating authority over the software to
| managers and never saying "No, adding in that feature at this
| point in the timeline is going to make this a steaming pile
| of shit and I refuse to do it and still call myself a
| software engineer."
|
| I get that we have families to feed, but I've seen far too
| much of a mindset shift in fellow engineers into thinking
| that we're warcraft peons rather than professionals. "The
| business" has engineering feedback as a necessary input, and
| speaking individually with steakholders they expect this -
| they'll push until we push back.
| Transfinity wrote:
| There's no incentive for an engineer to do that. Saying yes
| and delivering crap gets you a bonus, hard truths get you
| shuffled around or made redundant. There's no real
| consequence for delivering crap, so that's what happens.
|
| Contrast this with other engineering fields, where the
| engineer is truly responsible for the decisions they make.
| My civil engineer friends face losing their licenses, fines
| or jail time if they are found professionally negligent.
| The same is true of other high stakes professions - think
| doctors, lawyers, even accountants. It's probably not
| appropriate for most software engineering roles, but for
| safety critical systems it doesn't seem far-fetched to me.
| pjmlp wrote:
| It should be, at least on countries where Software
| Engineering actually means something, and not a title
| that one can easy peasy call themselves after a six weeks
| bootcamp.
| emodendroket wrote:
| Oh this again. Yeah a certification is going to solve all
| the problems.
| pjmlp wrote:
| It will, when it comes with a liability just like any
| other Engineering position.
| peterfirefly wrote:
| I think it's the liability that matters, not the
| certification -- which usually translates to "X years in
| a government facility, pretending to learn something
| which may or may not be misguided and out of date."
| john_the_writer wrote:
| Yep agreed. If you raise a flag, you'll be looking for
| work. Head down and build crap, and you have a job for
| life. I see it all the time. I've lived it.
|
| Sometimes you have to decide, do I build a better system,
| or do I feed my family. The craft and world suffer,
| but...
| alkonaut wrote:
| The incentive is having a rewarding job where you develop
| products you are proud of. Once I have food to eat, this
| is by far the most important incentive for me and it
| _greatly_ outweighs e.g my desire for promotions, raises
| and bonuses. If I can have both, great. If I need to
| choose one, it's the fulfilling job and product pride
| every day.
| cto_of_antifa wrote:
| [dead]
| listenallyall wrote:
| kinda weird that expressing pride in one's job and
| prioritizing excellence over financial remuneration would
| be downvoted so vigorously
| geraldwhen wrote:
| No thanks. I've got a family to support for at least 18
| more years, and I could be laid off at any second.
|
| I need to make as much money as possible in the little
| time as possible, and the best way to do this is to stop
| worrying and learn to love the bomb.
| spacemadness wrote:
| The product team for the touchscreen control system
| scoffs at the engineering team's concerns because
| "customers don't care, they're wowed by the touchscreen
| at the dealer lot." It's only after purchase that the
| regret sets in. Product teams know this and exploit it.
| The business side knows they're selling a steaming pile
| to customers and don't really care for engineering's
| concerns. In most situations they'll override these
| concerns forcefully. It's a hard pill to swallow as an
| engineer in these companies.
| hilbert42 wrote:
| _" My civil engineer friends face losing their licenses,
| fines or jail time if they are found professionally
| negligent."_
|
| These standards ought to be applied more widely and done
| in conjunction with tightened consumer law. In many cases
| the quality of electronics equipment has gone to the
| dogs. I could give instances of appliances I use that can
| only be used in a hobbled mode--numbers of published
| functions simply don't work--because their firmware bugs
| are so bad.
|
| These devices are so bad they wouldn't pass as early
| developmental mockups let alone early prototypes in a
| professional engineering establishment. I'm damned if I
| know why the hell consumers put up with the situation and
| haven't revolted, it remains a mystery.
|
| Things won't improve until they do.
| emodendroket wrote:
| I don't think jail time for making software too bloated
| and slow for your liking is a serious proposal.
| nordsieck wrote:
| > I don't think jail time for making software too bloated
| and slow for your liking is a serious proposal.
|
| Especially since the boundaries of "making software" is
| pretty blurry.
|
| Would creating a suboptimal Excel spreadsheet count as
| "making software too bloated"? A pretty strong case could
| be made for that.
|
| Would creating a clunky personal homepage count as
| "making software too bloated"? A pretty strong case could
| be made for that.
| bomewish wrote:
| You don't find the idea both kinda hilarious and somehow
| vaguely appealing even though it's a bit nonserious at
| the same time? I love it as a thought experiment.
| emodendroket wrote:
| Ideas that are silly thought experiments have a way of
| actually getting implemented once too many people start
| paying attention to them.
| bolanyo wrote:
| I'm not a strong advocate of this, or of jail time in
| general for non-violent offenders, but as a thought
| experiment, suppose that Acme Auto release updates to
| their car's software which make the UI more laggy and
| less intuitive to navigate. After they do, there are a
| cluster of similar accidents - distracted driver hits a
| pedestrian when they should have stopped. These can be
| shown statistically to affect Acme models with the
| software updates significantly more than any other make
| of car, and more than Acmes which don't have the update.
| A class action lawsuit is started against Acme by both
| crash victims and drivers. In discovery, correspondence
| between software engineers is found. Engineer A writes to
| Product Manager B and says that they don't think the new
| build is safe, because they were forced to compromise
| latency performance, and button placement is now more
| surprising, having changed again. QA Engineer C chimes in
| and says that since the changes apply to features
| critical to driving such as de-misting, they won't be
| prepared to sign off on the change. PM B says that they
| have to go with the new version in order to meet internal
| targets on engagement with entertainment apps. They
| overrule A and C, as company rules allow them to do.
|
| Do you think B should face any personal consequences
| within a public justice system? Or Acme is just liable
| for a big payout and then upper management decide who
| takes the blame?
| neural_thing wrote:
| Singapore has criminal liability for software
| malfunctions. I don't think they've sent anyone to jail
| for a software bug yet, but the law allows for it.
| iSnow wrote:
| I don't own the company. I will push back a bit, but if
| management insists on using the foot-gun, why would I get
| on their bad side? They are adults as well and if they
| don't agree with me, I do as they tell me.
| the_overseer wrote:
| The industry works as follows: the OEM (Daimler, Toyota
| etc.) says they want a software spec implemented. Other
| companies (Tier 1 suppliers) bid to win the contract. The
| cheapest usually wins.
|
| If you have a company and refuse to take the crazy
| deadlines and low quality and low pay then don't worry,
| there is another Tier 1 supplier across the street who will
| do it for you. OEMs know that you need them more than they
| need you.
| usrusr wrote:
| Working on a product vs working on a project. The latter
| means that the usefulness of the thing produced is a non-
| goal because the customer is not a user.
| cbertoldi wrote:
| That was true and it might be true for most of the
| production process, but as you may read in this article
| https://arstechnica.com/cars/2023/02/mercedes-ceo-tells-
| ars-... they are actively working to change and speed up
| the software development process:
|
| Kallenius explained the current system to Ars Technica
| like this: "So some engineer in
| Sindelfingen comes up with a concept. You have to write
| that down. You have to send it to the supplier that needs
| to be quoted. Then procurement people need to negotiate
| with each other. Then that supplier goes to some sub-
| supplier in Eastern Europe and wherever they do. It goes
| back up the chain again. It gets tested and nine months
| later, you have actually changed something in your
| infotainment system. Now you go into the ESH [Mercedes'
| electric Software Hub]. To say, let's change this and you
| just do it."
| Lio wrote:
| Something missing here is that the Tier 1 supplier will
| take one look at the spec and know that latency hasn't
| been mentioned or considered.
|
| They will not tell the customer this because either the
| customer doesn't care, so why waste time and resources
|
| ...or when the customer realises they will open a Change
| Request to fix the issue. Change Requests are how you
| make an actual profit on unprofitable, low-balled
| contract and probably gain an extension on the
| unachievable timeline agreed to win the bid in the first
| place.
|
| The "customer" is the person that signs the contract not
| the user of the product. They probably don't care that
| it's a pig to use. It just has to look OK in a
| presentation to their boss (...who isn't going to ever
| use it either).
|
| If Tier 1 suppliers didn't behave this way they wouldn't
| be able to pitch bid responses cheap enough to win bids.
| The responsibility for crappy products lies entirely with
| the product owners. Only they know what's good enough.
| the_overseer wrote:
| From what I observed product owners know that the system
| sucks and it's laggy. They also know that the OEM
| management only keeps repeating "cheap, cheap, cheap",
| "with a renewed focust on costs" and other sayings like
| these.
| alkonaut wrote:
| That's fine. But the worst case response time across the
| entire UI must be the first item on that spec! That spec
| is of course the responsibility of the OEM to create.
| Where this goes wrong I don't know but competition, price
| sensitivity etc doesn't explain it. Having soft and hard
| limits for response time seems obvious and someone either
| forgot, or they had a meeting where they (the OEM, after
| deciding on a solution and having it implemented) said
| "ok we can save $20 on the BOM by going for a cheaper SoC
| if we accept 200ms response times instead of 50ms" and
| that should basically be criminal due to the safety
| aspect.
| the_overseer wrote:
| It's not criminal so they will continue to lower the
| cost. 50ms quickly becomes 500ms response time when you
| realize that no tier 1 supplier can hit within your OEM
| budget and your boss is becoming impatient :)
|
| Another thing that happens is when there is a 50ms
| response time mandated and at the start of the project
| you have 30ms and it slowly creeps up until you get to
| 55ms. Then the blame game starts. Like I said previously,
| each component is usually won by a different tier 1
| supplier. So everybody puts the blame on somebody else.
| One tier 1 is building the linux distro, the other is
| making basic system libraries and the applications are
| written by another 20 tier 1 suppliers.
|
| Then the deadline hits and the car needs to be sent to
| the showrooms. So whatever 50ms was chosen initially is
| changed to whatever it currently is so to say they are
| within spec and can ship the damned car.
| alkonaut wrote:
| I think this describes a lot of how software is developed
| (which just goes to show how immature that part of the
| industry is.). Similar contracts and agreements exist
| between manufacturers of the brake system as well but if
| there is an issue there where the ABS system doesn't
| prevent lockup in 1% of cases, then the problem is solved
| or the car launch is delayed, because that's what the
| system is designed to do. The problem here of course is
| that these things are seen as gadgets without safety
| aspects and there is no regulatory oversight.
|
| I guess it's also up to buyers: don't buy cars with
| shoddy infotainment.
| blarghyblarg wrote:
| ah, there is some regulatory oversight and there's
| awareness of the safety aspects.
|
| Not much, but, there is some.
|
| After working on infotainment, I'm doing my best to avoid
| purchasing a car with an infotainment system. I had to
| compromise and got a Civic with an infotainment system
| for my wife, but I'll probably stick to late 2000s, early
| 2010s for as long as I possibly can to avoid them.
| Seriously hate touchscreens, and there's just not enough
| value in an infotainment system for me to be OK with what
| I'm losing by having one.
| pySSK wrote:
| And on top off that, some product manager at Mercedes
| might say they absolutely need let's say Atmos in the
| next release and ask the Tier 1 to implement it. The Tier
| 1 usually uses multiple Tier 2s. The Tier 2s say they
| need more memory, but that's not practical at all because
| that hardware was fully validated years ago and you just
| don't make incremental changes to automotive hardware,
| and there won't be a hardware refresh for another 4
| years. It is in none of the tiers' interests to say they
| can't do it and lose out on a multi-year contract so they
| do the best possible job within the constraints.
| mbork_pl wrote:
| > Atmos
|
| Well, that is evil by design irrespective of the
| particular implementation, no? ;-)
| kaetemi wrote:
| Yep. It's part of your job to tell managers "yes, it's
| possible, but it'll negatively affect performance in a
| significant way because of such and such hardware
| limitations, so it's not the most valuable feature to
| implement at this time".
| thomasz wrote:
| It's your job to tell them if the requirements cannot be
| met and that something's gotta give. It's his job to
| decide what, and it looks like he's choosing latency When
| push comes to shove.
| the_overseer wrote:
| And it's part of the manager's job to tell you "I agree
| but don't care. Do it anyway or I will find somebody else
| to do it. For cheaper." Always remember that you are
| replaceable.
|
| When the newborn is crying and wants food you do what
| you've got to do. And there are many people like that.
| kaetemi wrote:
| Nah, that sounds like bad management. They should be
| relaying the requirements to the hardware team.
| the_overseer wrote:
| Most of the time the hardware team doesn't get to choose
| their hardware. There is usually a budget and in
| automotive you can select only hardware that has some
| specific certifications for use in a car so that narrows
| the list even further.
| blarghyblarg wrote:
| And once that hardware is selected for a given range of
| vehicles, it's literally impossible to change. Updates to
| some parts of the software stack are also basically
| impossible at a certain point.
| JenrHywy wrote:
| It's very rarely a developer's role to say outright "no".
| It's our role to make trade-offs understandable by
| decision-makers, and to clearly articulate why we think
| something is a bad idea. Sometimes (usually...) the broader
| business has different goals that just delivering quality
| software, and I think part of being a professional is
| understanding that.
|
| There is, of course, a time and a place for a hard "no".
| I've genuinely threatened to quit rather than implement a
| particularly user-hostile feature in the past.
| ISO-morphism wrote:
| I completely agree with you, and I think you've worded
| this better than I have.
|
| I was trying to advocate for the middle path, where
| there's healthy communication from both sides, to the
| point that developers trust when "the business" makes a
| decision - not to the point of engineering completely
| blocking the, unquoted, business.
| Cyphase wrote:
| Work work.
| speeder wrote:
| I have a 2 month old baby, and got fired from my last job
| after 6 months of unpaid overtime...
|
| I am currently trying (again) to get into embedded
| development. I would gladly take the job of the guy that
| refused to make shitty software, if that means I can keep
| feeding my baby. Unless it would be too unethical. (I
| refuse to do work that will kill people, for example I
| won't work for Palantir, companies that make sketchy
| software related to flight controls or medicine or other
| critical applications and so on... but the car media
| player? yeah, I am willing to make a crappy one if I get
| the job, I prefer to make a good one, but if my boss want a
| crappy one... then what I can do? overtime to get a
| promotion, clearly doesn't work ;) )
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| We completely understand - and we would all make the same
| decision.
|
| Which is why (in the UK) I view the rise of strikes and
| unions positively - workers need to hang together - set
| standards that they won't go below, and also ensure the
| spoils are fairly shared out.
|
| Recently the deputy governor of the bank of england said
| "inflation has made everyone poorer - get used to it not
| ask for wage increases". Which tone deafness misses the
| point that this is not about wanting a 10% pay increase -
| it's about how is society structured and how do we share
| the vast wealth.
|
| The question is not how do I get more, it's how do I
| build a fair system that inwill be part of.
|
| we are playing the sociopaths game as if it's the only
| game in town. There should be no game we all play where
| the rules include not feeding babies. That's a bad game
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| _> "inflation has made everyone poorer - get used to it
| not ask for wage increases"_
|
| Which is absolutely horseshit, because the European
| countries that had the least amount of inflation (besides
| the super wealthy Switzerland and Luxembourg), were the
| countries where salaries are automatically indexed with
| inflation, like Belgium.
|
| So it turns out that forcing companies to increase wages
| by inflation is a very effective deterrent against price
| gouging and inflation, yet those in charge try to
| convince us otherwise, that we should accept lower wages
| for our own sake lol.
|
| Can you believe the nerve of these people? It's
| disgusting, but we get what we vote for. You want better,
| then vote better.
| jocaal wrote:
| > You want better, then vote better.
|
| This doesn't help. Even if you were the guy that read all
| policies or whatever a candidate pushes, the vast
| majority if people are still just gonna vote with their
| emotions.
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| I did not realise there were any countries doing index
| linked salaries.
|
| Nice idea
| vocram wrote:
| > I refuse to do work that will kill people
|
| Isn't a crappy UI on a car something that could kill
| people?
| emodendroket wrote:
| In some abstract sense, like how you could say that you
| should absolutely not drive a car as you could
| accidentally kill a pedestrian.
| Lio wrote:
| I don't think it's all that abstract.
|
| We know that phone using drivers perform worse than drink
| drivers. They regularly kill people because they're not
| concentrating on what's in front of them.
|
| If you change the car's UI from something with low
| latency[1] to something with much greater latency[2] then
| you are definitely putting others at higher risk because
| drivers spend longer not concentrating on driving.
|
| --
|
| 1. See button, move hand, feel large physical button,
| look back at road, press button, feel feedback click.
|
| 2. See screen, move hand, see screen pops up menu on hand
| proximity, see menu item, click menu item, miss-press try
| again, wait for animation, attempt to select feature but
| hand moves due to bump in the road, move hand again, try
| to select feature again, miss-press try again, wait for
| feedback animation, look back at road.
| emodendroket wrote:
| Then why is anyone skating for the decision to abandon
| buttons in the first place? The driver is responsible for
| paying attention to the road rather than fiddling with
| the radio.
| emodendroket wrote:
| I often see sentiment like this here but I think there's a
| disconnect between the sacrifice you're expecting people to
| make and harm caused by the work. It's admirable for
| someone to put their own job security second to obeying
| really harmful directives, but something that's going to
| make the music system laggier?
| szundi wrote:
| Those managers might be right from a sales point of view.
| Until we buy all this, they are right.
|
| Let's see that Tesla can change this or not.
| eviks wrote:
| Nope, it's too crude a metric for such features
| madmax108 wrote:
| The solution is quite evident is it not? Regulatory bodies to
| set response latency and limits with over-life degradation as
| an additional parameter.
|
| Only reason "they're just being asked to turn lead into gold
| and often get silver." happens is because automakers know
| they can get past all regulatory approval with lead/silver or
| whatever metal you prefer.
| Vvector wrote:
| > In my experience it was almost always a matter of the
| hardware being stretched way past its limits.
|
| I find this hard to believe. An Intel 486 from 30+ years ago
| could run Doom full screen with nearly instant key press
| response. A 6502/6510 C64 could repaint the entire text
| screen each frame. Why would today's auto hardware require
| 500ms to respond to touches on a static menu?
| szundi wrote:
| Windows 95 runs pretty well on 10 year old hw and does much
| more than these car screens do. So no, software is
| fundamentally crap there.
| anthk wrote:
| Windows 95 runs on 25 years old hardware now. I can run a
| full XFCE based GNU/Linux DE with ease on a 10 yo laptop.
| jonathankoren wrote:
| I wouldn't necessarily the engineers, but I'll certainly
| blame the designers and product managers.
|
| I absolutely _hate_ my Acura's infotainment system. My
| "favorite" feature isGPS autocomplete.
|
| You type in part of an address (which of course has a very
| slow response time), then you pick the completion off the
| list.
|
| Sounds fine right?
|
| But when you click it, you're met with a SLOW ANIMATION OF
| THE COMPLETION BEING TYPED INTO THE SEARCH BOX. Motherfuck
| dude! What the hell is that? Why does anyone want to watch
| the keyboard flash for five seconds?
| Gordonjcp wrote:
| "He fired up the car's onboard GPS device and began coping
| with its user interface."
|
| REAMDE, Neal Stephenson
| IIAOPSW wrote:
| > they're just being asked to turn lead into gold and often
| get silver.
|
| TBF thats literally leaded gasoline
| astral303 wrote:
| "What do you get when you cross a computer with a car?" "A
| computer!"
|
| It's a "Riddle for the Information Age" that in Alan Cooper
| wrote in 1999 [1] in "The Inmates Are Running the Asylum". One
| of the riddles is: "what do you get when you cross a computer
| with an airplane?" but things have gotten much much worse since
| then, it needs an update with the contents of this article.
|
| He writes: "That something like this slipped through shows that
| the software inside the car is not coming from the same Porsche
| that makes the rest of the car... Acceptable levels of quality
| for software engineers are far lower than those for more
| traditional engineering disciplines..."
|
| We have seen this coming for 20 years now easily. iDrive
| happened and excuses were made.
|
| Nobody cares about response times or human-oriented design, it
| seems, which is incredibly baffling in a car! Where the rest of
| the controls are supposed to be designed with humans in mind.
|
| My 2022 Subaru's Harman Kardon-built head-unit will block out
| my entire navigation view for 3 seconds if I dare to brush the
| volume control with my hand. I've learned to not adjust it
| after that because doing so only prolongs the time that I can't
| see where I'm supposed to be going. Also, if I am so unlucky as
| to lower the volume while the navigation speaks, I end up
| adjusting the "voiceover volume" and not the "radio/media
| volume." So when I wonder: "hey why did the navigation stop
| talking?" I have to remember that I hit the unlucky time to use
| the invisbily-modal volume knob. Of course, nobody cares and
| they let this travesty out the door because it's just the
| "entertainment system."
|
| 1 - https://www.amazon.com/Inmates-Are-Running-Asylum-
| Products/d...
| sizzle wrote:
| Developers or cost optimizing MBAs? What developer would
| advocate for slower touchscreen response time at the expense of
| having a good UX if money was of no issue?
| tekla wrote:
| Developers. Engineers seemed to have no issue with making
| interfaces and systems that work in cars before the
| touchscreen fad.
| rdez6173 wrote:
| Nope. Greed.
|
| It costs way more to build out physical ergonomic interior
| controls when they are permanent fixtures for several model
| years and any changes require new _physical_ elements to be
| created and fit (and designed for mass production).
|
| Software can be updated over the air, so there's less
| pressure on engineers to get it perfect.
|
| The solution is not to point fingers and guess, but instead
| measure and revise. Study the amount of time drivers' eyes
| are off the road for routine tasks, develop acceptable
| limits and enforce them.
|
| Software engineers of any ilk are just as capable of
| following sensible guidelines if everyone else in the
| company is obliged to as well.
| iSnow wrote:
| Please, which physical button needs half a second to activate?
| practice9 wrote:
| And if that physical button is for clicking through 4+ states,
| I would rather take a touchscreen with well designed main
| screen widgets.
| winternett wrote:
| I've got a volvo XC90...
|
| The "ipad-like" touch screen looks cool, but it's very uncool
| as software updates have slowed it down over time... When I
| shift into reverse, the camera often doesn't come on for what
| seems like ages... The car also does not turn completely off
| when I turn it off, completely bewildering to me, as the
| battery can go dead easily in a crisis because of this issue,
| especially when the car is connected to Android Auto, the car
| never wants to turn itself off.
|
| The volume control on the car turns up every time I switch the
| radio to a new station or input, even when the stereo is on
| mute, which is verrrrry jarring. The car beeps constantly for
| no reason as well, reverse sensor noises and a lot more
| unhelpful options need to be turned off every time the car is
| started, almost feels as if they want to frustrate drivers.
|
| I am really beginning to hate advanced technology in cars,
| because the software in them is geared towards people that
| constantly want to be distracted and entertained by the tech,
| whereas I like to stay focused on the road. Mobile phones also
| drive the tech and stimulation obsession for many, whereas old
| cars just serve a common and simple purpose, and with an audio
| jack and car-native GPS (which phone/car makers got rid of)
| life was so much more simple and enjoyable while driving from
| what I can recall.
|
| Software driven cars create tons of distractions that translate
| into real world accidents that could be preventable, especially
| with developing hands free commands (they work very poorly
| still in most cars to this day).
| FollowingTheDao wrote:
| Amen. Pushing a mechanical button (with no CPU middle man) has
| zero latency.
| hcknwscommenter wrote:
| I disagree. With a physical button, you know you pushed it
| because you feel it give and then stop giving. After the first
| couple of uses you can get used to any response time. With a
| touchscreen, there is no tactile feedback difference between a
| button press and a miss. So when you press it and it doesn't do
| anything, or behaves unexpectedly, you don't know if it is
| lagging or you missed. Touchscreens are much worse for drivers.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| And with a physical button I don't have to look to push it. I
| know roughly where it is and I can use touch to orient
| myself.
| NiloCK wrote:
| When slow response times are because of software, they not
| only slow but variable.
|
| If you're accustomed to 90ms delay and the adjustment doesn't
| come in 250ms, then it pulls your attention, and even your
| eyes. "What's wrong with my volume knob" shouldn't occur to
| someone driving a vehicle.
| naikrovek wrote:
| the apple Macbook trackpad proves that this tactile feedback
| could be done for touch screens also.
|
| touchscreens are worse but they don't have to be.
| manufacturers just don't care enough to make them better.
| they're too busy charging more for touchscreens while saving
| tons of money on buttons, which are expensive in comparison.
| amluto wrote:
| Can you explain? Mac trackpads can be delightful, but
| they're delightful when the user is looking at the screen.
| Which is a bad idea when driving.
| jsjohnst wrote:
| I believe what GP meant is the feedback they offer. Do
| you think the Magic Trackpad moves? Hint it doesn't, the
| "click" you feel is a haptic feedback motor.
| naikrovek wrote:
| yes, that's what I was trying to say, thank you.
|
| there is no reason that a light touch couldn't produce
| haptic feedback as you move your finger around, so you
| can feel where buttons are, and when you find the button
| you want you simply remove your finger and tap again. not
| immediately intuitive, no, but not difficult to learn. as
| usual, a tap on a button at any time would simply press
| the button.
|
| i'm a bit sad that experimentation isn't being done,
| here. I feel like there's a lot of unexplored stuff with
| regards to touch screens with haptic feedback.
| Moto7451 wrote:
| My Porsche's console touchscreen has a Force Touch
| equivalent
| nemo44x wrote:
| Touchscreens are 2d surfaces. I need my fingers to grip a
| thing in a static place in many cases.
| naikrovek wrote:
| That's fine. Buttons are good and well-understood.
|
| I suspect that for myself, a fixed knob or set of fixed
| physical buttons is not the only interface that I could
| use without looking.
|
| I'd like to see more experimentation, here. I feel like
| there's unexplored territory.
| anamexis wrote:
| You still have to look to find where to press. With real
| buttons, you can find the right button purely with tactile
| feedback, as well.
| naikrovek wrote:
| > You still have to look to find where to press. With
| real buttons, you can find the right button purely with
| tactile feedback, as well.
|
| that's not a given at all. maybe for computer keyboards I
| guess, but not for cars.
|
| car makers always seem to want buttons to be flush with
| their surroundings and have no bumps or dips on them to
| help you find the button you're after. I always have to
| look for the button if it isn't on my steering wheel, and
| I usually have to look when it's there as well.
|
| the only control in my car I don't ever need my eyes to
| find and use is the volume knob for the entertainment
| system. maybe the hazard button, too, but I haven't
| needed to push it yet.
| jojobas wrote:
| I just checked and I could reach and operate aircon knobs
| (3x), radio volume and phone answer/hangup buttons
| without looking, fast. Granted most of these are on the
| wheel, but even aircon controls would be a no go on a
| touchscreen.
| icedistilled wrote:
| turning on and adjusting the defroster on a ford edge
| rental is insanely dangerous. turning on the defroster to
| full blast takes one touch screen yes, but no one leaves
| it on full blast. Adjusting the fan speed requires poking
| a small icon in order to get a slider to pop up and then
| poking the narrow slider in just the right place.
|
| It's crazy that's replaced physical controls. Poking a
| large physical button and then turning a large knob can
| be done blind folded in half a second.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| IMO there's a lot to be said for a well done knob. It
| sticks out, so is easy to find with your hand without
| having to search. As long as you don't have so many that
| it can be ambiguous. I'm a fan of the climate knobs on my
| F250, which for example turn the temperature up and down
| incrementally, but it has a momentary switch at the end
| of the travel so you can just spin it until it hits that,
| then spin just a little more against the switch and it'll
| turn the entire climate system in max heating or max
| cooling.
|
| I remember the first time everyone decided we should have
| buttons for volume instead of knobs. Thankfully that
| lesson was learned. Now we do the same for touchscreens.
| They have their moments, but knobs and well-designed
| buttons are not replaceable with a touchscreen. No matter
| how much haptic feedback it might have.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| One nice thing about buttons instead of knobs is that
| buttons don't get that annoying thing where they will
| start randomly skipping forward and back when you turn
| them.
| kolinko wrote:
| It really depends on a car. Camaro has possibly the best
| knobs for changing stations and AC I've ever seen. The AC
| ones are integrated with two air outlets in the center -
| they are big, distinguishable and I could find them
| blindfolded with no problem.
|
| Mini is not as good, but also similar - all the important
| buttons are physical and distinguishable easily.
| garyrob wrote:
| "So what? You've got physical buttons? Big whoop. That physical
| button that takes 500ms to respond is still as dangerous.
| You've just removed one problem. "
|
| At least for me, response time isn't the issue. It's being able
| to reach without looking, feel the position of the button I
| want in relationship to other buttons, and then press it and
| get the desired results. That is something that can't be
| duplicated with a touch screen, particularly one on which the
| button I want isn't on the very top level.
| rekoil wrote:
| > It's absolutely ridiculous that this still happens today, and
| it doesn't have to.
|
| But then how will the suits save 5C/ per car by buying
| antiquated hardware instead of something appropriate that can
| perform the tasks requested of it efficiently?
| jkarneges wrote:
| > That physical button that takes 500ms to respond is still as
| dangerous.
|
| My Volt's physical mute button seems to be software controlled.
| Normally it is very responsive, except when the car is starting
| up. It kills me whenever I start the car and the volume
| happened to be cranked up from earlier, music blasts, and the
| mute button is ineffective. Fortunately the volume knob seems
| to be hardware controlled and can be used to lower the volume
| when the car is starting. It's really unintuitive since both
| controls are physical.
| hinkley wrote:
| Going from audiobook on one trip to radio on the next sure
| wakes me up, and not in a good way. At least I have a
| physical volume dial with a power button in it.
| andrewmcwatters wrote:
| Yeah, it's just poorly thought out engineering. There's
| really no excuse. I owned a B7 Audi A4 which simply limited
| the volume level to a user-defined setting when you turned on
| the car.
|
| That concept is roughly 20 years old.
| avereveard wrote:
| And it's not something limited to premium car either, my
| first generation 500x has three different radio startup
| behaviour to choose: always on, always off, as it was when
| you turned the car off
| [deleted]
| mtrpcic wrote:
| The benefit of buttons isn't in the response time, it's in the
| tactile feedback that makes it so you don't need 16ms response
| time. I heard it click, I felt it click, it clicked. If the
| thing I wanted to happen doesn't, it's because it's broken and
| not because I can't tell if I clicked the right spot on my
| iPad. Not having to take your eyes off the road in these cases
| is the benefit of buttons, and no improvement to response time
| in touch screens will fully solve that.
| andrewmcwatters wrote:
| This isn't how tactile buttons in modern cars work. You're
| doing the same thing as pushing keys on a keyboard. The
| software can still be slow.
|
| Turn the physical volume dial on a car with a slow Apple
| CarPlay interface and tell me how that works out for you.
|
| Oh, it's too loud? But it takes 2 seconds for the software to
| respond due to lag and now you're fiddling with the volume
| button trying to not make it worse?
|
| A physical button didn't fix that.
| krsdcbl wrote:
| The issue is NOT the delay, it's having to look at the
| interface vs. being able to feel what I'm doing
| jojobas wrote:
| If only it was possible to adjust the volume without
| talking to the phone - heresy, I know. Having your phone
| decide how loud or quiet it should be playing is rather
| stupid anyway.
| hunter2_ wrote:
| You turn the physical dial, and regardless of the outcome,
| you know that your input was received by the HCI, so you
| don't need to wonder if you should try again.
|
| If it worked, great; if not, oh well; no need to look at it
| and try again though. That's the benefit.
| jes5199 wrote:
| I've used car stereos where the physical volume knob was
| so laggy and buggy that sometimes it would misread its
| own input and change the volume in the wrong direction
| unless you turned it very slowly while watching the
| display to see if it was registering. People will
| absolutely find a way to fuck it up.
| salmonlogs wrote:
| Why would you need to look at a screen? Surely the
| feedback from a volume knob is the volume changing?
|
| If it doesn't change -> change it more
|
| It it changes too much -> change it less
|
| If you realise it needs to be moved slowly -> move it
| slowly
| colanderman wrote:
| The issue is, how far to turn it?
|
| My Android phone has a similar issue while operating over
| Bluetooth. While holding "volume up", it takes _several
| seconds_ for the volume change to register. So I have no
| feedback for how _long_ I need to hold "volume up". If I
| wait until the volume is loud enough -- it keeps going up
| for another two seconds, to the point that it is painful
| and possibly damaging my hearing.
| throwaheyy wrote:
| There's tactile feedback for that too. You learn how many
| "clicks" of the knob you need.
| colanderman wrote:
| Most rotary encoders are programmed to have
| "acceleration", so it's not quite that simple. And the
| amount you need to turn it may vary nonlinearly based on
| the volume and ambient conditions (sound perception is
| complex!).
|
| Rapid feedback is important.
| antisthenes wrote:
| What if I'm switching air vent direction? There's only 5
| positions in most cars.
|
| I know the one it was on, and I know how far to turn it
| to get to the one I want. This removes the necessity of
| looking at it.
|
| Same for steering wheel buttons (e.g. Up - next track,
| down - previous track, same for volume)
|
| Same for wipers - only 3 positions and you can tell by
| their speed which position it's in.
|
| The problem is when manufacturers take existing solved
| problems and move it to a strictly worse system like
| touchscreen. That's an inexcusable regression.
| hunter2_ wrote:
| True, but dealing with the consequences of laggy response
| even in this case does not result in taking your eyes off
| the road. Rather, the troubleshooting feedback loop can
| happen entirely using your hand and ears.
|
| When using a touch screen, if you don't know whether the
| lack of feedback is due to its lag or your bad aim, you
| would likely take your eyes off the road in order to aim
| better, given that bad aim is a likely culprit.
| tomxor wrote:
| Yeah it's less bad, but it's still an inferior UX to
| pretty much everything that came before bloated
| infotainment systems. Both factors are important, an
| intuitive physical control and responsive feedback.
| hedgehog wrote:
| My car has this problem. I'm not sure if it's CarPlay
| specific or not because I've never played audio any other
| way.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I don't think it's CarPlay specific. I occasionally get
| similar erratic results for both volume and speed control
| on my Model 3 if I spin the steering wheel dials too
| quickly (and in the case of speed control, it's actually
| intended to be a supported function, spin it fast enough
| and go up in 5-mph increments instead of 1). I suspect
| it's just an artifact of that sort of infinite dial
| technology.
| fasthands9 wrote:
| It does fix that because I dont have to look at it while I
| wait the 2 seconds. On a touch screen my finger will be
| slipping as the car is moving and have to constantly divert
| my eyes as I wait for the lag - even if its the same lag as
| a physical button.
| nmcfarl wrote:
| My car has this problem, only sometimes it takes a lot
| longer than two seconds.
|
| The car when started always turns on the radio at the last
| volume the radio was on at, regardless of whether it was on
| when the car was turned off.
|
| More than once, I have turned it on, and it was playing at
| full volume the Sirius FM ads, and would not lower the
| volume or turn off ( via the other physical buttons) for at
| least half a minute. I've done some damage to the volume
| button after that, and I have taken to just getting out of
| the car until the stereo responds.
| donalhunt wrote:
| We have a Renault and it is similar. I don't listen to
| the radio. If I have any audio, it's either something
| from my phone or navigation (also phone, usually off).
|
| The default on the car is to turn on the radio on engine
| start. No way to change it. No way to make it remember
| that the last time the car was used it was set to
| Bluetooth audio. Switching back to Bluetooth requires
| navigating through 3-4 layers of menus. Even when you
| turn it off, it randomly turns back on for no reason. :/
|
| My 10+ year old VW: remembers which audio source was last
| used. Phone autoconnects via Bluetooth every time with no
| hassle. Volume is never an issue (real buttons that
| respond in a timely manner on the steering wheel). Off is
| off until you turn it on again (with a physical button).
| salmonlogs wrote:
| I can operate physical buttons without taking my eyes off
| the road.
|
| I know where the volume knob is and I can easily grab it
| and turn it without looking away. If it's slow to respond I
| can go again and dial it back down, without looking away.
| Or I can just keep my hand on the dial and spin it back a
| bit.
|
| With a digital screen I can't leave my hand on it without
| continually pressing the input, and if I want to put the
| volume down I have to look and see where that button is.
|
| A physical control absolutely fixes this
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| A lot the knobs and buttons these days are digital anyways.
| So there is no real tactile feedback, since they are just
| activating some digital function anyways.
| tirpen wrote:
| The knob still exists as a physical thing between in your
| fingers. You can feel it turn, you feel how much you've
| turned it, you feel the little clicks if it has those, you
| feel if you turn it into an extreme position.
|
| That's what tactile feedback is. It doesn't matter if the
| knob is connected to a digital or analog circuit. It has
| tactile feedback either way.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| You don't get resistance when you turn the knob all the
| way up or down. You don't get confirmation that the
| button you pressed did something. It's tactile in the
| sense that they are physical, but otherwise not a great
| experience.
| hilbert42 wrote:
| _" That physical button that takes 500ms to respond is still as
| dangerous"_
|
| No it's not. With mechanical buttons you have tactile feedback,
| that is you don't have to look except in the broadest sense to
| get the general direction. Tactile feedback not only tells you
| that you have the correct position but also lets you know when
| the job is complete. That's why rotary potentiometers with
| knobs make much better volume controls and so on.
|
| Can you imagine trying to play a piano with a glass keyboard?
| It'd be damn near impossible even for the most skilled pianist
| as nearby keys wouldn't provide tactile positioning. Same goes
| for a typewriter or computer keyboard. If you've ever used a
| flat panel keyboard you'll understand the problem.
| hinkley wrote:
| I have a memory from the 90's of sitting in someone's car and
| fiddling with the ventilation system. The blower would take
| seconds to respond to changes of the fan speed dial. I don't
| know if that was electronic or if the fan blade was made out
| of depleted uranium. I know it was distracting, which is not
| something you want in a cabin control system.
|
| Luckily I was just the passenger. If I'd have been driving
| that car my distraction level would be higher until I got
| used to it. You don't want people crashing in general, but
| crashing their brand new cars is ugly.
| HWR_14 wrote:
| > That physical button that takes 500ms to respond is still as
| dangerous.
|
| It doesn't matter if it takes 1 second for the radio to change
| stations. The problem with delays is me spending 500 ms trying
| to get the buttons to react. When I touch a physical button, I
| instantly know I did.
| hinkley wrote:
| You have confirmation affordances. "We have received your
| request and will get back to you shortly"
|
| Of course, if the button is sometimes ignored, that
| undermines the affordance and people learn not to trust it.
| chillbill wrote:
| I think it's ridiculous that this of all things is what has
| riled you up this much.
| 14 wrote:
| That would require a device with the power of an iPad. I'm sure
| it could be done but again adds another $500-$1000 to the final
| price of the car. A physical button costs a couple bucks. If we
| are going to get people on board with electric cars we need to
| get an economy version and any cost cutting they can do will
| make the difference.
| cypress66 wrote:
| First of all, an SoC comparable to an iPad isn't $1000 more
| expensive than what they're using.
|
| More so, the current hardware they use is quite faster than
| the original 2010 iPad, yet the og iPad is dramatically more
| responsive than all these laggy cars.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Comparing Apples to oranges. The iPad ran so smooth because
| Apple spared no dev time expense in optimizing the SW to
| perfection using budgets of millions and devs with wages in
| the six figures plus.
|
| Meanwhile automotive software is developed by the lowest
| paid and most crunched people in the industry, in line with
| the gaming industry, in bottom of the barrel, race to the
| bottom of cost cutting.
|
| Especially that in Automotive you often have tons of legacy
| code that gets carried over because nobody wants to touch
| the old codebase, so all the crust keeps getting carried
| over, with new layers added on top because the device can't
| exist in a vacuum or in a tightly controlled ecosystem of
| the same manufacturer like the iPad, bust must be
| compatible to all the the other ECUs in the car developed
| by other companies and still be backwards compatible with
| the old platform.
|
| Imagine having the iPad team operate at 10% of their budget
| and write their SW on top of Symbian OS, and be compatible
| with the Android ecosystem. Good luck getting a smooth
| experience there.
| moogly wrote:
| > The iPad ran so smooth because Apple spared no dev time
| expense
|
| I think you should specify which iPad here because the
| 1st gen iPad ran like a crippled sloth
| KyeRussell wrote:
| Your constant blaming of bad engineers is s clear invitation to
| point out that you're incredibly incredibly naive to think that
| software people are sitting unencumbered by wider business
| realities and are just deciding to do a Bad Job.
|
| You are no better.
| nmz wrote:
| Most of my time looking at the screen is because I need to look
| to know where the button is. That's a huge thing, I should
| NEVER have to take my eyes of the road. Big woop? it absolutely
| is. Things are still mediocre, and I do admit the lag time
| should be criminal. but yes, this is a win that could possibly
| be saving a few lives.
| jquery wrote:
| Indeed. Touchscreens are extremely flexible interfaces, but
| they are not superior in certain use cases, especially where
| eyes must be kept elsewhere.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| From my experience touchscreens are only superior in terms
| of customization and sometimes size. In everything else
| they're inferior to a hardware interface.
| bitcharmer wrote:
| This is hilariously wrong on so many levels : - )
| Poppys wrote:
| I find that the in-built systems are all horrendous and
| designers create lots of inefficient designs so they look good
| in the marketing video but are a pain to use.
|
| I have a Toyota and when I want to change the audio source I
| have to press 'Source' and then it displays a carousel of
| inputs that I have to scroll through. Or I can press the 'All'
| button and it displays a neat grid with the options laid out,
| why not just show me the grid? That's quick and efficient, the
| current setup is not.
|
| I agree about buttons, if we try and control computers with a
| button, we will end up with lots of buttons a la 90s ICE
| system, or a simple interface with mystery button syndrome
| where you are looking at a screen to see what your button is
| going to do next.
| washadjeffmad wrote:
| In my state in the US, it's illegal to operate a cellphone
| while driving.
|
| I would appreciate if the law were extended to cover cheap
| tablets mounted to the spot in cars where our physical buttons
| belong.
| tester756 wrote:
| Which button took more than 0.5s to respond?
| epgui wrote:
| Touch screens arguably make development and feature iteration
| easier, but they are clearly and obviously a net negative for
| safety and ease of use. Cars are safety-intensive machines.
| jjav wrote:
| > So what? You've got physical buttons? Big whoop. That
| physical button that takes 500ms to respond is still as
| dangerous.
|
| No, that's wrong. Problem with touchscreens is that (1) you
| need to look at them and (2) there is no tactile feedback of
| whether you pressed it or not and (3) you need to hover your
| arm in a moving car at just the right spot.
|
| Physical buttons cleanly resolve all of these major problems.
|
| If the actual action has a perceptible delay, that's annoying
| but not dangerous. Given that with a physical button you didn't
| have to take your eyes off the road and given the tactile
| feedback you know for sure you activated/pressed/moved the
| control, you know the control has been activated even if the
| effect is delayed.
|
| With a touch screen, if there is a delay, you'll have to keep
| taking your eyes off the road again and again, triple checking
| if you pressed on the right spot or not.
| IceWreck wrote:
| Why not have haptic feedback like in phones
| emodendroket wrote:
| It's only a partial solution. You can feel a button without
| operating it and you can distinguish it among others by
| feel.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| Because haptics "like in phones" suck. They are nothing but
| vibration motors. There have been a lot of research of
| patents for more interesting interaction, but what we have
| now is arguable worse than what we had in a Nokia 3310
| (because of the lower mass of the motors). The feedback is
| like if the entire screen was a single button.
|
| Haptic tech I have seen are ways to vary the drag
| coefficient across the screen, tiny actuators that deform
| the screen, or use of interference to create vibration on a
| specific location. There is even touchless haptics, using
| ultrasound.
|
| The only instance where a manufacturer seemed to care was
| with the iPhone 6 "Taptic Engine", which is little more
| than a better vibration motor, giving a better "whole
| screen button" effect. But they didn't improve further, in
| fact, if anything, the newer models are worse.
| rkangel wrote:
| The haptics in the trackpads for the Steam Deck are
| pretty good. They manage to communicate textures and
| boundaries on the trackpad. They're not magical, but they
| are a bit step above anything I've used anywhere else.
| neuronic wrote:
| Every button with major function can have different
| surfaces and haptics according to function. After driving a
| car for a week or two I typically get really good at just
| using buttons without looking. But that's just subjective.
| The VW ID.3s I drive I can only change stuff at red lights
| or parking spots because of the terrible UX mixed with the
| downsides of touchscreens. Also regular freezing and
| crashes.
|
| I would be curious to see a well implemented, fast response
| touchscreen design. I am strongly in favor of buttons but I
| would love to try a touchscreen operating with the
| boundaries set by users in this thread (16ms reposne time
| etc...). I will keep an open mind but have not seen a
| working example yet.
| fps_doug wrote:
| That solves that one problem, but you still get the
| feedback only when you pressed it, you cannot feel where
| the button is without looking. I can blindly turn the AC on
| or off, adjust the fan speed, turn on the hazard lights and
| adjust the volume of the radio in my car, because it's all
| good old buttons and knobs. How is that supposed to work
| with a touch screen?
| naravara wrote:
| It's an additional potential point of failure that will be
| expensive to fix. Phones generally have a usable life of 2
| to 5 years before people start hankering to upgrade. Cars
| ought to last at least 8 to 10, and ideally closer to 20. I
| know car designers don't actually think this way, but it
| would be nice if they did put more thought into making sure
| every part of it is easy to repair or built to last for
| that whole stretch instead of trying to put new-car buyers
| on an upgrade treadmill and telling used-car buyers to suck
| it up and deal.
| shaky-carrousel wrote:
| Big latency is distracting. Random latency is hugely
| distracting.
| thatjoeoverthr wrote:
| Strong disagree about response time. There is a huge
| difference between a quick glance and tap, and having to
| watch an interface and figure out if it registered the touch
| or not. An unresponsive screen demands significant extra
| attention because you have to monitor it.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| Yes, but if you are bored from a long drive, you can watch
| some commercials on the screen or navigate 20 submenus to
| move the AC one degree up or down.
|
| Are you sure you want to modify the temperature? Please read
| the following agreement and type I AGREE if you agree.
| Xelbair wrote:
| It is not about 'looking and pushing' the button.
|
| It's about stateful UI.
|
| physical layout of buttons is usually stateless - press
| button thing turns on, press it again it turns off.
|
| You don't need to think in which menu you are, and where to
| press, while driving.
| atoav wrote:
| > physical layout of buttons is usually stateless - press
| button thing turns on, press it again it turns off
|
| Not to be pedantic, but that _is_ a state. But I get what
| you mean: the button has a fixed place. Know your car well
| enough and you won 't even need to look there to turn the
| thing off or on.
| sd9 wrote:
| > stateful UI
|
| OP means that the screen has different modes that you
| traverse between, the car is still stateful.
| atoav wrote:
| A switch with two positions is still a stateful UI unless
| it is a momentary push button without LED as the position
| of the switch represents the state of the system.
|
| But gotcha, this depends on your definition of "stateful
| UI"
| hnick wrote:
| Compounding this on a touchscreen is slippage. Cars can be
| bumpy. If you slip and hit the wrong control it can take an
| unacceptably large amount of concentration (given what you
| are meant to be actually concentrating on when driving) to
| work out where you are now, how to get back to where you
| are, and try to do the original thing again. A few seconds
| of confusion and distraction is more than enough to kill.
|
| Tactile buttons are usually much harder to press by
| mistake. I'm glad my i30 only seems to require the
| touchscreen for CarPlay (a necessary evil), or settings
| which I'd generally only check when parked.
| ta1243 wrote:
| > or settings which I'd generally only check when parked.
|
| I think this is key. I'm perfectly happy to adjust the
| frequency/folume of the rear reverse sensors, or the
| date/time format, or whatever, via a touchscreen.
|
| Stuff I use while driving though is a different thing
| completely, that's where physical buttons come in.
|
| Fortunatly my Skoda meets this - temperature, volume,
| radio channel etc all on buttons.
| injidup wrote:
| Not all buttons are created equal. I have an admittedly
| older 2016 ford galaxy. The physical buttons are mostly
| all low profile smooth and flat buttons with thin gaps
| between them. There is very little tactile feedback to
| indicate where you are when 5 buttons are all next to
| each other. The cruise control and temperature control
| are particularly bad. I've been trying to remind myself
| to put some little bumps of silicon on each button so I
| can map them without looking.
| lodovic wrote:
| Especially this. I had too many times where the road was
| bumpy and I needed to press a button on the infotainment
| system. You need to rest your thumb off screen first in
| order to be able to press the correct button on the
| touchscreen. It's an unsafe way to control the car.
| hnbad wrote:
| Funny. I usually rest all my other fingers offscreen to
| press with my thumb as that feels like it gives me the
| most stable tap.
| red-iron-pine wrote:
| Indeed, a big beef for me is trying to get to a "Input
| Source" menu in my Honda. I just want to change from
| Bluetooth (Spotify to FM radio).
|
| Tiny field, not an obvious button, hard to hit while
| moving. Takes way too much time or effort. Meanwhile
| trying to do it in my wife's Mazda 3? Just press the big
| FM button, can't miss it, and can feel for it.
|
| Repeat ad infinitum for other functions. The touchscreen
| is great for when I'm in the driveway and want to change
| settings but otherwise terrible for everything else.
| paconbork wrote:
| My 2005 Honda Accord gets this right (big, obvious
| buttons). Definitely not looking forward to finding a car
| whose UX doesn't suck when this one finally kicks the
| bucket.
| occoder wrote:
| > It is not about 'looking and pushing' the button.
|
| > It's about stateful UI.
|
| Yes it _is_ about 'looking and pushing' the button.
|
| And yes it's about stateful UI.
|
| Both can be true at the same time.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| That is not really true these days. for a Long time many
| cars have had small screens in the center of the dash and 4
| way buttons to navigate into menus of the car to preform
| different tasks. These buttons are contextual to the menu
| they are in, and many even have double tap, hold, etc
| options with in the button response matrix.
| AmericanChopper wrote:
| > Physical buttons cleanly resolve all of these major
| problems
|
| That's not true with all buttons. Those infinitely turning
| dials have some of the same problems, especially with
| response latency and the same magnitude of input not always
| resulting in the same magnitude of change. The presence of
| the dial is better than the touchscreen, but with those dials
| you still need to monitor the screen to get feedback on how
| much change you're (usually slowly) effecting.
| naravara wrote:
| > Physical buttons cleanly resolve all of these major
| problems.
|
| It depends on how the physical button works. You functionally
| don't get tactile feedback if the response time isn't good.
| You don't actually always know that you've activated a
| control (e.g. Did I not press it hard enough? Did I need to
| rotate it further?) Cheap buttons or knobs or dials can often
| feel mushy and be unclear as to whether you've fully turned
| them or pushed them.
|
| Not taking eyes off the road is definitely better, but
| general distraction is still a problem even if you don't have
| to look away.
| bradgessler wrote:
| > Physical buttons cleanly resolve all of these major
| problems
|
| > Given that with a physical button you didn't have to take
| your eyes off the road and given the tactile feedback you
| know for sure you activated/pressed/moved the control
|
| I never understand the "you don't have to look at buttons"
| argument--my car has lots of physical buttons and to push
| them, I briefly have to look at the console, find the button,
| and press it.
|
| If a touch screen interface were properly designed with large
| enough touch affordances and the correct levels of
| responsiveness, I'd be just as happy with that as I would a
| big dashboard full of buttons.
|
| For me, when things get dangerous, its when pressing the
| button (physical or touch) doesn't do what its suppose to do.
| onion2k wrote:
| _my car has lots of physical buttons and to push them, I
| briefly have to look at the console, find the button, and
| press it_
|
| For things that you do regularly the button should be
| optimized to _not_ be in the middle of a cluster. Ideally
| it 'll be somewhere you can see easily (like on the
| steering wheel), and _most importantly of all_ it isn 't
| dependent on context. In my car I can easily turn on the
| aircon, or change the music volume, or answer the phone
| without looking away from the road because I know where the
| button is and one press _always_ does that thing. On a
| touchscreen you always need to give it attention because
| the screen area changes what it does depending on what you
| 've pressed before pressing that area. That is a _huge_
| disadvantage.
|
| Your point about pressing a button not doing what it's
| supposed to is right, but I have to admit I can't remember
| the last time that happened in any car I've owned. Buttons
| not working isn't a common issue as far as I know.
| emodendroket wrote:
| My car does have a second knob opposite the volume knob
| that has different functions in different contexts and
| consequently I pretty much never use it
| soco wrote:
| My car has plenty of buttons on the steering wheel, but
| unfortunately there's only so much real estate so you'll
| still need to fiddle in other places (ventilation and
| warming). And there are also menus, handled by the
| steering wheels buttons and displayed on the screen right
| in front of your nose but I still don't recommend that
| while driving as the menu structure was put together by
| throwing D12 dices on a drunk night out (luckily many
| menus are disabled while driving so there's less room for
| error)
| PetitPrince wrote:
| > For things that you do regularly the button should be
| optimized to not be in the middle of a cluster
|
| I found that I was using the wheel warmer button way more
| than I through I would. It's located right in middle of a
| cluster on the central console, in an awkward place to
| look at (right next to my hips in a blind spot).
|
| I devised a nice and cheap fix for this UI problem that
| wouldn't be applicable on a touch screen: I put a googly
| eye sticker on it.
|
| Better tactile feedback, no loss of function, and more
| whimsy in my otherwise boring car.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| Brilliant: You've reinvented Braille with googly eyeballs
| for sighted drivers!
|
| It illustrates the point that accessibility isn't only
| for disabled people.
|
| It benefits everyone, and if you're lucky to live long
| enough, you'll need it more and more as you get older.
|
| Unless you're planning to die young, you're not just
| abled, but predisabled.
|
| https://twitter.com/BeingCharisBlog/status/14558902395205
| 877...
| acapybara wrote:
| Everyone is just predisabled?
|
| I suppose we're all just pre-dead as well?
|
| What a depressing way to look at life.
|
| You may want to seek out help from a counselor.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| I'm glad that by using and defining the word
| "predisabled", I have raised your consciousness enough to
| consider your own mortality, and the fact that your
| vision, hearing, dexterity, mental acuity, and memory are
| all inevitably going to degrade as you get older.
|
| Not everyone is predisabled: many unfortunate people
| won't live long enough to suffer the consequences of old
| age.
|
| But I'd rather not die before I get old, myself.
|
| Do you know anyone currently alive who isn't pre-dead?
|
| I certainly hope I'm currently predisabled instead of
| just short lived, myself.
|
| It sounds like you're the one who needs a counselor if
| you're so depressed and having such a hard time facing
| the fact that you're getting older and less abled every
| second, until you die.
|
| If you're designing user interfaces, you might want to
| seek out help from an accessibility specialist.
| justin66 wrote:
| > But I'd rather not die before I get old, myself.
|
| I suggest we call the people on the other side of this
| divide "Daltreys" and prohibit them from designing any
| UIs.
| vsl wrote:
| > Buttons not working isn't a common issue as far as I
| know.
|
| The touchscreen latency issue discussed in parent posts
| is just that...
| zamnos wrote:
| If you want to get better at manipulating your car's
| buttons without looking, practice doing various tasks with
| your eyes closed while stopped at a light. If that sounds
| ridiculous, just own the same car for 15 years instead.
| Realistically unless it's a rental car you're unfamiliar
| with so you don't know where you're going, you should be
| able to move your hand to the approximate area and feel
| your way to the right button without activating all the
| buttons you come across.
|
| Touch screens have no such luxury - a graze is a press, the
| same as an actual press, and because it's a smooth surface,
| so even if you know the button you want is the second from
| the bottom, you can't find the bottom button and then go up
| one.
|
| Ultimately the problem with the touch screen interface is
| that it _has_ to be looked at, in order for the user to
| know what mode it 's in. Is it in climate control? Is it in
| radio mode? Is it in Carplay navigation mode or deep in
| settings? Who knows! Let's find out by not looking at the
| road where the cars and people are.
|
| As a pedestrian, this does not fill me with joy.
| Beldin wrote:
| > _If a touch screen interface were properly designed..._
|
| Huh? They cannot be. You cannot get the same level of
| tactile feedback from a touchscreen as from a properly
| designed knob.
|
| > _For me, when things get dangerous, its when pressing the
| button (physical or touch) doesn 't do what its suppose to
| do._
|
| I have experienced that regularly in cars. When you have
| clear, unambiguous feedback that you gave the input exactly
| how you're supposed to, it's a minor annoyance; you
| instantly know that the UI failed to pick up on your input.
| Redo and if failure is consistent, have it repaired.
|
| When you have to start debugging whether it's your input
| method or the UI having an off day, while driving, that's
| when things get dangerous to me.
| xmcqdpt2 wrote:
| > Huh? They cannot be. You cannot get the same level of
| tactile feedback from a touchscreen as from a properly
| designed knob.
|
| That's true but also I feel like they could make much
| more tactile touch screen if they actually spent the
| money. For example, you could use a pressure sensitive
| touch screen so that mere touch doesn't activate buttons,
| and you could put a haptic feedback mechanism in it like
| that of Apple that actually informs you when you press
| something. The haptic feedback could even subtly tell you
| whether you are touching a button before you click it.
|
| The reason they don't do that is that touchscreens are a
| cost cutting measure and making them as expensive as
| buttons would cut into margins.
| wasmitnetzen wrote:
| You might need to use your eyes to find the button, but
| once you've seen it, your finger will probably find it
| while you can look back at the road. Or if you still need
| to guide your fingers, once you're touching the button,
| your eyes are free again. There's no need to look at a
| physical volume knob to get feedback on your actions, there
| very much is a need for a touchscreen slider.
| Fezzik wrote:
| Car UIs are just overly complex, poorly oriented, and full
| of cruft these days. Look up the UI of '96 Toyota Camry and
| you'll see the pinnacle of efficiency. I could manipulate
| everything I needed to without taking my eyes off the road
| after a few months of owning the car. It was dead simply
| and each system was unique enough to distinguish by touch
| and interpret what the setting was by the knob orientation.
| emodendroket wrote:
| > I never understand the "you don't have to look at
| buttons" argument--my car has lots of physical buttons and
| to push them, I briefly have to look at the console, find
| the button, and press it.
|
| Do you look down at the shifter every time you use it? It's
| the same thing really.
| noufalibrahim wrote:
| I don't think that's the case. e.g. My car's AC controls
| are physical. I sometimes look at the dials but that's a
| passing instinct rather than a need. There are three dials
| and I can feel for the one I want to press with my left
| hand (our drivers seats are on the right) and then turn it.
| If I'm adjusting the fan, the sound from the AC gives me
| sufficient feedback to know if I've set it correctly. This
| is especially apparent when I'm paying attention to the
| road more than usual (e.g. while driving through an
| unfamiliar area).
|
| With the entertainment system, it's a tree of menus on a
| touchscreen to find what I need to do and then the screen
| has several buttons neatly arranged which I need to look at
| (not just feel for) to find what I need. When I tap on
| something, it's not immediately clear to me without looking
| and verifying whether the function has been executed or
| not.
| m463 wrote:
| > I never understand the "you don't have to look at
| buttons" argument--my car has lots of physical buttons and
| to push them, I briefly have to look at the console, find
| the button, and press it
|
| You don't realize just how MUCH worse doing it on a
| touchscreen is.
|
| A touchscreen button is in a specific region of space, yet
| that region jumps and jostles around because the car and
| the touchscreen are moving and your arm is moving (usually
| in a different direction).
|
| If you bump or drag your knuckles on the touchscreen, you
| accidentally engage some other control.
|
| It's not as bad if the control is at the edge, is a large
| enough target and the touchscreen has a raised bezel around
| it to rest your knuckles on, but you still have to use your
| eyes to locate the button.
|
| It's really annoying with tesla - the targets have gotten
| smaller over time, they've adopted apple's ios 7 mess of
| buttons that don't look like buttons, and now the buttons
| move around due to context, or passenger in seat, or other
| nonsense. Some buttons have state, but it times out. Some
| buttons can be moved. Some buttons change depending on what
| you used last. lots of map stuff auto-hides. Buttons along
| the edge are good, but they made them smaller and left lots
| of unused space. many buttons are in the middle with no
| good reason. ugh.
|
| My suspicion? I suspect the model S/X touchscreen was
| designed by people who don't drive a model S/X and test it
| at their desk with a crappy dell monitor and a mouse.
| lodovic wrote:
| Skoda uses gestures, so when I accidentally wave my hand
| the infotainment system changes page. Really not thought
| through.
| theK wrote:
| Agreed, gesture control in cars is the next worse thing
| after touchscreens!
| xattt wrote:
| > I briefly have to look at the console, find the button,
| and press it
|
| Even if that's the case, you can lightly drag your finger
| across a row of buttons, and remember that the button is
| the third one in without taking your eyes off the road.
| jclardy wrote:
| Yeah - I do wonder if a giant touchscreen with permanent
| controls (Zero context switching) could be nearly as
| effective as a climate panel with fixed buttons. Part of
| the issue of a touchscreen in a car today is that every
| single view is context dependent, whereas a physical volume
| knob is always in the same spot, performing the same
| singular function.
|
| My chevy has fixed buttons/knobs, but the only one I don't
| have to look for is the volume knob. There are too many
| climate buttons that I use maybe once every two weeks for
| me to gain any muscle memory from pressing them.
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| It wouldn't work because you still have to use your eyes
| to guide you to the spot since it can't be done by touch.
|
| A simple demonstration of this back from the 80s: My
| mother was blind. Along come microwave ovens with their
| flat control surfaces with push buttons behind. She had
| no way to find the buttons without inadvertently
| triggering wrong buttons. Labeling them would have been
| fine if she was alone but a problem with sighted people
| in the house. She solved it with a crude jig to let her
| locate buttons without applying pressure, but that was a
| two-handed operation that required concentration and
| still wouldn't work on a true touch screen.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| > I never understand the "you don't have to look at
| buttons" argument--my car has lots of physical buttons and
| to push them, I briefly have to look at the console, find
| the button, and press it.
|
| It's true of some buttons, but there are lots that you
| don't, mostly on the dipsticks: indicators, wipers, lights
| and the like.
|
| Others are well delineated and just need a quick glance,
| but lining up your finger and multiple presses on a
| touchscreen is not that at all.
| asadotzler wrote:
| I do not look at the buttons at all.
|
| I keep my hands at about 2:30 and 10:30, just up against
| the the airbag cross-member. With my right hand I reach out
| and a tad down but not much and a bit forward and land on
| the temp knob (also a toggle push button for temp auto
| mode) and I can do this every time with perfect muscle
| memory, to the right of that are six buttons, the closest
| is the power toggle button, then there's the
| recirculate/outside switch button, then a pair of side by
| side buttons for fan up and down then vent modes and
| against the right edge is the ac toggle button.
|
| It's a breeze to slide my finger across those buttons from
| closest to farthesst and know exactly where I am. Depending
| on which I'm after I can come in from the left or right
| side. Never need to look as the feedback for all of these
| is an environmental change I can sense by air movement or
| temperature or whatever, and so I generally know if I got
| something right or wrong without looking. On a rare
| occasion I'll be in a rush to flip from outside air to
| recirculate and will hit the fan down button but that's
| immediately recognizable and I correct and then easily
| reach the recirculate button.
|
| Below that space under a lip in the dash face, is, first in
| line to the right of the temp knob, my 3 stage heated seat
| button, then the windshield defroster, then the big giant
| slightly elevated hazard button in the middle and the rear
| defroster to the right of that. Like with the controls
| above, I start at the temp dial for orientation and then
| can usually leap right to the button I want since that
| distinctive center hazard button provides wayfinding at the
| mid point.
|
| Reaching down to the console I have two dials, a big one
| and a small one and I can easily land on the right one
| directly from the steering wheel in one jump. Then, still
| without looking, I can rest my hand on and move the dial
| leisurely, under no pressure for having my arm extended
| into space holding a specific pose, muscles poised to move
| quickly as soon as my gaze can align with my finger tips
| and the touch screen. Instead, my fingers fiddle the knob
| and usually get what I want on their own, or with only
| peripheral vision on the screen, but certainly those
| fingers can just sit there indefinitely until my eyes are
| safely free to make a glance that's not down at the knob,
| but due east, horizontally and to the right, atop the
| dashboard where a low and wide horizontal screen can be
| seen without losing peripheral vision directly in front of
| the vehicle and even some out to the left.
|
| The two dials are also joysticks and push buttons.
| Navigating the stock software and Android Auto are about
| equally easy and only require peripheral vision on the
| high-mounted screen most of the time, or the occasional
| short glances where I can have my eyes on it and the road
| in front of me considerably more at the same time than if
| the screen were extending down toward or even to the
| console.
|
| I've been through models of this same car that were
| screenless, fully touchscreen, hybrid, and now they've
| completely dropped the touchscreen and settled on dials and
| buttons far away from the screen. This is the way.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| You can touch and feel physical buttons without looking at
| them.
|
| When you touch a touchscreen, you can't feel the buttons,
| and it always triggers whatever button you touched.
|
| If you have so much trouble with physical buttons, then
| you'll have even more trouble with touch screens.
|
| Maybe you should stay off the road.
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| > I briefly have to look at the console, find the button,
| and press it.
|
| Are there no buttons on your car's steering wheel? Really,
| not even a horn? These can be pressed without even taking
| your hand off the wheel.
|
| And what about indicators, gear shifter, lights, parking
| brake? Do you "briefly have to look at the console" to find
| those?
| Gordonjcp wrote:
| > Are there no buttons on your car's steering wheel?
| Really, not even a horn?
|
| <laughs in old Citroen>
| SideburnsOfDoom wrote:
| In that case, you're not wrong; but as per the original
| topic, touchscreens are also not your issue.
| Gordonjcp wrote:
| No, and it is *glorious*.
|
| The only electronic thing on the whole dashboard is the
| clock, and it's never worked.
| ulizzle wrote:
| Likely a problem with your memory. Why do you always have
| to look at the console to find where your volume knob is?
| If you can touch-type on a keyboard, you should be able to
| remember where the buttons are.
| tp34 wrote:
| Do you need to look at your computer mouse to "click" the
| button(s)?
|
| Assuming you possess this basic competence, I find myself
| wondering how you managed to purchase a vehicle with such
| absurd ergonomics.
|
| You have a strange, poorly designed vehicle
|
| This "big dashboard full of buttons." Please provide a
| picture. Is this a custom design?
|
| "For me, when things get dangerous, its [sic] when pressing
| the button (physical or touch) doesn't do what its [sic]
| suppose [sic] to do."
|
| What actions are you referring to? Changing the audio
| volume? The interior fan speed?
|
| You may want to consider researching your vehicle purchases
| more rigorously.
| mitchdoogle wrote:
| These are all the controls that I use while driving, and
| these are pretty consistent for other cars I've driven
| (these are just off top of my head - I'm sure there would
| be more if I looked). And my car is fairly old at this
| point. I've driven newer rental cars that have a lot of
| extra features.
|
| - Climate Control: -- A/C On -- Circulate / Outside Air
| -- Temperature Up -- Temperature Down -- Fan Speed Up --
| Fan Speed Down -- Dual Mode -- Dual Mode Controls ( 4
| buttons - Repeat the temp/fan buttons for passenger side)
| -- Front Defrost -- Rear Defrost
|
| - Lights: -- Headlight mode -- Light dimmer -- Brights
| on/off -- Foglights on/off -- Flashers on/off
|
| - Driving -- Gear Shift -- Turn Signal -- Cruise Control
| --- On/Off --- Set/+ --- Resume/- -- ESC (Electronic
| Stability Control) on/off -- Tripometer / info - check
| mileage to empty / range / etc
|
| - Wipers -- wiper speed -- spray -- rear wipers --- spray
|
| - Entertainment -- On/Off -- Volume Up -- Volume Down --
| Mode (Switch between radio/android auto/sirius/etc) --
| Next / Radio Tuner Up -- Previous / Radio Tuner Down --
| Radio Presets (6 buttons) -- Play/Pause
|
| - Calling / Voice -- Initiate Voice Command -- Answer
| call -- Hang up / Decline call
|
| - Mirrors -- side mirror switch left/right -- side mirror
| adjust
|
| - Windows -- front driver window up/down -- front
| passenger window up/down -- rear driver window up/down --
| rear passenger window up/down -- window lock
|
| - Locks -- lock/unlock
| itsoktocry wrote:
| > _What actions are you referring to? Changing the audio
| volume? The interior fan speed?_
|
| This entire thread has me wondering the same thing. I've
| owned many cars and drive far more than average. What are
| y'all adjusting so much that's causing issues here?
|
| If we exclude infotainment, which even the best have
| lousy driving ergonomics, you need to be able to turn
| wipers on/off (most are automatic now), turn the HVAC up
| or down (many you can just leave at a single temperature
| in more modern systems) and turn your headlights on/off,
| high/low (these have been automatic in the last few cars
| I've owned). Most other things should be adjusted _before
| you start driving_.
|
| What are you having to adjust, outside your music, that's
| so difficult?
| quacksilver wrote:
| Some things that I personally have have had to do include
| adjusting the HVAC to have full output on the windscreen
| on a hot setting, enable the rear demister / mirror
| heaters or turn the hazard lights on. The windows or
| mirrors steaming up is a visibility issue and is
| dangerous if you allow it to occur.
|
| This may not be needed at the start of the drive if
| people's breath gradually steams up the windows or the
| weather changes. I have noticed that passengers from
| warmer climates probably don't have the same problems as
| they didn't understand this and were complaining at me to
| turn the fan off.
|
| Though I always buy cars with physical buttons that are
| in ergonomic places and wouldn't buy something with a
| touch screen. I am also not sure how a touch screen would
| work with the thin gloves that I wear in winter when
| driving to work in the early morning.
| chrisan wrote:
| The front/rear defogger should be 2 buttons, with the
| mirrors coming on with the front normally (at least in
| the cars I have driven).
|
| Hazard button is pretty hard to miss in every vehicle I
| have entered
|
| Do you find those difficult in your vehicle's layout?
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| Cruise control.
|
| HVAC--it does not compensate for ambient sunlight. What I
| want while driving in the sun is very different than what
| I want driving at night.
|
| I do not have automatic wipers or lights. I have driven
| cars with automatic lights and I found them wanting.
|
| Volume.
| gog wrote:
| I guess it depends on the car, I don't need to look at the
| buttons in my car, at least not the ones on the steering
| wheel and the ones by the main console that are used for
| navigation (including a navigation wheel).
|
| There are a few buttons I would need to look at but they
| are not something I would usually need while driving.
| throwaheyy wrote:
| How many buttons does your car have that you actually have
| to look?! Mine has lots and I can find the one I want by
| feel.
| acapybara wrote:
| Our Subaru has a physical volume knob.
|
| Its position is only a "gentle suggestion" to the software to
| move volume up or down.
|
| At times, especially when starting the vehicle, there is
| major latency in the software processing the knob movement..
|
| Also, if the knob is moved too fast, the sw gets the wrong
| reading.
|
| This results in volume being way too high for serveral
| seconds as well as many other frustrating, dangerous
| situations.
|
| UX in cars made in the 60s were better than this.
|
| I don't think slapping on fake physical knobs onto laggy
| buggy software is a solution at all.
| hasmolo wrote:
| i'm dropping my subaru for this among other reasons.
|
| 1. throttle response, move your foot to 20% and experience
| between no throttle and wide open as the 'turbos' kick in
| in my outback
|
| 2. every time we get near an intersection with bollards, it
| thinks it's a kid and slams on the brakes
|
| 3. you're not allowed to persist auto start disabling
|
| 4. you will be nagged for looking anywhere other than dead
| straight, especially if looking around a curve, you'll get
| beeped at
|
| 5. sometimes when driving the main 'touchscreen' just dies,
| takes about 5 minutes to reboot, and the entire time i have
| no climate or audio control, luckily the adaptive cruise
| control seems to stay working, you just can't reenable
| it...
| kasey_junk wrote:
| I thought 3 was federal law and was universal amongst US
| cars.
|
| I personally don't mind it, but thought it was indicative
| of how unpopular that feature was when a software update
| moved the disable button to my Subaru's dock.
|
| FWIW my Subaru doesn't experience the other issues
| mentioned besides 1 & 5. 1 is like any turbo I've driven
| before so maybe my expectations are off but 5 is crazy
| annoying.
| Slava_Propanei wrote:
| [dead]
| martyvis wrote:
| Surely 5 is a warranty claim. I actually went through 3
| head units on my 2014 Subaru XV with a very similar
| sounding issue.
| bfrog wrote:
| Subaru was awesome. The cvt, the ridiculous headsets, and
| thin paint mean this 18 xt forester is sadly my last one
| I think.
|
| The 5 speed outback sport I had before was absolutely a
| joy to drive.
| ccamrobertson wrote:
| We just bought a 2023 6-speed Crosstrek and it's amazing.
| Also, fewer (color) screens because it's practically the
| base.
|
| Sadly the last year one can get it as a manual.
| martyvis wrote:
| I quite like the CVT, but yeah my Outback paint is pretty
| much not up to the task of protecting from the Aussie
| sun, the branches and nuts that fall out of the, and
| birds and bats that poop all over it. I actually like
| cars that look nice but I'm now almost at the state of
| mind as long as it stops the body from rusting it is good
| enough.
| bfrog wrote:
| It's not that I don't like the cvt, but if it breaks I
| may as well buy a new car... my friends outback had its
| cvt self destruct and yeah, no thanks.
| dallbee wrote:
| Interesting. Out of these 5 issues I've only experienced
| the auto start annoyance on my Subaru crosstrek 2021.
|
| Is this limited to their higher end models?
| AlgorithmicTime wrote:
| [dead]
| matwood wrote:
| Wow on 2-5, but I thought 1 was 'normal' for cars with a
| turbo charger?
| dghughes wrote:
| I wouldn't say that is a thing anymore since the 1980s.
| My old 2003 truck a 5.9l turbo diesel was quite
| responsive but at nearly 6 litres spewed a lot of exhaust
| to spin up the turbine. Smaller cars may suffer a bit
| more although some sporty cars may have two stages;
| separate small and large turbos. The small is good at
| lower rpm and the large better at high rpm.
| bluGill wrote:
| Turbo lag is normal, but is is rarely more than a couple
| seconds. Even my F350 when pulling a heavy trailer I
| don't notice it - unless I'm in too high a gear for my
| speed. (I've only had a turbo with a manual transmission
| - I've driven some automatics that are slow enough to
| shift that you might think it was bad turbo lag, but
| those cars didn't even have a turbo)
| saltcured wrote:
| I think it's mostly transmissions and other non-turbo
| effects that cause these contemporary lag complaints.
|
| With all the fleet mileage requirements, there are much
| higher gear ratios for cruise and coast modes, so the
| engine can be bogged way down near idle speeds. Also,
| there are more software based throttle controls and
| interlocks. Some of this has to do with heavy-handed
| reaction to prior "unintended acceleration" panics, and
| some is just part of all the modern traction/stability
| control and efficiency programming.
|
| The programming can get utterly confused and fail to dip
| back into a ground state where it is ready to accelerate.
| People doing various combinations of heel-and-toe or
| other transitions between braking and acceleration,
| including rolling stops, may get their car into a
| different mode than they would want, and the recovery
| from this seems like "turbo lag" or worse.
| martyvis wrote:
| I love the gentle suggestion. I'll use that next time when
| I try explain to my wife about how it does annoy me as much
| as it does her. I would have really hoped the engineers
| that made clearly poor decisions (I cannot believe it is a
| fundamental system constraint) were brought to reckon on it
| somehow. Obviously not enough people at Subaru (or their
| OEM) cared. And you can't even (or I haven't worked out how
| to ) just have the media start muted every time you start
| the car. Often for a trip you just want to few moments of
| quiet contemplation thinking about what you have forgotten
| to take with you - and not the DJ yelling at you.
|
| I have a 2018 Outback for reference
| pc86 wrote:
| You sort of hit the nail on the head there. That's _not_ a
| physical button. It 's a physical button tied to terrible
| software. The software is the problem, and if the button
| either changed the volume in an analogue way (ideal), or
| Subaru had engineers who were writing better software (both
| less ideal and much less likely to happen), there would be
| no issue.
| varelse wrote:
| [dead]
| artimaeis wrote:
| Chiming in with a Toyota Corolla with a physical volume
| knob.
|
| Most of the time it works fairly well, I can perceive some
| latency but I'm pretty sensitive to it -- my wife can't
| tell at all.
|
| But when the car is first starting up the infotainment is
| clearly overloaded and the volume knob is suddenly a gentle
| suggestion. This is particularly upsetting if it decides to
| switch to a different input like Bluetooth then starts
| blasting at the last volume level of that input, and it
| takes a good 2 seconds to respond to the counterclockwise
| turn input.
|
| My 2015 Ford Fiesta had a more reliable volume knob, and it
| was as bargain bin as they come (manual windows!).
| subienewbie wrote:
| This seems to be the head of the Subaru thread.
|
| If you have any hope at all for Subaru to get better at
| software development, abandon it here. Subaru is a high
| watermark in my career for:
|
| - "us-vs-them" fighting between "IT" and "Business"
|
| - Siloing of teams within IT
|
| - Team bloat / retention of non-operative team members
| barrysteve wrote:
| Same with my Hyundai. Volume knob is unpredictable above a
| slow pace.
|
| It's a great car otherwise, but that makes the flaw stick
| out even more.
| FeistySkink wrote:
| Last year's top trim Tucson was the most uncanny valley
| of cars I've ever driven. All the controls are there, and
| sort of work, but everything is slightly off and
| inconvenient in an almost imperceptible way. That and it
| managed to break GPS with Android Auto, so plugging the
| phone in resulted in a worse reception and the car
| frequently lost itself, jumped to parallel roads and
| rerouted.
| patentatt wrote:
| I guess that's what we get when a rotary encoder is much
| much less expensive than a 4-6 gang potentiometer. And I
| also feel your pain with the car "booting up" phenomenon. I
| don't even have a particularly tech-heavy vehicle and upon
| starting the car the entire infotainment system feels like
| booting up a packard bell in 1996.
| wolrah wrote:
| > I guess that's what we get when a rotary encoder is
| much much less expensive than a 4-6 gang potentiometer.
|
| Also a rotary encoder doesn't age in the same way as a
| potentiometer. A potentiometer can wear out the area
| being used most heavily while simultaneously developing
| oxidation on the areas not being used. Eventually this
| leads to crackling, dead areas on the dial, and other
| misbehavior.
|
| A rotary encoder on the other hand doesn't wear out in a
| practical sense. The only part that even could wear is
| the bearing or bushing supporting the rotating assembly,
| and if that's specced appropriately for the application
| it's effectively a lifetime component. It's possible to
| build a crappy rotary encoder that falls apart earlier
| than desired, and of course they can still be damaged by
| abuse, but a well built one should outlast the useful
| life of the device it's installed in by multiple orders
| of magnitude.
| neuralRiot wrote:
| Rotary encoders do fail, they produce the effect of
| control being unresponsive or "reversed"
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| Relative rotary encoders are much cheaper than absolute
| rotary encoders, and I expect that's the problem here. If
| the encoders were absolute, one could make them work just
| like a potentiometer (because potentiometers are
| absolute). Relative encoders cannot remember where they
| were last set because they only sense dp/dt, rather than
| position itself. So it's up to the software to remember
| the last position, and everybody knows car companies
| won't pay software engineers tech company salaries, so by
| definition car companies get B-level and C-level
| programmers, and the driver gets weird misbehaving audio
| in the car.
| masfuerte wrote:
| Old school wire-wound potentiometers are nearly
| indestructible.
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| The problem is not a rotary encoder, but how the software
| handles the signals. That's what interrupts are for, the
| command should make it into the software queue basically
| instantly, ensuring commands aren't lost.
| toast0 wrote:
| You can't really use a user facing pot for volume control
| when you've also got volume control buttons on the
| steering wheel and keywords for voice control.
| dreamcompiler wrote:
| Well you _can_ and some kinds of high-end audio equipment
| are actually built to do this by putting servo motors on
| the pots so that settings can be stored and retrieved
| automatically. But that 's probably too expensive for a
| car company to consider.
| martyvis wrote:
| Is the problem that the same systems are used for car
| media and potentially other systems and that encoders
| "can" be more flexible if they need to be?
| Rychard wrote:
| I can't recall seeing a single car that used a
| potentiometer for the volume control, and I've had cars
| from the early 90's all the way to today. They've all
| used encoders.
|
| Do you have some examples of makes/models that used
| potentiometers for volume control?
| wolrah wrote:
| > I can't recall seeing a single car that used a
| potentiometer for the volume control, and I've had cars
| from the early 90's all the way to today. They've all
| used encoders.
|
| That's because the switch happened earlier than that. Go
| back earlier than the "DIN size" head units of the '80s
| and '90s to the "shaft" style radios with two large knobs
| flanking a center section with an analog frequency
| display and maybe some preset buttons if you're lucky.
| chrisan wrote:
| Clearly that is a problem with Subaru (and Honda from
| someone else?) and not physical buttons themselves. Just
| because some vehicles have a piss poor implementation
| doesn't mean the idea of physical is wrong.
|
| I have a 2015/16 Ford and Chevy with the infotainment
| screens - both have physical buttons and both respond
| instantly to my changes. They also both have an additional
| volume control on the steering wheel itself which also
| responds instantly.
|
| I'm not advocating everyone go buy Ford/Chevy by any means,
| but physical buttons - when implemented correctly - are
| superior to touchscreen controls.
| dom96 wrote:
| > and Honda from someone else?
|
| fwiw my '20 Honda Civic doesn't have this problem. Volume
| knob feedback is instant.
| eastbound wrote:
| > Just because some vehicles have a piss poor
| implementation doesn't mean the idea of physical is
| wrong.
|
| Yes it does. We constantly ban entire classes of goods
| because some of them can be badly built or badly used by
| customers _knowingly using them wrong_. Sydney even
| banned a few hundred bars in 2013 because tenants were
| using alcohol then misbehaved on the public street.
|
| Of course, a proven track of horrible implementations of
| OS for physical knobs should ban those companies from
| using them for 10 years. Come back to us when you can
| control how your gear behaves, we should tell them, this
| is the textbook implementation of no-upfront-regulation-
| until-you-misbehave.
| martyvis wrote:
| This is great satire. I just can't understand how people
| go home at night knowing that this thing they built could
| easily have got right but they just got it so wrong. I
| think the big "system constraint" isn't so much the
| technical system but the business management system that
| clearly has to please "stakeholders" allows these flaws
| to keep continuing.
|
| As a Sydneysider you know we like those shame pages for
| bad restaurants and the like, maybe we need one for
| crappy UX
| to11mtm wrote:
| My 22 Ford has problems with the volume. Sometimes it
| just keeps pumping to max and you have to fight with it
| for up to 30 seconds as it's blasting your ears out.
|
| That's kinda the problem; these 'Infotainment' systems
| keep getting upgraded/etc for marketing purposes but
| don't have enough care put in the upgrades to make sure
| stuff works right.
|
| "Move Fast and Break things" is not a good motto for
| anything that does in a car IMO.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| The problem with cars is that's it's move slow and break
| things.
| martyvis wrote:
| These comments with exactly the same problems I have are
| really making me LOL. Thanks. (I'm battling fever bouts
| post chemo so I need a laugh)
| alliao wrote:
| sounds like a different type of hell, didn't realise it
| could get this bad!
| londons_explore wrote:
| Thing is... most of these are quite small bugs. The
| software development team working on this stuff for just
| a week or two more would have fixed 80+% of these.
|
| Problem is they probably had project managers breathing
| down their necks about "don't spend time working on non-
| release-blocking tickets".
| brookst wrote:
| Why did the project managers introduce the bugs in the
| first place?
| theposey wrote:
| good i hate this so much, same in a honda odyssey
| gofreddygo wrote:
| Physical buttons have the distinct advantage of being
| physical (duh!)
|
| I can triangulate my way to the right button on the dashboard
| with just my fingers without ever taking eyes off the road.
|
| I can touch and feel a button without "pressing" or
| activating it. Impossible with a touch screen!
|
| Buttons can be differently shaped to make this even better.
|
| Touch screens invite and allow bad ux with nested menus. You
| need to know which screen you're on, which menu is activated.
|
| I know distinctly if I pressed a button once or twice or
| thrice, or long pressed it. No dice with touch screens.
|
| No software update will ever change the physical layout of
| those buttons. Period. So much simpler.
|
| And if buttons are more expensive, well thats good ! Make it
| harder to put more buttons. We don't need more.
|
| Anecdotally, my 2006 prius had a touch screen. Always worked
| as expected, no lag. I could never, through 5 years of
| ownership, change the temp, or start the defogger without
| looking at the screen. A nissan I drove last week with
| physical buttons, took me a day to get used to with physical
| buttons and knobs for these functions.
|
| I dont see a single end user benefit for touch screens. I see
| a bunch of reasons for the manufacturer tho.
| TheFragenTaken wrote:
| The fact that these cars pass safety certification, makes me
| question certifiers. It's illegal to look at your phone while
| driving, for good reason, but it's legal to fiddle with a
| damn computer screen, because it's part of the car.
|
| I predict it's a matter of time before we'll see a
| correlation between number of crashes, and cars with
| touchscreens.
| zamnos wrote:
| Do auto insurance rates on touch screen cars show this to
| be the case? Cars with touch screens have been around long
| enough that they should have data, and consequently be
| charging more for insurance on those cars if they are is
| that is indeed the case.
| satellite2 wrote:
| They are. But car with touchscreen are more powerful
| which is always linked to higher fees. So hard to say
| which feature causes what.
| jml78 wrote:
| I owned a new honda civic before I bought a Tesla model
| 3.
|
| It is only one data point but my insurance went down when
| I got the Tesla.
| xmcqdpt2 wrote:
| Auto insurance models like many other insurance models
| are often not that smart. The insurance company will
| charge more of there is more claims payout, but they also
| want to attract certain client segments and compete with
| competitors.
|
| Also, claim rates have all kind of confounding factors.
| Maybe a car is safer but more prone to theft, or more
| dangerous but easier to repair, or has better controls
| but is driven by inexperienced drivers etc.
|
| They need to make a profit over their whole insured
| client population, not necessarily over any given segment
| or car model, so I wouldn't use insurance rates as data
| points in determining car safety without a lot of
| caveats.
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| Yup, what sort of driver a given car model attracts is a
| substantial factor in the rates. Just try to insure a
| sports car to see this!
| ConcernedCoder wrote:
| The fact that my touch screen will often display a
| distracting message that reminds me that it's unsafe to
| take my eyes off the road while driving and require someone
| to touch the "ok" button to dismiss it is the epitome of
| dangerous stupidity...
| jclardy wrote:
| Yes, it is the most useless thing ever. I think my truck
| displays it maybe once per day? It isn't every drive,
| which ends up making it worse because I look to tap on
| the radio and I have to first reach across the entire
| display to hit OK, then wait for it to load, then tap the
| radio...If it was every drive I could just be programmed
| to tap the button without looking at it, which of course
| defeats the purpose of it in the first place.
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| At least my Corolla doesn't persist the screen--and it's
| instantly dismissed if I go into reverse and the backup
| camera activates. The driver assist stuff is fairly mild
| which is good because it's prone to errors. It routinely
| gets confused about what constitutes a lane, beeping
| about my not following something that isn't actually a
| lane. Usually something on the road but I've been scolded
| for not respecting the shadow of an electric wire. It
| also thinks I'm not holding the wheel when I'm in a very
| gentle high speed turn--there's a spot where the
| expressway gently curves that's very prone to triggering
| it.
|
| The adaptive cruise is pretty good, it's been fooled once
| by two cars moving in front of me at the same time and it
| appears to have no understanding of cars with huge speed
| differences. (Bozos that enter the road at half the speed
| limit.) It also refuses to operate below 28 mph which I
| dislike because cruise control is good for using the
| engine to hold your speed down on hills--and there's a
| certain 25 mph mountain road I sometimes drive. Yeah,
| maybe the adaptive stuff can't work but at least give me
| basic control so I don't need to use my brakes!
| phkahler wrote:
| >> I predict it's a matter of time before we'll see a
| correlation between number of crashes, and cars with
| touchscreens.
|
| Insurance companies should have this data already. They
| should start setting rates based on it.
| geraldwhen wrote:
| In many states you can absolutely use your phone while
| driving, either to call someone or actively use gps without
| a window mount.
|
| What's explicitly prohibited is texting/writing and
| driving.
| justeleblanc wrote:
| The US is not a beacon of consumer safety. In my European
| country, having your phone in your hand while driving is
| illegal.
| nosequel wrote:
| I live in a state where phone use is legal and I am so
| jealous of you right now. I see near misses on the road
| every-single-day.
| martyvis wrote:
| Same here in Australia. I actually think we have
| developed the technology (and the matching legislation)
| that allows pole mounted cameras to detect this while
| driving at 110kmh down the expressway. I know many people
| that have been "busted" and even though I use a handsfree
| holder, just placing (when you forgot to do so before you
| drive off) is just as illegal here.
|
| I did laugh when of course sometimes they would pickup
| someone holding a chocolate bar while driving. While not
| necessarily the best thing to do with the one hand, not
| illegal all the same.
| kube-system wrote:
| There are US states that have the same law.
|
| The way that the separations of powers work in the US,
| basically all driving laws are set by the states. The
| rules for driving can and do change when you cross state
| lines in the US, sometimes significantly. It really
| doesn't make any sense to talk about specific driving
| laws in the US as a monolith.
| bluGill wrote:
| In all states where it is allowed you can be sure there
| is at least one lobby group (probably bicycles) working
| to make it illegal.
| nativeit wrote:
| I wish them all the best here in NC, but the auto
| dealer's association is easily one of the most
| influential lobbying groups in the state, which is why
| Tesla can't even sell their own cars here.
| Rediscover wrote:
| Honda Prelude. Maybe 1985. _Everything_ off for me. Radio
| controls, lift my hand off the shifter, vs my Toyota:
| extend a finger. Hated that Honda.
| Archelaos wrote:
| > but it's legal to fiddle with a damn computer screen,
| because it's part of the car.
|
| In Germany it is only legal to operate a touch screen while
| driving for essential functions with only a brief glance.
| For example, a judgement was handed down against a Tesla
| driver who tried to switch up the interval of the
| windscreen wiper via touchscreen and ran off the road in
| the process.
|
| Source: https://www.burhoff.de/asp_weitere_beschluesse/inha
| lte/5723.... (in German)
| dontlaugh wrote:
| Which would have never happened if the car had normal
| physical controls for that function. Mine has a little
| rocker on the wiper stalk.
| epistasis wrote:
| If you know ahead of time how to do it. If you are in a
| new car, discovering which of 12 different switches,
| knobs, and dials adjusts the wiper speed is somewhat
| baffling. I always spend 5 minutes in a new rental car
| trying to memorize how to do this, but if it's been a
| couple days since I rented the car and I'm trying to do
| it for the first time, it is not something that I try to
| attempt to adjust while still on the road.
| dontlaugh wrote:
| Sure. But for physical controls it's generally easy to
| discover as well. Indeed it only takes a few minutes in
| an unfamiliar car, after which it's easy to use the
| controls with at most a passing glance.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| The judgement should have been against tesla, not the
| customer. Wipers are essential and should not require
| fiddling
| garbagewoman wrote:
| 50:50 maybe? The customer, upon realising how shitty the
| car is, should have returned it as not fit for purpose
| MaxMatti wrote:
| And risk having to go to court over whether it really is
| unfit? That's not something they should decide, that's
| something that regulators should have stopped before the
| car was even put on the market in the first place.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| Sounds like the driver was attempting to adjust non-
| critical features of wipers not turning them off and on
|
| We should be very careful not to include the kitchen sink
| in with "essential" items.
|
| Turning the wipers off and on, is critical, adjusting
| delay timings is not
| [deleted]
| Spooky23 wrote:
| Huh? Every car from 1960-2010 managed to provide
| intermittent wiper controls that were straightforward to
| use.
| nicky0 wrote:
| If you're in a rainstorm and the wipers are set to
| "minimum speed" then turning the speed up would be
| critical.
| londons_explore wrote:
| The safe thing to do would be to pull over first, as you
| see the rain getting heavier, then adjust.
| scarface74 wrote:
| Yes because pulling over on a multi lane highway in the
| rain when you have poor visibility and then trying to
| merge into traffic is much safer.
|
| Besides, what if you are on the road with no shoulders.
| Gordonjcp wrote:
| Why wouldn't the safe thing be to reach out from the
| steering wheel with one of the fingers of your right
| hand, and move the little slider thing on the wiper
| switch to increase the wipe speed?
|
| You know, like on my appallingly primitive 1998 Range
| Rover, or pretty much anything from the same era?
| smaudet wrote:
| I can immediately think of several situations where that
| is not at all possible to do.
|
| Construction, cliff roads, country roads, etc.
|
| Tesla are unsafe death traps by design.
| concordDance wrote:
| > Tesla are unsafe death traps by design.
|
| This is completely untrue by third party metrics (both
| governmental and not).
| BanazirGalbasi wrote:
| They meet crash standards, yes. But the interior design
| of them encourages unsafe driving. Between putting almost
| everything inside a touch screen and pushing autopilot
| (which encourages drivers to pay attention less), they
| are creating more distractions from controlling their
| 2-ton metal boxes.
|
| Drivers are licensed operators of heavy machinery that
| travels at high speed. Let's not encourage systems that
| turn us into more dangerous operators.
| concordDance wrote:
| If they were "death traps" the stats would have them as
| the most dangerous cars on the road rather than one of
| the safest (in terms of deaths per mile). The grandparent
| was speaking absolute nonsense.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| A tank would be safes car, statistically - its just
| deadly to wveryone else.
| electrondood wrote:
| What you've just said is a description of the exact
| opposite of reality.
|
| Teslas are the safest cars on the road, and not even by a
| little bit.
| nsxwolf wrote:
| Pulling over to adjust the wiper speed? Come on now.
| Chris2048 wrote:
| So, what to do on a motorway?
| nsxwolf wrote:
| I get the impression you've never driven in the rain.
| martyvis wrote:
| Maybe your rain is different from the rain where I live.
| Being able to adjust speeds is critical so I get maximum
| vision with minimum distraction
| Gordonjcp wrote:
| > Turning the wipers off and on, is critical, adjusting
| delay timings is not
|
| You've never driven in rain, have you?
| Rediscover wrote:
| Fun story:
|
| My ex (one of my best friends), born and raised in
| Seattle, used to give me serious grief anytime I mention
| rain in Boston or NYC. She had no belief in what I would
| describe.
|
| Work finally ships her out to (NYC). She calls me up to
| say she just ran ~2meters from the hotel to the taxi and
| is soaking wet.
|
| She has never commented on Seattle "rain" since.
|
| REAL rain.
| Gordonjcp wrote:
| I'm from north-west Scotland.
|
| Many years ago we had a guy working for us who was sent
| over from our company's parent company in Southern Cali.
| He was not keen on going out in the rain at all, and was
| absolutely terrified that we still drove at 60mph when it
| was raining. "But what if you skid? It's raining!" he'd
| wail.
|
| He'd never driven in rain. He just did not take well to a
| Scottish January, especially the bit where you get 140mph
| winds for a couple of weeks.
| GenerocUsername wrote:
| Seattelite here.
|
| We get that rain too periodically.
|
| Sesttelites complain about rain because we regularly
| experience 100+ days of rain.
|
| Seattle rain is not not a storm, it's a marathon.
| madcaptenor wrote:
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-17/this-
| simp...
|
| There's a map here that shows that most of the eastern US
| gets more rain than Seattle, but Seattle is very high on
| the number of days of measurable precipitation.
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| It's a critical function--high speed in light rain will
| cause problems from the rubber moving across basically
| dry glass, low/intermittent speed in heavy rain won't
| clear your view properly.
| kurisufag wrote:
| my 2003 Honda Accord allows you to change wiper interval
| the same way you enable/disable it -- moving the right-
| hand stick a notch.
|
| setting it to a high speed will fuck up the wipers when
| there is little rain, a /low/ speed will be useless when
| there is appreciable rain, and when driving you often
| move from one to another.
| Aeolun wrote:
| Depends on how hard the rain is pouring down.
| randallsquared wrote:
| Shortening a delay timing has the same effect as turning
| the wiper on in some rain conditions.
| naravara wrote:
| I can't help but feel like we've made a mistake by
| concentrating so many of the people who design our
| standard software UX patterns in California. From Tesla
| designing car interfaces that don't understand how wipers
| need to work to Apple designing weather apps that don't
| clearly communicate wind chill to smartphones that
| require use of the touchscreen to answer a phone call
| rendering it impossible to answer while wearing gloves.
| It's like they only understand the concept of weather
| from TV shows set in New York.
| firstlink wrote:
| Careful, this is only one step removed from fascistly
| suggesting that regulations which work in downtown SF
| don't work in rural areas.
| martyvis wrote:
| This is comedy gold!
| htrp wrote:
| Self driving cars don't work in snow.....
| [deleted]
| galangalalgol wrote:
| I didn't believe it could be that nad, but I looked up
| the video at Tesla and you really have to go to the
| touchscreen to speed up the wiper. That should absolutely
| be illegal. Does it have some autosense feature so that
| you usually don't have to ise it?
| zaroth wrote:
| It does have an auto mode.
|
| But also, you can now adjust wiper speed / interval on
| the steering wheel in a Tesla without using the
| touchscreen.
|
| Feature was actually added a just a few weeks ago in a
| software update.
| vel0city wrote:
| Does changing the speed using the wheel require either
| knowing a menu layout or looking at a screen to know what
| the wheel control is actually controlling at the moment?
| martyvis wrote:
| I'm sure it's the type of thing in an Elon meeting he
| would say "Surely we can think of a solution better than
| relying on drivers to provide meaningful input to the
| desired outcome?"
| zaroth wrote:
| Surely the ideal is the wiper is always moving at the
| perfectly desired speed and interval without any human
| intervention required.
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| This obviously depends on the jurisdiction. Here in the UK:
|
| There is a specific ban on using phones while driving.
|
| There is an obligation to drive with "due care and
| attention" so taking your eyes and attention off the road
| to spend time fiddling with a computer screen can be an
| offence as well.
| rlpb wrote:
| In practice the bar for "due care and attention" is low
| (ie. you have had to be really, really careless or
| really, really inattentive to be convicted). The courts
| in the UK hold drivers only to a pretty low standard in
| general. That's why they had to pass a separate law to
| ban handheld use of mobile phones.
| ThisIsNotNew wrote:
| An example of how oblivious drivers on phones are is
| this:
|
| I parked (where I could not be seen by the van) to warn
| oncoming drivers of mobile speed van 50 metres ahead over
| brow of hill.
|
| While nearly all made eye contact with me and speeders
| instantly slammed the brakes, two drivers on phones (both
| women with kids), despite me flashing my headlamps AND
| putting my hand out of my car and waving at them, they
| still did not look at me or put down the phone.
|
| This was after the penalty was doubled to 6 points.
|
| (And yes I know its not legal for me to warn drivers of
| speed traps like this)
| mytailorisrich wrote:
| This can be a fixed penalty (no court involved unless
| driver does not accept penalty). So I think it really
| depends on what the driver was actually doing (especially
| impact on driving), how the driver responds to being
| stopped by police, and whether police is having a bad
| day.
| Aeolun wrote:
| The thing is that with physical buttons you're suddenly back
| with electrotechnical engineers, whom, on the whole need to be
| a whole lot more competent than software engineers to do their
| jobs.
| KyeRussell wrote:
| Yep. And they've pretty much got the track record to prove
| that they can.
| [deleted]
| gumballindie wrote:
| > these imbecile developers would strictly limit UI response
| time to under 16ms
|
| Oh my sweet summer child. If only it was the developer's fault
| and not their managers pushing ridiculous deadlines.
| LorenPechtel wrote:
| This isn't about response time, but about what you can do
| *without looking*.
|
| Everything I generally need to do while driving I can do
| without using the touch screen. Being experienced with my car I
| can do it purely by touch, no looking *at all*.
|
| We make a big issue about hands-free use of phones while
| driving--other than for a new driver I do not believe that
| matters. I learned on stick, that most certainly isn't hands-
| free but nobody says it's unsafe. What's actually important is
| that driver tasks be eyes-free and concentration-free. (And,
| yes, once you've learned stick is concentration-free.) And
| hands-free doesn't eliminate the problem of people taking phone
| calls that require thought--that's what is actually dangerous.
|
| I don't give the slightest hoot about the response time of the
| controls so long as they count activations independent of the
| response time. (I click a control 5 times, I care that it
| actually moved the relevant value 5 but if it takes a second
| per click to acknowledge that's irrelevant. I'm unlikely to
| even look at the result.)
| gcatalfamo wrote:
| Physical buttons allow you to press them without looking away
| from the road.
|
| This is the only real topic about buttons and driving.
| barrysteve wrote:
| The complexity of functionality, that you can never _really_
| get familiar with, is a problem too.
|
| Two US Navy crashes (17 sailors dead, unfortunately) are
| attributed to touchscreen complexity and unfamiliarity with the
| controls. [0]
|
| The Navy is ditching touchscreens too, and going with
| mechanical switches and wheels. Maybe cars and ships make a
| larger trend away from touchscreens?
|
| [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49319450
| lisasays wrote:
| I'd be curious as to where the magical 16ms figure comes from.
| Yeah, a single monitor refresh. But is that really needed for
| most UIs?
|
| _these imbecile developers ... under-experienced software
| "engineers."_
|
| Yes, I know we've all been conditioned by the relentless
| pecking order of this industry to direct our ire downwards and
| sideways, rather than where it belongs.
|
| But in my experience, at least 80 percent of the time the
| developers (whatever their caliber) are perfectly aware of when
| stuff is inadequate, and how to do stuff better. Ultimately
| it's managers and executives who make the call on what to
| create, and when to release.
| hinkley wrote:
| I spent a lot of time in my career directing it upward, but
| it's not wrong to blame your peers either.
|
| Boundary setting is a two way street. There's a certain ratio
| of 'no' in your responses and if you don't hit it then you
| don't have a healthy relationship. And as the member of a
| group dynamic, you're letting down your peers.
|
| But the real shocker was when I caught developers agreeing
| with me in philosophical discussions and then sitting around
| doing nothing when slack occurred in the schedule. It didn't
| occur to me that developers would agree with engineering
| philosophy only to appear high minded, and then defect when
| the cameras weren't rolling. Boy was that a hard (and angry)
| week.
| lisasays wrote:
| Oh sure - there are definitely morale and trust issues.
| Even (and sometimes especially) among otherwise smart and
| capable people.
|
| Vastly more common (and destructive) than simple
| incompetence, I have sadly come to find.
| hinkley wrote:
| "Groomed for failure" is one of the oldest engineering
| terms I stole from someone else. There's a definite
| "drive it like you stole it" mentality among managers
| about how to get work out of devs. I've never had much
| luck with Burnout and Replace. Building momentum by
| getting better at writing code (not better at taking
| shortcuts) has a lot going for it but seems hippy dippy
| to some people.
|
| I was just thinking this morning that Ted Lasso may make
| it easier for some of us to try again to reintroduce some
| of these concepts.
| misssocrates wrote:
| They should be faster, but don't they support voice commands
| while driving? That's the idea so you don't have to touch it
| much or at all while driving.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| Driving a BMW X3 recently and a Tesla Model Y, I want a
| compromise. The Tesla had to few buttons (but I'd keep the
| display, though HUD is nicer) and the BMW had to many buttons and
| the display felt 1990.
|
| (Also it was so much easier to find settings in the Tesla)
| tellitlikeitis2 wrote:
| [flagged]
| throw7 wrote:
| Anyone with two brain cells could tell you touchscreens suck in
| cars. They physically demand visually attention to do anything.
| omgomgomgomg wrote:
| Drove a bmw 2 series last week, you have to move forward ypur
| whole upper body to touch the screen, theres no way to reach the
| screen without getting into a very unsafe position.
|
| Am 6ft.
|
| Bmw used to do ergonomics and ui very well, what a
| disappointment.
| IAmPym wrote:
| I don't think automakers ever thought drivers LIKED touch
| screens, it was just so much cheaper that someone saw the margins
| and decided to go for it.
|
| When we design synthesizers, the MAJORITY of the cost is in the
| UI. People need the UI because our industry is all about gestures
| and mastery. You cannot master when you have a large screen that
| is not consistent and requires too much interaction.
|
| Musicians would call this a feeling of 'menu-diving' which is
| almost the worst thing you can say to describe a synth.
|
| There are actually some technological advances here where you can
| create buttons in a touch screen (convex or concave) which does
| help with some of the issues here, but it isn't cheap enough to
| be an alternative yet. I need to find the links for those
| robomartin wrote:
| Anyone who thinks touchscreens are a good idea for cars should
| somehow be given the task of driving an operating a car at 200
| mph (320 kph) while messing with it. Maybe in a full aircraft-
| style motion simulator. Or, better yet, on the Nurburgring.
|
| I can't think of a single racecar with a touchscreen for any
| control the driver must interact with while driving. And these
| are trained, experienced professional drivers. Auto makers want
| Grandma to keep the car on the road while messing with a
| touchscreen!?
|
| Red Bull, Ferrari and Mercedes F1 cars would be a pile of
| smoldering carbon fiber almost instantly if the drivers had to
| use touchscreens. They would be impossible to drive.
| colordrops wrote:
| This keeps coming up on Hacker News. It's not that drivers hate
| touch screens. It's that most of them are terribly implemented.
| People hated smartphones until Apple released the iPhone. Just
| think about smartphones before that. The UX was horrid.
|
| I suspect most people in this thread piling onto the hate don't
| own a recent model Tesla. I know that some owners aren't fans,
| but most are. There are three things that make the touch screen
| on Teslas work unlike other cars:
|
| 1. The UX - big responsive displays with fast processors and
| properly designed UIs. They aren't an afterthought like most
| other vehicles. Every time I drive a car other than my Tesla I
| too hate the half-ass touch screens.
|
| 2. There are indeed still physical controls still on the Tesla
| for important functions, e.g. drive control, wipers, and audio
| selection and volume. It's not 100% touch screen.
|
| 3. Automation and voice controls handle most of the cases where
| you'd normally need a knob or button, e.g. wipers and lights are
| automatic. And voice control seems to be using a state of the art
| API (Google?) so it works pretty well.
| fossuser wrote:
| Yeah the Tesla screen is excellent.
|
| The issue isn't so much with touch screens, it's every other
| car company being atrocious at software and software design.
| wildrhythms wrote:
| Taking your eyes off the road to adjust the AC is a terrible
| UX. And as for 'voice commands' bless your heart to imagine
| every car doesn't have screaming kids in the back seat or a
| driver with a heavy accent. I want a knob.
| shushpanchik wrote:
| Last software update allows to map many functions to long-
| press of steering wheel button. So you can assign AC
| temperature to it, then you don't need to take your eyes of
| the road - just long-press left button and scroll up/down.
| natch wrote:
| Fortunately AC starts out on auto which works great even
| while your kids are screaming.
| speedgoose wrote:
| Yes I don't think many people actually often need to fiddle
| the AC settings while driving. And that would be a very
| seldomly used knob when you have a good automatic AC.
| BulgarianIdiot wrote:
| Sanity at last
| hkatx wrote:
| I like mazda approach to their infotainment. The initial boot is
| slow(2019 model new one may have faster boots), but once it
| loads, i am very happy with the way it works. Once the car is
| running or over a certain speed, the touch functionality of the
| touch screen is disabled. The rotary dial that is easy to reach
| can be used to do all the functions I need on my infotainment.
| HVAC are physical buttons as well as volume is a physical knob.
|
| Once I got used to the rotary dial, I never needed to touch the
| screen again.
| codegeek wrote:
| ADT the security company started doing touchscreens for their
| panels and I hate it so much even though I am a tech guy etc.
| Give me the old school physical keypad any day. I will never buy
| a Tesla because I sat in one with a friend and I was like no way
| I am relying on an entire computer/touch screen to run a car.
| justrealist wrote:
| Other autos all route physical buttons through the car's OS
| now. Nothing is actually directly wired to the corresponding
| actuators anymore. The buttons are mechanical but are basically
| equivalent to a touchscreen in terms of control.
| natch wrote:
| It doesn't run the car at all. In fact you can reboot it while
| driving.
| ghostpepper wrote:
| Are there any controls you can't access while it's rebooting?
| Hypothetically if it didn't come back up, what features would
| be inaccessible?
| natch wrote:
| A long list of non essential features. But pedals and
| steering and doors and windows still work fine in your
| scenario (which btw I've never heard of happening but of
| course it's maybe possible). Not sure about wipers, haven't
| tried the wiper button while rebooting, hmm now I'm really
| curious...
| piperswe wrote:
| Back when I owned a Tesla, I had the infotainment system
| crash at least once. Luckily I was on a neighborhood
| road, so I could just go slow in lieu of the speedometer.
| natch wrote:
| Wow, you really were lucky, whew.
| checkyoursudo wrote:
| With. A. Passion.
|
| Other touch screens (or similar things) I dislike:
|
| - the controls on my stove top
|
| - the controls on my monitor
|
| - the controls on my tv
|
| - the controls on my thermostat
|
| - probably more
|
| All of these should have physical buttons for the limited number
| of functions required. Or, at a minimum, for navigation and
| confirmation. Touch screens there suck.
|
| My wife's car has a touch screen on the control/infotainment
| center whatever it's called (where the radio is), and a few
| physical buttons on the steering wheel. There are two clocks: one
| on the control center, and one in the main dashboard display.
|
| The dashboard clock is controlled by the buttons (just one for
| menu nav and one for confirm selection) is super simple and
| frustration-free to change. The touch-screen controlled one is a
| shitty pain the ass.
|
| By far the worst though is my touch-controlled stove top. Just
| give me some damned knobs.
| awritawirj wrote:
| Problem #1 is that touchscreens are difficult to operate in
| applications where you're supposed to keep your eyes on the
| road.
|
| Problem #2, which makes Problem #1 ten times worse, when when
| you get crap like Tesla does where the UI changes every month.
| They don't have any genuine functionality improvements to make,
| so they just move buttons around and hide or eliminate buttons
| "in preparation to make the car driverless". I never use
| Autopilot, much less Partial-Self-Driving. Give me back my UI
| from five years ago.
| ryan-allen wrote:
| My fridge has touch buttons, and they often go haywire and
| reprogram the desired temperature! They at least beep while the
| ghost is interacting with them, so I can go and make sure my
| drinks don't end up frozen.
| ridgered4 wrote:
| Touchscreens were always just a horrible interface. Their only
| advantages were portability and recently cheapness. That made
| them the best choice for mobile devices but due to fad chasing
| and cost cutting they have been bolted onto every device where
| they have no business being in some cases with outright
| dangerous results.
| alliao wrote:
| have I got the knob for you
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4d9Yu2pvOg
| bmacho wrote:
| Touchscreens on ticket machines. They don't work when it is
| sunny, cloudy, raining or snowing. And even when working,
| ticket machines with physical buttons are just way faster and
| easier.
| vibragiel wrote:
| Totally agree. Lately touch switches have been riddling every
| electric appliance: kitchen hood, microwave, washing machine,
| dishwasher... I think that being easier to clean doesn't pay
| off for the utter loss of usability. That's why I'm very fond
| of Breville (Sage here in Europe) appliances: they're covered
| with buttons and knobs.
| tsm wrote:
| Thankfully I have physical knobs on my stovetop, so my current
| least favorite is my dishwasher. When am I practically
| guaranteed to have damp hands? After doing the dishes. When do
| I need to start the dishwasher? After doing the dishes. Why
| have an interface that requires dry (but not too dry!)
| fingertips?
|
| The extra knife twist is that if I misjudge how wet my hands
| are, I get a little water on the dishwasher controls and then
| they don't work at all until I dry them thoroughly.
| Poppys wrote:
| How often are you changing the clock?
| dmonitor wrote:
| at least twice a year. more often if traveling across time
| zones.
| Aromasin wrote:
| I feel like industrial designers looked at Apple in the early
| 2000's with how well their touchscreens went, and just lost any
| sense of logic or sensibility. Everything had to be
| touchscreen, with no thought or reason put into _why_ phones in
| particular needed touch screens.
|
| Buttons meant there was less space for a screen. They couldn't
| make the display any bigger, or the buttons any smaller, so an
| innovation was needed. It's a unique device; the input is as
| important as the output. Designers don't seem to understand
| that.
|
| A car has more space to put button and knobs than a mobile
| phone ever will. Not only that, while the output to the user
| required is minimal, but the input is _critical_. I need an
| input that is as easy and clear to activate as possible. All I
| need in response is a noise or light to tell me that the
| feature is active. A touch display might give me more visual
| feedback, but that is not the important factor!
|
| Don't even get me started on capacitive touch buttons...
| sonar_un wrote:
| In a way though, Apple tried to solve the problem with haptic
| feedback. What is completely lacking in all touchscreen
| controls these days is any kind of feedback. So Apple
| actually recognized the need for a feedback with touchscreens
| and invented a solution. Industrial designers didn't even try
| to "solve" this problem.
| LandR wrote:
| My new washing machine has touch buttons to start it and pause
| it.
|
| I normally have to push start a few times to get it to actually
| start, and there is no feedback that I've even pushed start at
| all. So I don't know if it's just not registered the push, or
| it has and it's just not doing anything.
|
| It's so dumb, I don't know what is wrong with a physical
| button.
| bjarneh wrote:
| > - the controls on my stove top
|
| How were these stove-top touch-buttons ever considered an
| upgrade to their predecessor? They always have no feedback, or
| that annoyingly high "beep" feedback. They are always slow to
| respond. They typically use only two or three buttons to
| control the actual temperature, forcing you to select location
| first, which is typically slow and terrible as well. Nobody in
| their right mind can prefer these to the good old separate
| knobs which we used to have; which my relatively new stove
| still has (they still exist luckily). I'll add a link to the
| one I have, for others looking for stove's without the annoying
| touch controls.
|
| https://www.bosch-home.no/produktliste/komfyr-ovn-platetopp-...
| tom_ wrote:
| I've used some kitchen equipment (fortunately, not ovens...)
| that think the buttons are pressed if you spill liquid on
| them. You have to stop and clean the thing before you can
| continue.
| bjarneh wrote:
| > that think the buttons are pressed if you spill liquid on
| them.
|
| Seems like a pretty big problem if that's the case for any
| of those touch controls on a stove; perhaps they're even
| worse than I thought :-)
| calmoo wrote:
| On my particular electric stovetop if I spill a tiny bit of
| liquid from cooking onto the buttons, the whole stove goes
| into protection shutdown mode, and I have to thoroughly dry
| the buttons to get it to work again. I hate that something
| that is so simple has such a terrible design flaw.
| esperent wrote:
| It's not just your stovetop, it's every non-high-end stove
| top with touch buttons. I move around a lot and stay in
| short term rentals. They _all_ have stovetops that stop
| working if you spill a single drop of water on the
| controls. It 's crazy.
|
| I don't think it's anything to do with touch buttons being
| easier to clean. I think it's just that they are cheap.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| I tend to agree. I have a high end induction cooktop with
| touch controls, and I don't have the same problem. If I
| spill water on the capacitive touch buttons it might ding
| at me because it thinks I just pushed that button, but it
| doesn't freak out or anything, the buttons all still
| work.
|
| I did choose the touch version specifically because I was
| tired of all the work cleaning my natural gas cooktop.
| Now that I've used it for a few months, I think I'd like
| the knobs better because the cooktop would still be a lot
| easier to clean overall, but it's not terrible. My
| biggest complaint is that the cat walks across it at
| night and I can hear the dings as it steps on the
| buttons. And then there's the paw prints on the glass.
| Sigh.
| looperhacks wrote:
| It's because they're easy to clean. No crevices or edges
| where oil and grime can accumulate. Sure, you can still clean
| buttons, but to have them look "as new" takes more work than
| touch controls, especially in an environment like a stove,
| where "accidents" can happen regularly.
|
| I still prefer physical buttons though.
| shellfishgene wrote:
| I have the Ikea Hogklassik induction stove top, and it has 4
| touch sliders, one for each zone. I'm actually quite happy
| with it, it works well enough, not as easy as knobs but
| close. Also they seem to have worked on the spilling/wet
| hands problem, it's still sometimes annoying but seems much
| improved from older designs.
| gorbachev wrote:
| You can charge more for touch controls, than for cheap,
| reliable physical knobs.
| askvictor wrote:
| Kind of the opposite; touch controls are easy to
| manufacture to a standard that will last the 10 odd years a
| stove is expected to live. Physical and moving parts are
| much harder, particularly in the context of a kitchen where
| there is heat, water, and oil. Physical knob induction
| stoves do exist, but primarily for industrial kitchens, and
| they cost a lot more.
| postingawayonhn wrote:
| I love my induction stove with touch buttons. Easiest stove I
| have ever had to clean. Just like wiping any other part of
| the bench.
| throwaway09223 wrote:
| My gas stove has both: Control knobs for burners, and non-
| tactile buttons on a display.
|
| The control knobs are extremely easy to clean: I just pull
| them off and throw them in the dishwasher.
|
| The display is _never_ clean. It has grease on it and I can
| 't ever scrub it hard or use caustics for fear of damaging
| it.
| fruit2020 wrote:
| Same here. I can instantly set the level on each zone. Set
| separate timers. They work flawlessly. Ikea induction top
| meiuqer wrote:
| I literally just came from Ikea for a new kitchen and asked
| for this feature on my stove haha. Luckily they said i could
| choose my own stove so i will think i will do that
| tomatocracy wrote:
| Speaking of stove tops - Neff's "TwistPadFire" somehow
| manages what I previously thought was impossible - it
| actually takes touch buttons and makes them even worse. The
| control is a a magnetic circular thing you stick on a
| specific area on the stove top. It comes off the stove top so
| first of all you have to manage not to lose it / you have to
| find it before you can use the stove. Then when you try to
| use it you have to press down then turn it without using too
| much force. If you use too much force, or fail to turn it in
| _just_ the right way, it will pull it off the magnetic area
| and the whole thing stops responding to any input until you
| do some magic incantation to unlock it.
|
| The problem is that you don't realise any of this until it's
| too late and your only option is to rip the stove top out and
| replace it with another brand.
| bjarneh wrote:
| Never heard of it; but after seeing a video demo; yikes!
| That idea looks dreadful. Even the little coin flip that's
| done with it after they're "finished" using it, makes it
| seem quite easy to misplace. Two bad ideas poorly stuck
| together with magnets :-)
| mulmen wrote:
| > The problem is that you don't realise any of this until
| it's too late and your only option is to rip the stove top
| out and replace it with another brand.
|
| Honestly it is unreasonable to think something so
| ridiculously overcomplicated would ever work.
| pintxo wrote:
| I found it not that bad. Was considering to get a third one
| (after moving the 2nd time), but didn't as the previous two
| tops failed right after being out of warranty.
|
| Key for me was to learn that to activate the knob, you
| needed to make sure to touch both metallic rings on the
| knob at once.
|
| I overall preferred the UX over a pure touch based
| interface. We stored the knob by attaching it to the hood
| (the knob contains a magnet), so it was always at the same
| location.
| mgraupner wrote:
| I like their solution, much better than just touch and
| still easy to clean. Very fast to go from 0 to max and
| back. No problem in activating them, you're 'probably
| holding it wrong'. ;)
|
| I don't know how one can loose/have to find them, mine is
| always on the stove, I only take if off while cleaning and
| put it back on afterwards, which is a thing of
| milliseconds, thanks to the magnetic attachment.
| iakov wrote:
| The only saving grace of those is the ease of cleaning
| spills. Otherwise I completely agree with you and GP - how
| annoying it is that every physical button is now a clunky
| touch surface!
| kevincox wrote:
| I agree with this. I like physical controls in most places
| but purposely picked a touch-control stove because it is
| just so much easier to wipe down. The controls are a bit
| less convenient than knobs but the ease of cleaning makes
| up for it in my opinion.
| mulmen wrote:
| > The only saving grace of those is the ease of cleaning
| spills.
|
| I have never in my life seen a stovetop knob that isn't
| easily removable for cleaning. The shitty touch panel on my
| cooktop is recessed in a way that it is impossible to fully
| clean a liquid spill out of the seam without disassembling
| the appliance.
| rollcat wrote:
| > The only saving grace of those is the ease of cleaning
| spills.
|
| Disagree. Spills can turn hobs on & off, and at best cause
| the entire control surface to lock up and start beeping -
| which can quickly turn worst, if a hob happened to turn on
| a split second earlier.
|
| Knobs. On the front, not on the top.
| [deleted]
| masklinn wrote:
| That only works for full stoves, something I don't think
| I've seen in 15 years.
|
| How do you do knobs on the front (or side) with an
| embedded cooktop? Raise it by 3 inches so you have space
| for knobs?
| rollcat wrote:
| If you're embedding the hobs on the top, then embed the
| knobs on the front, and run a wire in between. It's not
| like it was meant to be portable, if you are making one
| cut-out, why not make two.
| duckmysick wrote:
| Is that induction? The product page says "Elektrisk
| platetopp" and not "Induksjonstopper".
|
| I'm looking for an induction top or an oven combo with knobs
| and it's difficult.
| tilsammans wrote:
| Gaggenau has this, we have the Vario 400 series. Physical
| buttons, crazy fast, reliable and beautiful. The downside:
| it cost us the same as a small second hand car...
| bjarneh wrote:
| > Is that induction? The product page says "Elektrisk
| platetopp" and not "Induksjonstopper".
|
| No, it's not induction. The BOSCH stoves with induction all
| have that nutty touch interface :/
| shellfishgene wrote:
| There is a bunch of Bosch induction models in the Series
| 4 that allow knob control from the oven.
| bjarneh wrote:
| OK, I just took a quick glance at the Norwegian BOSCH
| website, and all I saw was that touch interface. Glad
| they still exist...
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| It was never about an upgrade.
|
| Touchscreen is fancier, looking and cheaper to make them
| buttons or knobs.
|
| It's just cost it always was. They made it shiny, so you
| thought it was better.
| nvilcins wrote:
| The elevator in our apartment building has a touch-button(?)
| panel.
|
| Guess what happens during the cold season when you you've got
| your gloves on? Yep, absolutely nothing! (bonus f.u. points if
| you are carrying stuff and cannot easily take the gloves off)
|
| Luckily have a fully analogue car so I'm maintaining my sanity
| somewhat.
| moffkalast wrote:
| You guys don't have capacitive gloves so you can use your
| phone while wearing them?
| ghusbands wrote:
| Those often become sporadic or just stop working, and
| gloves for actually-cold weather are too thick or multi-
| material to have that feature.
|
| Also, the people making the warmer gloves are more
| interested in keeping hands warm than in adding such
| features.
| dustymcp wrote:
| Why cant it turn off, mine blinds me during nighttime drive, its
| so bad i took out a jumper so it doesnt work anymore..
| brenns10 wrote:
| I fully agree with ditching distracting screens for safety
| reasons, but this article focuses more on customers disliking the
| screens. Maybe my 2017 Civic is not new enough to experience that
| frustration? It has a touchscreen with Android Auto.
|
| All of my environment controls are on buttons and knobs beneath
| the screen. I'm comfortable adjusting with the smallest of
| glances. The only downside here is that the knob is just hooked
| up to the display, so it has no minimum or maximum: you see the
| level that is currently set on the screen. A reasonable
| compromise.
|
| Music controls and cruise control on the wheel. Easily skip,
| pause, play, and adjust volume or radio stations with the left
| hand, and also voice control or hang up the phone. Right hand has
| cruise control. And of course blinkers, wipers, headlights on the
| sticks at either side of the wheel. Hazard lights are a physical
| button over the screen. Automatic gear shifter is at the center
| console.
|
| The only things I can't do with physical button/knob and maybe a
| brief glance, are select playlists in Spotify, and make changes
| to Google maps. But for the most part, I don't need to do that
| while in motion, and I think they should disable those inputs at
| speed unless a passenger is in the car doing it. Voice control is
| a decent option for some of it, but it's honestly a bit
| distracting too, since voice control sometimes messes up and you
| need to focus on the screen/response too much.
|
| So I guess all of that to say, please do get rid of some of the
| touchscreen controls for safety. (Also add speed limiters in
| cities and neighborhoods, for safety). But I guess I'm surprised
| that customers are the ones revolting here.
| sakras wrote:
| > All of my environment controls are on buttons and knobs
| beneath the screen.
|
| Indeed people aren't complaining about stuff like this. My
| friend just bought a new Subaru that has 0 buttons. It now
| takes two presses on the not-very-responsive touch screen to
| change the power of the seat warmer. Same with all of the other
| environmental controls. It's not just less tactile, it's much
| slower.
|
| Personally I appreciate having a screen of some sort for music
| and navigation, but for things that I'll be changing often
| while driving such as environmental controls buttons are the
| way to go.
| elif wrote:
| Hard disagree here.
|
| I went from touchscreen only (model Y) to 1960's switchboard
| operator (audi Q6) for a trip helping my family and it drove me
| insane.
|
| The number of button presses, light illumination meanings,
| automatic modes I had to learn to simply turn off the air
| conditioning was infuriating. To change the music or interact
| with navigation I had to click a spinny wheel and turn it like I
| was tabbing thru options with a keyboard.
|
| When I picked up my father and got to swap back cars, it was like
| a Steve Jobs moment when I voice command "open glovebox" and "i'm
| cold" or simply rearrange the destinations with a finger drag.
| I'm pretty sure they are buying a Tesla next.
| eptcyka wrote:
| Bad UX without touchscreens doesn't warrant viability of
| touchscreens in cars.
| elif wrote:
| The examples I gave, music and navigation, would need a full
| qwerty to emulate the capability of a touchscreen.
|
| But please, continue to shit on any opinion positive about
| Tesla.
| bumby wrote:
| The amount and strength of the responses on this thread
| simultaneously underscores how utterly reliant we are on software
| and also how bad the state of general software quality has become
| chrisbrandow wrote:
| I can't be more hopeful that this is true.
| cflynnus wrote:
| I have no problem with the Tesla touchscreen. I don't want a car
| with physical buttons.
| tricksforfree wrote:
| Question for car owners with massive screens in the console who
| live in rural areas:
|
| Does the ambient interior light from the screen + dashboard
| overpower your ability to see the road at night?
| inconceivable wrote:
| i live in a city but drive through rural areas all the time. if
| the lowest dimmer setting on your screen and dash are still too
| bright compared to your headlights, there's something wrong
| with your headlights. incandescent bulbs fade after some time
| and need to be replaced before they actually burn out.
| zamnos wrote:
| Depends on exactly which model from which manufacturer.
| Cadillac has night vision on some of their vehicles, far
| superior to straining to see in the dark.
| azubinski wrote:
| Has this really happened? But any BMW or Mazda driver who has
| both a touchscreen and a normal control field with physical
| buttons and knobs under his right hand knows perfectly well that
| a touchscreen is completely perfectly useless.
| klyrs wrote:
| Please recall my car, the touchscreen is a hazard to me and
| everybody else.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| "Although they look fancy, Farah said that carmakers can purchase
| screens for less than $50, making them significantly less
| expensive than tactile controls."
| thepasswordis wrote:
| "Fancy" is absolutely the last word that comes to mind when I
| see one of these touchscreens.
| qball wrote:
| The bill for replacement when it dies, of course, will be 3000
| dollars in parts and 1000 in labor. And the new one will still
| be just as slow as Android tablets in 2010 were.
| stevage wrote:
| That surprises me. I seem to recall having read something about
| the difficulty Tesla had in getting their fancy screens and how
| much they cost. $50 for a tiny one maybe.
| hinkley wrote:
| Even my friends group thinks that Alibaba is a valid source
| of parts for large scale manufacturing. I've just given up on
| having this argument. Good luck.
|
| Part of having a working relationship with a vendor is that
| you can ask nicely that they don't sell your designs to
| competitors or market their own knockoffs. Not to mention you
| can call them up and say, "I need 10k extra of those next
| month" and they don't just laugh in your face or let it go to
| voicemail and pretend they never got it.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| Don't know how recently you've been in the market, but the
| days when you could do that in automotive are long gone.
| Now you call a supplier and they're like "I might have
| something in a year, maybe" or "I have a few dozen, take it
| or leave it". The sketchy chinese vendors and the expensive
| specialty vendors are the only ones with any volume left in
| common parts, but obviously the former lack any sort of
| plausible automotive qualifications and paying the latter
| needs higher approvals than engineers can give.
| hinkley wrote:
| One thing I've learned about vendors over a few decades
| of professional life and also little vignettes from my
| father's job, is that most vendors only wake up when the
| checkbook is coming out or going back in your pocket.
| There's a whole theatrical thing you have to do to be an
| effecting ombudsman for your company that is effective
| but that I resent.
|
| I think we can see the Checkbook Effect in how Apple has
| navigated for the last fifteen or so years. And maybe a
| bit of the Stanford Effect (anyone can get in if there's
| a building named after their family, especially if it's
| still under construction).
|
| Hey we want this part
|
| oh we might be able to make 100k a year
|
| Umm... we need at least five million
|
| Gee, sorry.
|
| What if we loaned you some money to build a new factory?
|
| Oh, uh, sure?
| thepasswordis wrote:
| The Tesla screen is incompatible to almost everything else.
|
| It's fast, its huge, and it looks nice.
|
| The latest design changes have been annoying, but Tesla is
| far and away the closest to anybody has come to a good
| touchscreen in a car.
|
| It's more like using an iPad than using an infotainment
| system in a car.
| nixass wrote:
| > It's more like using an iPad than using an infotainment
| system in a car.
|
| And this is whole problem here, we shouldn't be doing it
| while driving. We're trying to solve problems that haven't
| existed few years ago. Touchscreens in cars in this form
| should just die
| KptMarchewa wrote:
| That probably was years ago. Model s had that screen in 2012
| asdfman123 wrote:
| Maybe that was just due to the supply shortage?
| post_break wrote:
| They sourced screens that could not survive the internal
| temperatures of cars and just rolled with it from what I
| remember. It was like an industrial screen not one made for
| automotive.
| ummonk wrote:
| That was because there weren't any automotive grade screens
| of the size they wanted already being supplied to OEMs.
| [deleted]
| zamnos wrote:
| Teslas have 17" screens, and no one made an automotive-grade
| one at that size, so it's no wonder they had problems
| sourcing it. But at scale, I could see the 7" properly
| automotive-grade screens being available for $50 when there
| are some availabile for less than that on Amazon.
| sroussey wrote:
| They have double OLED (dual-layer it's called sometimes)
| which is required for brightness?
|
| They are so expensive, they aren't used anywhere else but
| automotive (rumors swirl about iPads using this some day).
|
| The LCDs with high nits are cheaper but only rectangular.
|
| One of the big issues is it working in 120 heat in the
| desert while sitting in the sun (particularly for
| convertibles).
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > They have double OLED ... which is required for
| brightness
|
| Could this be why headlights are so blindy now, to
| overcome drivers' permanently impaired night vision?
| sundvor wrote:
| The Tesla screens' responsiveness and clarity is just
| amazing, at least on Ryzen.
| roland35 wrote:
| Having designed electronics, I absolutely appreciate how much a
| pain in the butt buttons are (maybe that's why they are called
| buttons!). It isn't just the cost... Each button requires
| mechanical design and tooling, graphics, manufacturing, etc
| etc. Plus no one is ever satisfied with the "feel" or tactical
| properties.
|
| But as a driver I absolutely hate touchscreens!
|
| Funniest button story.. one time we were working on a panel
| which includes a two way rocker switch to lift or lower a
| mechanism. Version 1 was backwards. Well, the electrical team
| swapped the wire harness to fix it, and the graphics team
| swapped the label markings. Version 2 was then also backwards
| (but flipped).
| xpe wrote:
| What do you mean by no one is satisfied with the feel?
|
| I suppose you actually mean it is hard to get a strong
| majority?
|
| One potential solution would be to make a modular system. You
| could even "sell" it as a "skinnable" DUI (driver user
| interface; why didn't this acronym catch on???)
| bdavbdav wrote:
| I think no one is ever satisfied with the "feel" in cheaper
| cars. The BMW iDrive controller feels fantastic to use, as
| does the Audi MMI (to a slightly lesser extent) (...before
| they canned it)
| 8ytecoder wrote:
| I absolutely love the buttons in Porsches and Mazdas.
| hackernewds wrote:
| Why?
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| > making them significantly less expensive than tactile
| controls
|
| And a single point of failure.
| ggm wrote:
| I live with somebody who glitches many touch screens. I don't
| know if its fingernails, softness of touch, tremor, press time,
| strength, hesitency, its just not a good experience for them.
| Ever.
|
| They are the best driver. By far. Distance separation, 3-cars
| ahead aware, road wise, maintains situational awareness. They got
| driving.
|
| I do the touch screen shit. Its voice activated, let my fingers
| do the walkin'
|
| Seriously if they could get a car with only mecha buttons and
| knobs they'd be significantly better off. Otherwise, it's down to
| the co-pilot for that stuff, Driver's got drivin eyes for the
| road, no time to waste on touch screen.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > They are the best driver. By far. Distance separation, 3-cars
| ahead aware, road wise, maintains situational awareness. They
| got driving.
|
| Do they avoid participating in rolling roadblocks? When at a
| traffic light and at the front of the right-lane - do they pull
| to the left to allow folks behind to make their right on red?
| This is how a True Master drives. The rest of us schlubs can
| only realize our lesser skills.
| electrondood wrote:
| Drivers hate touchscreens when siloed legacy automakers try to
| slap together what they think is a good dashboard.
|
| Sometimes you drive a car and you can just feel that every
| component was designed in isolation and then tossed over the
| fence.
| neom wrote:
| Relevant from last month:
|
| Hyundai promises to keep buttons in cars --
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35253753
| logicalmonster wrote:
| For the life of me I can't find the link, but there was an
| awesome HN or Reddit post a few years back where a designer tried
| to design a touchscreen experience that might work for cars that
| takes into account that drivers can't focus on the screen.
|
| It's been years since I've seen it so I probably don't remember
| the exact details, but I think it worked by the system working
| based on gestures wherever the drivers' hand touched the screen
| so you didn't need to touch a specific tiny target in a moving
| car.
| thirdhaf wrote:
| Was it this one perhaps?
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7261003
| logicalmonster wrote:
| Thank you. That seems to be it. I don't think it's perfect,
| but it seems like a hell of a good improvement on the touch
| interfaces car companies try and come up with today that
| takes into account that a driver wants to use muscle memory
| and not stare at the screen.
| thirdhaf wrote:
| Funny story, that demo only exists because the designer was
| mis-categorized as a software engineer after an acquisition
| by Apple. After nearly getting the person in question fired
| it ultimately resulted in a successful job category change
| for them.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| That solves one problem but now I have to memorize a bunch of
| arbitrary gestures. Still seems like a terrible experience
| overall.
| logicalmonster wrote:
| I'm not remembering it fully because I can't find the link,
| but I recall it was a very smart design that seemed well
| thought out and logical.
|
| That said, the general point of the article seems very
| correct, physical buttons have always felt radically superior
| to touch screens.
| ChancyChance wrote:
| I've always been baffled how the standards for what is INSIDE and
| ECU is far more strict than outside.
|
| Functional Safety
|
| ASIL
|
| MISRA
|
| ASPICE
|
| ISO 21434
|
| ISO 26262
|
| Yet ... touchscreens.
| Technotroll wrote:
| Is this possibly due to chip shortages? I supposed it's easier to
| produce a "legacy" switch than a touch screen? Or what am I
| missing here?
| emptybits wrote:
| The Ineos Grenadier (available now in Australia and Europe and
| apparently within the year in North America) has a buttonful dash
| and also cockpit-style switches above. With additional knockouts
| above to add your own. Fully gloved operation of anything
| critical.
|
| Great trend for getting into a truck with cold, wet, gloved hands
| and wanting to do anything. Like adjust heat and seat heat and
| defrosters.
| leemailll wrote:
| Interesting, I watch pro-cycling for years, and this is the
| first time I know Ineos Grenadier is a car not some fancy
| chemicals Ratcliffe madeup
| josefrichter wrote:
| Every designer knows this. It's fascinating that automakers'
| designers seemingly don't.
| exabrial wrote:
| Pro Tip: So do ER Doctors and Insurance Companies.
|
| What would be best is something along the lines of a hybrid
| aircraft controls. See F/A-18 Hornet cockpit. Basically tactile
| buttons around the perimeter (maybe just side or bottom for
| consumer), but the options can change. Also for consumers,
| touchscreen should be a value-add to tactile controls, with
| hardware buttons as primary. So you could touch-scroll with a
| finger, but you could also just hit pagedwn tactile button.
| HomeDeLaPot wrote:
| It would be best not to change what the buttons do very much.
| It could add unnecessary levels of confusion. "OK, I think I
| hit the wrong button, and now I'm not sure what mode the system
| is in... better look down at the controls while I drive along
| at 60 MPH."
|
| Maybe I'm biased. My old car has a great UI. No touchscreen,
| just a panel of physical knobs and buttons for media and
| climate control. The phone integration could be better, but
| that would really just mean a place to put my phone (without
| clipping it onto a vent) and a stereo that lets me
| play/pause/skip songs on my phone using the car's physical
| media controls.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| I think mazdas all donthis and always have. They had
| touchscreens for abwhile and then went back to buttons around
| a non touch screen.
| timbaboon wrote:
| Yeah, my cx-3 has this. I love it. I wouldn't want to go
| back to a normal touchscreen in my car.
| ghostpepper wrote:
| My 2020 Mazda has a touchscreen (that weirdly only accepts
| input below 10km/h, sorry passengers), but pretty much all
| the important controls are available as tactile buttons /
| knobs. The heads-up display is also nice for checking your
| speed without taking your eyes off the road
| nkrisc wrote:
| My 2018 Mazda3 has the knob and a touchscreen. However the
| touchscreen is so poor I didn't even know it was touch-
| sensitive for quite a while after I got it
| klyrs wrote:
| As long as there is a dedicated back/home button, it's okay
| in my experience.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| Hyundai I'm looking at has 2 customizable buttons. It's a
| cool idea, except they really limit what you can make the
| buttons do (I was hoping it would be possible to use them for
| climate controls but that's not an option)
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Too many buttons is a problem, but how about a few physical
| buttons whose labels are screens (high-res LCD, e-ink,
| whatever) and change according to the mode.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| That's still suboptimal but better, IF the labels never
| change. I'll quickly learn that rear defrost is button 2 on
| screen 1 or whatever, but if some software update changes
| that I'll be pissed.
|
| I have an older Mercedes (2004) that is like this. There's a
| screen, but it's not touch. There is are columns of physical,
| pushable buttons at the left and right sides, and the labels
| appear on the screen next to the buttons.
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| fighter planes actually do that. In relation to another
| comment, the pilots memorise sequences of button presses,
| which slightly negates my own comment. I remember reading a
| book where a harrier pilot describes a systems pod which
| upgraded the plane. Unfortunately, the RAF couldn't afford
| the software upgrade to make the button labels match the
| actual function of the buttons so the pilots had to memorise
| every sequence.
| manchmalscott wrote:
| The issue is needing to look away from the road. If I don't
| know what the button will do _right now_ because it
| arbitrarily changes, that's just as much of a problem.
| netsharc wrote:
| Cockpit UI like on the F/A-18 are called Multifunction Displays
| or MFDs, but wouldn't they be terrible UI as well, until you
| memorize the sequence of buttons to do something? You'd still
| have to look at the display to see what the submenu options
| are.
|
| Apparently they're available for flight sim games, if I had the
| time and know-how, it'd be neat to bu one (e.g. on AliExpress)
| and integrate it to my car:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gysmVPYX2Fc
| Merad wrote:
| Fighters like the Hornet use HOTAS (Hands On Throttle And
| Stick) which places buttons, 4-way switches, or other
| controls (mini joysticks, etc.) under most of the fingers. So
| pilots have something like 30+ commands that they can perform
| at any time without moving their hands. Interacting with
| MFD's would mostly happen when the plane is cruising straight
| and level, probably on autopilot.
| scj wrote:
| Planes have the nice feature that 99% of the time there's
| nothing but air around you. With the exception of features
| used in a critical moment (takeoff, landing, etc), the UI of
| planes can afford to be far worse than a car!
| evntdrvn wrote:
| The way they're implemented, I've found them pretty
| intuitive.
|
| Avionics manufacturers are generally pretty serious about Ux.
| Or at least the test pilots berate them into caring, when I
| was in Flight Test Engineering I remember a lot of "spicy"
| feedback about avionics usability issues getting sent back to
| the manufacturers lol
| [deleted]
| cameldrv wrote:
| A lot of small aircraft controls have moved to touchscreens,
| and they're terrible, especially in turbulence.
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| Isn't it the job of the faa to regulate every conceivable
| safety issue out of existence? Why did they let touchscreen
| controls through the net?
| tjohns wrote:
| Because they're not really a safety issue in an aircraft.
|
| When you're in cruise flight, things happen slowly. Heck,
| on a pre-touchscreen general aviation GPS unit, you dial
| waypoints in one letter at a time with a _single rotary
| knob_. As annoying as the touchscreen is, it 's still an
| improvement - and you still get your single rotary knob in
| case things are turbulent, so it's no really any worse.
|
| Takeoff/landing is a different story. Things happen quickly
| there. But you're also not messing with the avionics during
| those phases of flight.
|
| As the saying goes: aviate, navigate, communicate - in that
| order. Touchscreens are mostly the realm of navigation and
| (sometimes) communication.
| omoikane wrote:
| Airbus A380 has a keyboard, I am not sure if that's common on
| other planes:
|
| https://www.google.com/search?q=airbus+a380+keyboard&tbm=isc.
| ..
|
| Maybe that's the endgame -- dedicated buttons for commonly
| used functions, keyboards for everything else.
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| Wonder how much of that could you retrofit if software was
| customisable/hackable.
|
| Mach-E famously have a scroll wheel that imitates touch-swipe
| to adjust volume.
|
| FWIW I don't hate Tesla's touchscreen yet, but I dislike the
| fact you can't shut it off or disable all the stupid FSD
| animations there.
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| Touch screens are great for stuff that needs to be cleaned
| though so ER doctors are probably stuck with them.
| tiedieconderoga wrote:
| I could be wrong, but I think I've seen removable silicone
| membrane covers over mechanical buttons in some pieces of
| medical equipment.
|
| Silicone is inexpensive and suitable for cookware that gets
| exposed to heat. I bet that sort of thing could survive an
| autoclave.
| tomxor wrote:
| Yeah, those have been around for decades on all kinds of
| old specialised keyboards and equipment... The real reason
| stuff trends towards touch screens is people trying to keep
| the BOM cost low without considering cost to the user.
|
| A generic touch screen with dynamic controls is cheaper
| than a larger custom made keyboard or physical controls.
| It's the same reason we end up with power inefficient IoT
| devices that could be made with very cheap and efficient
| microcontrollers, but developing for those requires
| expensive expertise, so we end up with huge powerful ARM
| cores because it's more general and easier to code.
|
| The common factor in both of these issues is cost to
| manufacturer vs cost to user (power, safety etc).
| NoZebra120vClip wrote:
| I believe what the OP meant by hatred is that ER doctors and
| Insurance Companies need to clean up after auto accidents
| caused by drivers who were distracted by mandatory
| touchscreen use (which is ironic when mobile phone use, and
| distracted driving in general, is outlawed in many
| jurisdictions.)
|
| I am sure ER doctors hate to use touchscreens as well, but
| that's for another thread.
| detuur wrote:
| I did a project once for a touchless interface using a Leap
| Motion (remember those?) for use in operating theatres. The
| software was a 3D viewer for MRI scans. The surgeons
| attached to the project were excited, because currently
| they operated the software by telling the nurses how to
| rotate and zoom, which didn't work so great.
|
| In the end it ended up not working well enough (the Leap
| Motion would often give glitchy positioning data), but I
| believe it's the way forward.
| hunter2_ wrote:
| > tactile buttons around the perimeter ... but the options can
| change
|
| "Soft keys" [0] are what you're describing. Very commonly seen
| on ATMs.
|
| [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_key
| moffkalast wrote:
| And on like every car made in the era where screens were high
| in pixel density but weren't touch capable yet.
| FridayoLeary wrote:
| That sounds like an excellent idea. Operating a fighter
| aircraft (flying is just one of the tasks the pilot does) is
| very complicated. So i'm assuming the manufacturers optimise
| for the ideal combination of versatility and accessiblity while
| leaving little margin for error. In the middle of a dogfight
| and flying at mach 2.5 a pilot has very little time to glance
| at the screen and press the correct button and cannot afford to
| make a mistake.
| testfoobar wrote:
| Touch screens are also pretty terrible for older people. Vision
| and fine motor skills both degenerate. Without tactile
| feedback, it is hard for older people to determine if they've
| successfully clicked on something. Gestures can be tough to
| teach and successfully implement without error.
| Fr0styMatt88 wrote:
| Worse than touch screens are those touch buttons (you know,
| where the thing is just printed on the outside of the TV).
|
| I have no idea why, I'm fluent with touchscreens in the usual
| way but something in my brain just.... I don't know.
| Theoretically it should be the same, right? Except it feels
| horrible and wrong and I even have trouble trying to find the
| button.
|
| Probably because I'm vision-impaired and an actual
| touchscreen is usually backlit and easier to see, while for
| physical buttons I've always compensated by using my sense of
| touch more (move hand towards general area of button, narrow
| it down with my fingertips).
|
| The lack of the tactile click also certainly has something to
| do with it as pointed out above.
|
| I'd actually be really interested to know from any UX design
| people here that work on this kind of thing - am I an outlier
| or does everyone hate them?
| Gigachad wrote:
| Thank god the touchbar is finally gone from the MacBook. It
| was such a strange delight to use the new model and have
| the media keys reliably work.
| yellowapple wrote:
| I didn't mind the touchbar as a concept, but the
| implementation was terrible and it should never have
| replaced any keys.
| elzbardico wrote:
| Yes, I'd love to have the touch bar as long as still had
| the function keys. It was not terribly useful, but it was
| very expedient for stuff like controlling volume.
| Gigachad wrote:
| I thought previously and how I'd be fine with it, but
| then realised its only tolerable when I can just
| completely ignore it and at that point I'd rather the
| cost go in to a part I do use. The 2021 model improved so
| many parts.
| drivers99 wrote:
| I rest my finger by the Esc key for some reason (vi use
| maybe) and every once in a while the screen would
| suddenly fade to black because it was registering a long
| key press on the Touch Bar[1] for the screen dim control.
| After a few times I realized I could customize the Touch
| Bar to only have a few necessary keys and keep them on
| the far right.
|
| Just another case of inadvertent button activation for
| touch screens.
|
| [1] iPad decided this should be capitalized, lol
| alephxyz wrote:
| It's not just you. Most touch screens will have some sort
| of feedback (visual, tactile or auditory) to let you know
| when you've pressed a button. Those touch buttons on
| screens and monitors don't.
| leghifla wrote:
| About touch buttons, I have seen once a lift with touch
| buttons for controls. For accessibility, the floor were
| also written in Braille. I thought to myself: "nice, they
| thought about vision impaired people".
|
| Then, a friend of mine, which has completely lost vision
| and can read Braille, jokingly said to me when he arrived:
| "Trying to find the right button, I probably send the lift
| to all floors!"
| klabb3 wrote:
| That's funny. And sad. Vision impaired people have really
| been taken by a rollercoaster with modern tech. First the
| touch screen which is useless (not sure if that's the
| case still?). But then tech companies invested massively
| in voice interfaces for completely unrelated reasons,
| which I assume, is a godsend.
| UI_at_80x24 wrote:
| Those are known as optical switches. And they are horrible.
| pnw wrote:
| I agree with you on the tactile angle, but the Tesla touch
| screen offers larger font sizes for people with presbyopia
| which is something that physical controls cannot offer.
| [deleted]
| wolverine876 wrote:
| > Touch screens are also pretty terrible for older people.
| Vision and fine motor skills both degenerate. Without tactile
| feedback, it is hard for older people to determine if they've
| successfully clicked on something. Gestures can be tough to
| teach and successfully implement without error.
|
| And I've seen that when people are holding their phones in a
| living room. The cars are vibrating (normally), and the user
| is trying to drive, with one hand on the wheel, etc.
| justapassenger wrote:
| I'm not THAT old (although grew up without touchscreens) and
| touch screens are horrible when I'm in motion in the car. No
| chance in hell I'm able to hit what I what when there's even
| a slightest minor bump. And with the state of USA highways it
| means - all the time.
|
| Especially, as designers think it's cool to have tiny buttons
| on the touch screen.
| RegW wrote:
| I am that old, and I don't need to be in motion to hit the
| issue. Tactile buttons feedback through your finger that
| your finger is indeed in the correct location, and when you
| get that positive feedback you click the button.
|
| Touchscreens don't provide this. If your finger comes into
| contact in the wrong place, the wrong thing happens. So
| your first contact must be absolutely correct.
|
| Your arm is extended. Your hand/finger partially blocks
| your view of the button. Your depth perception of that flat
| plane with fluid reference points is not good. Bang! The
| wrong app completely opens.
|
| Now you have to spend time dealing with the consequences of
| that your error, even if you don't feel inclided to try
| again. Instead of rewinding to re-listen to the last 20
| seconds of a podcast because traffic demanded your
| attention, you are now listening to the radio and have set
| an alarm for midnight.
| martindbp wrote:
| Yes, tactile buttons are better for the user. But that won't
| matter in the long run as cars become more and more autonomous.
| Tesla's FSD for instance is far from perfect (and MobilEye will
| bring this to other brands), but when not actively controlling
| the vehicle 99% of the time, tactile buttons vs touchscreens
| becomes much less of an issue.
| oblio wrote:
| 1. You do know that other car manufacturers have more advanced
| and more reliable driver's assistance than Tesla's fake FSD,
| right? MobilEye or not.
|
| 2. We could be 50 years away from universal real FSD.
| martindbp wrote:
| Define "more advanced"? Besides perhaps MobilEye's
| SuperVision there is no ADAS as advanced in terms of what it
| can do, if you believe otherwise you need a reality check.
| Reliability? Sure, Mercedes has their famed L3 in stop and go
| traffic, in good weather, if the road doesn't curve too much.
| FSD, if you use it, takes over your driving 99% of the time,
| which is why I'm saying tactile buttons or not is just not
| that important at that point. It might not make sense to
| switch back to buttons if cars of all brands will have their
| own version of FSD in a few years.
|
| 2. I very much doubt that, but even if there is no "true" L4
| FSD in a consumer vehicle anytime soon, this thread is about
| tactile buttons and my points still stands.
| oblio wrote:
| There are at least a few reviews that put Tesla's stuff
| behind GM's SuperCruise and a few other driver assist
| systems.
| thathndude wrote:
| Getting really tired of this conclusion. I love my touch screens.
| Please don't take them away!
| trollerator23 wrote:
| Well no shit. I could have told them that.
| phkahler wrote:
| Another overlooked "feature" I see on GM cars. The "reverse"
| lights are turned on when the car is in park. Not sure why, but
| it's training me to partially ignore backup lights in parking
| lots, because they no longer mean a vehicle is going to back up.
| d_runs_far wrote:
| While we're ranting about the 'infotainment' systems on cars, how
| about the apps? The Kia Connect enrages me every time I have to
| use it for my wife's car. It makes the in-car system seem snappy
| and awesome. The fact that they want to start charging for it
| after the 'trial' period is un-believable.
| nologic01 wrote:
| There is plenty of room on a car's dashboard to separate the
| vital, tactile, muscle memory UI from the informative, visual,
| reconfigurable, and essentially optional UI.
|
| Touchscreen craze is a suboptimal choice not out of some serious
| constraint.
|
| What the article points at is just another manifestation of
| market arrangements (the relative power of manufacturers versus
| the information and power of consumers) that are slow to generate
| the counterwailing forces needed to correct course.
|
| A decade of excess accidents here, a decade of screen addiction
| there and pretty soon you talk about serious negative impact.
| irrational wrote:
| I recently drove a 2020 rental with a touchscreen 3,500 miles.
| The touchscreen was okay because the car had physical controls
| for all the things you might want to fiddle with while driving,
| like A/C. I had the touchscreen set to navigation the whole time,
| so I didn't really fiddle with it.
| bearmode wrote:
| Touchscreens are great for controlling my maps, and my music.
|
| For the love of fuck, don't control anything else with them.
| mydriasis wrote:
| I can blindly feel may way around the dash of my 1999 and get
| some stuff done without taking my eyes off the road at all. I'll
| be glad if a 2028 shares that feature when the time comes.
| rektide wrote:
| We are just going to be ping-ponging back & forth between three
| idiotic subideal situations, buttons versus touchscreens versus
| phone control.
|
| It's going to be a decade of no synergy, of no programmability,
| of no softness.
|
| Ideally there are semi flexible reconfigurable systems, with a
| couple physical buttons & knobs, and some touchscreen displays,
| and the phones can also via local area APIs be given permission
| to control & manipulate the car too.
|
| But we just don't have a mature software ecosystem in general to
| support the complex assortment of peripherals (av, hvac,
| lighting, windows, seats, etc) that cars present. This is a
| crisis because it's one of the softest most configurable most
| attuneable things mankind has made, and we have only crude
| ability to carve in stone some choices that then will broadly
| apply. These systems are firmer than soft, and that's a broad
| problem the CS world in general has helped little with in the
| last decade (after extremely involved & interested work in
| uniquotous & pervasive computing simmered away).
| DecoPerson wrote:
| Spinny-dial-based input, with the dial located just behind the
| shifter (just in front of where the cupholders usually are), is
| the best input method developed for cars so far.
|
| The forces the UI to be a flat list in terms of navigation
| (rather than a 2d-space-filling UX mess). And being a flat 1d
| list, it encourages the list be short, which means more submenus,
| which is good!
|
| If menus are consistent, you can mostly control without taking
| your eyes off the road.
|
| Apple CarPlay already works with this input method.
| wand3r wrote:
| i think this is subjective, i drove my moms car with this setup
| (mazda suv) to NY last weekend. I would NEVER buy a car like
| this. Touch screen for apple carplay is in my opinion the
| obvious best setup and the most intuitive interface. You can
| use your phone or the touch screen on the dashboard. Using a
| dial to navigate on the screen felt like 2003 UX on some hybrid
| palm pilot/blackberry. Extremely dangerous for me and even if I
| got used to it, I couldnt imagibe how poking the Map icon would
| be more dangerouss/slower than using a literal dial while
| staring at the screen for highlighting as I round robin search
| through 2-3 inputs...
| bullfightonmars wrote:
| I think this is mostly a design problem for Carplay to solve
| support for dial and button controls could be much better.
| frosted-flakes wrote:
| That's because Apple Carplay wasn't really designed with a
| linear input method in mind. It should be list-based, not
| grid-based. Like old Nokia phones, which often only had up-
| down buttons paired with two action buttons--no left-right.
|
| Give each menu item it's own tone and you could probably
| navigate it blind after a little bit of practice.
| Importantly, in this type of system, each menu list should be
| short--6-7 items max--so that it is easily navigable and
| memorizable.
| piperswe wrote:
| I have a BMW with chip shortage touch-screen delete, and I can
| confirm that CarPlay is a royal pain in the neck to operate
| with just a dial. I have a touch-screen part on order so I can
| do a retrofit. Just the dial is usually fine when driving, but
| when parked the keyboard interface is impossible to operate.
| Sometimes though, navigating CarPlay with the dial causes me to
| have to look at the screen more than I'd have to with a touch-
| screen, since the dial is rather unpredictable (trying to get
| it over to the dock on the left is far from intuitive).
| stronglikedan wrote:
| Acura's trackpad is nice, too. My previous one had a dial that
| also moved directionally, as well as pushed in, and that worked
| well.
| uzername wrote:
| This is how Mazda handles the screen. The knob has a satisfying
| tick on rotation and rebound when pressed. The car's a little
| older now and the screen os is a bit slow, but usually keeps up
| with input. Radio and navigation have hard button shortcuts.
| It's just a good system.
| jimnotgym wrote:
| Well the market is failing again...
|
| Manufacturers continue to push unsafe changes on us, as well as
| infuriating changes, to save money. The comments here are full of
| people complaining about it...
|
| Time for more regulation. Tactile buttons, reasonable response
| time. How about some actual qualifications for people working in
| this field? We have Chartered Engineers, Accountants etc. Why not
| software engineers?
| matty22 wrote:
| Ideal world:
|
| The only thing the screen does is backup camera and provide
| bluetooth connection to CarPlay and AA and _maybe_ some tucked
| away very rarely used settings for things I definitely don't need
| while driving. No car company is going to write software that is
| better than CarPlay because a: they aren't Apple and b: my phone
| is also where all of my music, podcasts, contacts, map history,
| etc. is located.
|
| _Everything else_ has a physical button.
| yotamoron wrote:
| Finally, some sense.
|
| Personally, I want a car with as little interaction as possible.
| Sometimes I feel like a machine operator and not just a driver,
| especially when it's raining or when I need to defrost the
| windshield - constant hassling with whatever just to make things
| work.
|
| How the hell is this progress? I want a car that does all the
| simple things for me - turn on the wipers at the right speed when
| its raining, defrost the windshield, knows when to heat/cool the
| car etc etc. You know - just learn me and do it. This recent (10+
| years) idea of adding more and more levers and buttons and cool
| screens to a car, to a point where it looks like an F-15 cockpit,
| might appeal to under-developed young males, but I really had
| enough. When I was younger, when you got into a new car, it took
| 2 minutes before you understood everything that needs to be
| understood and could safely driver with it. Now days you have to
| spend 10-15 minutes just to understand how to release the parking
| brake.
| civilized wrote:
| What a gruesome period for cars. It's like if Apple held onto the
| terrible butterfly keyboard for 15 years instead of 5.
| gambiting wrote:
| And yet VW is going balls to the wall and just announced that the
| ID.7 will feature even more touchscreen integration, with removal
| of all physical shortcut buttons. They are literally insane. I
| know someone who is getting rid of their brand new MK8 golf over
| this, the controls are downright unusable. Every review of
| id3/4/5 mentions this as a major negative, yet VW just sticks
| their fingers in their ears and goes "lalalalalalalala can't hear
| you".
| 1letterunixname wrote:
| _When_ (not if) the touchscreen goes out, large swaths of
| functionality become useless.
|
| Physical controls are simpler UX.
| aunterste wrote:
| When airplane cockpits have touchscreens, they are ready for use
| in cars, until then...
| berkes wrote:
| Going by the whole Boeing (software) failure recently[1], "what
| airplane builders decide" isn't a perfect guideline either.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_737_MAX_groundings
| ssalka wrote:
| I feel compelled to share a video, now 9 years old, that shows
| how touch screens could be accommodated with sensible design in
| cars. The UIs we are used to on our phones are not suitable for
| driving, but we could make something that is.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVbuk3jizGM
| strix_varius wrote:
| This looks horrible to use to me.
| martyvis wrote:
| Such a great article. My current car, a 2018 Subaru Outback, has
| an infotainment touch screen, that I use, but it really isn't
| that much better than the older button controls on my 2007 Toyota
| Landcruiser. I'm glad in both cars control of cabin air is
| reasonably manual - the Subaru made really strange choices though
| with button positions for fan speed. (I do love the big MAX AC
| button that in an Aussie summer has the satisfaction of I guess
| blamming the "Easy" button. I do like having a responsive smart
| phone for navigation, calls while driving. While I have used
| Android Auto at times to display on Subaru console screen, it
| just seems a bit laggy and takes your eyes off the road. I like
| my phone on a windscreen hard in corner where I finger it while
| keep my hands on the wheel if I need to.
|
| I really am not looking forward to what the offerings might be
| available when I likely will change out the current Landcruiser
| for something to help me tow a caravan for some retirement
| adventures.
| tapvt wrote:
| I replaced the stereo in my '05 Tacoma with a new, touchscreen-
| with-CarPlay head unit. I hate not having a physical volume knob.
|
| I do love the modern features. But hunting for that volume
| up/down button for a maddening while driving and unsafe.
| bottlepalm wrote:
| All new cars have a volume button on the steering wheel, even
| Tesla.
| jeisc wrote:
| the real question to ask here is did they ever put touchscreens
| in F1 race cars?
| DeathArrow wrote:
| What are some car makers who offer now buttons over touch screen
| interfaces? I plan to change my car in one year and I would like
| one with buttons on the dashboard.
| Hendrikto wrote:
| The article mentions Nissan, Hyundai, VW, and Porsche.
| mwexler wrote:
| Not all drivers.
| deostroll wrote:
| Is no one irked by some capitalistic policies/monopoly by giant
| corporations?
|
| For e.g. you ask the voice assistant to play a song, it will deny
| that request saying that you need to buy their "premium" offering
| first.
|
| Another fact is that voice integration to other apps which are
| not of the same vendor as that of the phone is virtually non-
| existent.
| gkanai wrote:
| The US Navy is also replacing touch panels for Navy vessels with
| physical controls when they found that touch panels were part of
| the reason of some accidents with Navy vessels.
|
| https://news.usni.org/2019/08/09/navy-reverting-ddgs-back-to...
|
| As someone who has both a car with only a touch panel and a car
| with only physical controls, I prefer the physical controls every
| time, all the time.
| crazymoka wrote:
| They should have a nice balance of both. You can run an entire
| touch screen UI with the dial nob like the Genesis use in the
| centre console. I can do everything from the "spinning button"
| without really having to take my eyes off the road.
| toby3d wrote:
| The main advantage of physical buttons compared to touch screens:
| you can't put ads in them. I immediately imagine a situation in a
| new car where the steering wheel has been replaced with a
| screen[1] and right as you drive, "you can regain control after
| watching this short five-second commercial".
|
| [1]: https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/1646181161037713414
| v0idzer0 wrote:
| I love my touchscreen. It's so much better than the knobs in my
| old car.
| lolinder wrote:
| How so? You're the first person I've heard express this view,
| so I'm genuinely curious.
| lvturner wrote:
| I'm not sure if it's the touch screen in my car that I love
| or the rest of the control system.
|
| But for me the whole thing is set and forget, if I need to
| adjust volume it's a scroll wheel on my steering wheel -- air
| conditioning I never really need to adjust. Sat nav -- yes I
| need to adjust this occasionally, but it's either voice
| command or park and change the destination with a keyboard --
| but I don't see this being different in any other car? (Maybe
| a scroll wheel with recent destinations?)
|
| I actually don't understand what it is that drivers are
| changing so regularly that they need to take their eyes off
| the road and look at a screen or twiddle a knob?
|
| My signular gripe is that there is no physical button to open
| the glove-box, which is an annoying but very infrequent
| occurance.
| bottlepalm wrote:
| Latest Tesla update lets you configure long press on the
| steering wheel button to open the glove box.
| lolinder wrote:
| > My signular gripe is that there is no physical button to
| open the glove-box, which is an annoying but very
| infrequent occurance.
|
| That's _really_ weird. Button nothing, why is there not
| just a handle on the glove box? Who thought it was a good
| idea to hook _that_ up to the computer? Does that mean you
| can 't open the glove box unless the car is turned on?
| bottlepalm wrote:
| Tesla's are always on, there is no off button. The glove
| box is software controlled so you can restrict access to
| it in valet mode, or set a pin to open it. In the latest
| update you can configure the long press on the steering
| wheel button to open it.
| 6th wrote:
| I used to go cruising with a bunch of knobs.
| xwdv wrote:
| He uses Apple CarPlay.
| 0xbadc0de5 wrote:
| Or if you're going to insist on a touchscreen, perhaps add some
| tactile feedback mechanism. Smartphones figured this out years
| ago.
| DrBazza wrote:
| Anything that I have to look at it in a car, other than the road
| is a danger.
|
| I'm actually shocked that the various safety bodies in the US and
| Europe haven't already tried to limit the touch screen nonsense
| in modern cars.
| bloak wrote:
| Another thing I hate: user interfaces in which the visual/audible
| feedback is independent of whether the input has taken effect.
| This is distressingly common. Even self-checkout tills in
| supermarkets do this. For example, you touch a button on the
| screen, and it changes colour briefly, seemingly to indicate that
| the button press has been registered, but then nothing happens
| and you have to press the button again to get your receipt
| printed or whatever. This is the more common case, but sometimes
| with the same device you also have the button press taking effect
| without the visual feedback.
|
| I think I observed full independence of feedback and effect with
| a physical button on a microwave oven: when you attempted to
| press the button you sometimes got a beep, and the time sometimes
| got incremented by 10 s, or perhaps 20 s, and sometimes you'd get
| both those things, and sometimes you'd get just one of them. It
| must take real skill to design an appliance with a physical
| button that "works" like that, but some genius engineer managed
| to do it. I hope that person never gets a job in the car
| industry.
| jordanpg wrote:
| I wouldn't hate them so much if they didn't suck: slow, laggy,
| buggy, overcomplicated, bloated.
|
| Why is this? My few datapoints are 2016, 2017, and 2021 Subarus.
|
| Are there any cars out there with sharp, snappy UIs that actually
| work well?
| kk6mrp wrote:
| Why is nobody putting E-Ink displays in cars? I don't
| particularly mind the touchscreen aspect, but the screens are way
| too bright for driving.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _NHTSA published voluntary guidance in 2013 recommending that a
| driver be able to complete any infotainment task with glances of
| under two seconds, totaling a maximum of 12 seconds. But NHTSA's
| guidance had no enforcement mechanism, and carmakers have
| violated it with impunity.
|
| In the last two years further evidence has suggested that
| touchscreens represent a step backward for auto design. Drexel
| researchers found that infotainment systems posed a statistically
| significant crash risk even in the early 2010s, before carmakers
| added many of today's bells and whistles._
|
| Has anyone attempted certifying a class?
| boringg wrote:
| You know what I love about touchscreens? Filling out forms - its
| the greatest experience known to human kind.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| I'm apparently unique in this, but I prefer touch screens. Not
| because I fail to realize the value of buttons, but I don't find
| sitting in an airplane cockpit with a few hundred buttons that
| much better than a screen that is contextual. I like having a few
| buttons for common tasks like audio controls, and voice control
| for most else. The rest of the stuff can be on a touch screen for
| all I care. I get others prefer buttons - but it's not
| monolithically preferred.
| netsharc wrote:
| I think "airplane cockpit" is an exaggeration. Sure early
| 2000's Mercedeses even had a phone keypad[1], because, hey,
| everyone needed that front and center, but by around 2010 most
| manufacturers figured out iDrive-style interfaces (maybe a
| better name would be iPod-style menus with a scroll wheel you
| click to enter submenus)
|
| [1]
| https://s1.cdn.autoevolution.com/images/gallery/MERCEDESBENZ...
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| Love the Buick Cascada button explosion
|
| https://bestride.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2016/06/2016-Buick-C...
| Tagbert wrote:
| I've never seen any car dash with more than a few dozen
| buttons.
| pests wrote:
| Its not just the dash. The center console. The steering
| wheel. Door panel. On the headliner.
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| I counted the buttons within reach while waiting at a long
| stoplight once. Was up to 55 when the light turned green.
|
| Which is awesome. I like buttons.
|
| Edit, from grocery store parking lot: 92
| bigger_cheese wrote:
| I've just upgraded from a very old Toyota to a new Mazda.
| There are so many buttons in my new car and so much more
| technology it is honestly a little intimidating.
|
| Most of the buttons are for features I've never had before.
| There are buttons for Bluetooth (I think for receiving phone
| calls while driving and turning up and down audio volume etc)
| located on the steering wheel, There are a bunch of buttons
| for cruise control and I think lane keeping assist also on
| the steering wheel - I've never had a car with cruise control
| before and honestly I am a little intimidated to try it out.
| It seems so complicated. There are some buttons for the Front
| cross traffic sensors it took me a while to figure out what
| was going on with these. My car would randomly beep at me
| while at intersections before I finally figured out what was
| causing it. Then there is buttons to toggle the parking
| sensors and toggle between the front / reverse parking
| cameras.
|
| On top of that quite a lot of things in the car are automated
| now too - headlights will automatically turn on, wipers
| automatically switch on etc.
|
| My old car had a radio and heating/AC that was it. I've had
| the car for just under a month and I've already had to
| consult the manual 2 or 3 times because I've forgotten what
| certain buttons do.
| ojkelly wrote:
| If I'm fully engaged with a device a touch screen is great,
| especially when that device needs to do more things than you
| could reasonably make physical controls for.
|
| But when I'm driving and need to adjust something, I don't want
| to disconnect with driving to dive into a touch screen.
|
| A physical control, in the same location means muscle memory
| can take over. And as we learnt decades ago, the controls
| themselves need to be physically distinct so that you can tell
| them apart without looking or thinking too hard.
|
| I don't think touchscreens need to disappear from cars, there's
| a wealth of settings/config/etc they could be useful for.
|
| But the core driving aids and temperature/volume control need
| to be physical.
| stevage wrote:
| Also, with a physical control, I find that I can glance over
| to locate the control, return my eyes to the road, then reach
| over blindly to touch it. That doesn't work with a
| touchscreen at all.
| natch wrote:
| Works for me.
|
| 1. Reach over, grasp the screen under the target area using
| muscle memory.
|
| Screen is strong as hell, you could put your full weight on
| it and it wouldn't budge.
|
| 2. While continuing to hold the edge of the screen, move
| thumb to hover over suspected target area using muscle
| memory.
|
| 3. Glance and tap in one moment.
|
| Done.
|
| Not that I ever need to do this. Pretty much everything I
| need to do has a button. (And this in a car that the
| internet geniuses including here on HN are convinced does
| not have buttons).
|
| If steps 1, 2, and 3 sounded distracting or hard, see again
| the part where I said "not that I ever need to do this" and
| why.
| CoolestBeans wrote:
| Voice control is a bit of a nonstarter as the speech
| recognition (perhaps combined with the weird acoustics of a
| moving vehicle) has never worked for everyone; eg my father's
| accent never seems to work in his Honda. My car is from 2014
| and definitely has more buttons than necessary. I don't mind
| infrequently used controls behind a touchscreen, like do the
| controls to set the time on the clock really need dedicated
| buttons? But the issue as I see it is that whats frequently
| used for some is infrequently used for others. For example, I
| never take my car's drive mode out of eco, but my sister
| switches to sport when she goes up big hills. Once you get out
| of the category of obviously frequently controlled things (gear
| selector, climate control, media controls), you really have to
| start making judgement calls and picking and choosing who
| you're going to make uncomfortable. For example, do you
| prioritize a radio selector? Some people never use the AM/FM
| radio on their car. Some people only listen to AM/FM radio and
| never connect their smartphone.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| Speech recognition has mostly gotten over the accent hump,
| and with LLMs you can bridge the gap.
|
| For fun I tried an experiment, in one context I told GPT to
| mangle sentences in a way that a speech-to-text might, and in
| another I told GPT to transform sentences into commands for a
| car's various ECUs.
|
| Results:
|
| "Torn the hair conditioning gown to 65 decrees." => works
|
| "Can yew plays make it warmer in hear" => works
|
| "It's weigh two, uh how due yew say, it's way to frayed in
| hear!" => works (!)
|
| It actually understood a mis-transcribed French word in the
| middle of a series of English commands:
|
| > I apologize for the confusion. I interpreted "frayed" as an
| incorrect transcription of "froid" (which means "cold" in
| French) considering the context of the sentence and the
| surrounding phrase "how do you say." Thus, I replaced
| "frayed" with "cold.""
|
| It even realized that someone inserting filler like "how do
| you say" indicated they may be looking for a word in another
| language:
|
| > The phrase "how do you say" is often used by someone who is
| trying to recall a word or phrase in another language, or
| when they are unsure about the correct term to use in the
| current language. In this context, it signaled that there
| might be a language-related issue, leading me to consider
| that "frayed" might be an incorrect transcription of a word
| in another language, such as "froid" for "cold" in French.
|
| -
|
| And And in case you think it just guessed on past commands, I
| was able to replicate this in a fresh context window with no
| hints about what commands it should accept.
|
| Voice is really about to stop sucking for the first time in
| the history of tech: It can go from "I'm tired of this shit
| man" to knowing it should change the current song.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| 100% agree. While they can't do partial differential
| equations, they are very good at discerning intent in even
| very noisy language. Taking a free form language
| instruction and encoding in a structured form is
| specifically a powerful capability here. I have a feeling
| voice assistants are about to become extraordinarily
| powerful.
| asdfman123 wrote:
| I never liked voice recognition until I had to test it myself
| at my job, and seen firsthand just how much better it has
| gotten over the past few years.
|
| I think voice commands would be much more widely used if they
| hadn't rolled it out so soon, ironically. But most of us
| learned early on that it sucks and never tried it again.
| [deleted]
| curiousObject wrote:
| > Once you get out of the category of obviously frequently
| controlled things (gear selector, climate control, media
| controls), you really have to start making judgement calls
| and picking and choosing who you're going to make
| uncomfortable.
|
| User-assignable buttons might mitigate that. With profiles
| for individual drivers.
|
| But perhaps those features would confuse some users even more
| robszumski wrote:
| To me this is always a really interesting line of thinking.
| We customize the heck out of our phones but the car is off
| limits!?
|
| I want my doors to lock every night at 10pm in case I
| forget.
|
| I want to bring up my favorite temperature and fan
| settings.
|
| I want to lock just some doors.
|
| I want the windows down just the right amount.
|
| When do we get to take advantage that this is all software?
| karaterobot wrote:
| I'm disappointed that your comment has gotten downvoted. Hard
| to see why it should be, since it's just your opinion, and you
| even backed it up with a reason.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| I think it's because they talk about "hundreds of buttons"
| and then mention they don't actually use the touch screen,
| they use voice.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| I do use the touch screen, but when doing complex driving
| tasks I don't. I don't think I specifically am advocating
| for touch screens as the singular interface. I'm advocating
| that buttons are a terrible singular interface. In fact, I
| use the steering wheel buttons extensively while driving.
| It's only when I want something not core to the act of
| driving, like changing the song or some other ancillary
| function, do I go to voice command. The touch screen I use
| primarily when I'm stopped or as a passenger. But I'd
| rather that than have a hundred buttons decorating the
| center console. It's not a reasonable user interface for
| things that aren't necessary to have at a quick finger
| index.
|
| On the downvoting, don't be obtuse. On HN people downvote
| if they disagree with an opinion. I don't particularly take
| much notice of either direction on the voting. Internet
| points don't count for much, and I'd rather enjoy my
| discourse than scrounge for points.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| I'm not being obtuse when I say you'd have better odds if
| you stopped saying "hundred(s) of buttons".
|
| My car has less than 25 buttons on the center console,
| plus three dials for climate control. If you removed the
| buttons dealing with CDs it would be more like 15.
| NoPicklez wrote:
| You aren't unique in this.
|
| This isn't about the complete removal of touch screens or
| moving to purely buttons. It's about providing a better balance
| between physical buttons for driving essentials and then having
| the rest under a usable touch screen interface.
|
| It's not all one or the other.
| TrainedMonkey wrote:
| Concur, I am a minimalist and I for one love clean interfaces.
| If the argument is ergonomics, majority of stuff should be
| controllable with voice. I often set temperature / enable seat
| heaters using voice.
| potatofrenzy wrote:
| Great if you don't have a thick accent, no kids screaming in
| the back, etc.
| nluken wrote:
| Different strokes for different folks, I guess. I can't
| imagine using a voice command to do something as simple as
| turn on a seat heater. That feels like way more effort (and
| honestly more distracting) than one or two button presses
| that I don't have to look away from the road for. Don't you
| have to hit a button to start the voice command anyway?
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| Usually the voice command is a button on the steering
| wheel.
| crooked-v wrote:
| Sure, but you have to already know what the voice command
| is to turn on the seat heater and reproduce that every
| time, versus being able to look around and just... see an
| appropriate button.
|
| And that's before getting into the mess of misheard
| commands that even Google and Apple still can't get right
| despite having gigantic teams working on it 24/7.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| As is mentioned in a parallel comment this will change
| dramatically as LLM are introduced to voice assistants.
| LLM are much more robust in inferring semantic meaning
| from noisy language. As long as they don't ask the LLM to
| solve partial differential equations and confine it's
| originating prompt aggressively to only interpret voice
| text transcriptions to a finite set of actions, it'll be
| amazing.
| nluken wrote:
| I don't doubt that voice recognition will continue to
| improve, but doesn't it seems kind of ridiculous for
| automotive manufacturers to pour millions of dollars into
| R&D (or spend millions licensing someone else's software)
| and add much more expensive processors to their cars at
| mass scale to solve an already solved problem? I can
| already adjust the climate control and other basic things
| without this sort of interface, and I don't have to look
| away from the road to do it.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| If it sells more cars with more profit I fully expect
| them to, yes. I'd also note that wiring and layout of all
| those buttons as well as the manual work necessary to
| make a static user interface is fairly expensive. The
| slap a general purpose processor and use the existing AV
| in the car to control everything greatly simplifies both
| assembly and supply chain. Perhaps it's counter
| intuitive, but buttons aren't nearly as cheap as you
| might imagine, and computing resources are decreasing in
| cost rapidly. Finally LLM and voice recognition model
| computation costs are falling dramatically - you don't
| need a GPT-4 to improve voice recognition outcomes, most
| of the smaller system scaled models would just as well.
| The more advanced models are only necessary for
| significantly more advanced semantic tasks.
| known wrote:
| [dead]
| arethuza wrote:
| One thing I find weird is that on my Skoda the "infotainment"
| screen is fairly laggy - particularly when starting up. However,
| the "virtual cockpit" screen responds instantly - even though
| what it displays looks more complex than the infotainment screen.
|
| Mind you the "virtual cockpit" isn't a touchscreen and button
| only (mostly on steering wheel).
| fergie wrote:
| "Pedestrian and cyclist fatalities recently hit their highest
| levels in 40 years"
|
| I wonder if the various self driving technologies have anything
| to do with this?
| grensley wrote:
| I drive a 2008 Hyundai Elantra, and with the addition of a
| bluetooth adaptor, I really have everything I want in a car.
|
| It's got no idea what's going on, and I like it that way.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| I wish for intermittent wipers and cruise control in my 96
| Toyota. Heck, I wish for electric wipers in my 61 Sunliner.
| vinay_ys wrote:
| Any controls that's not on the steering wheel is a distraction.
| If there are very few buttons or dials for very
| simple/standard/common functions on the centre dash, that's okay.
| Anything more is definitely not safe to operate in a busy and
| fast moving traffic situations. All the touch-screen stuff is
| only safe to operate in very slow-moving traffic jam situations.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| I love my trackpad in my Acura. I was hesitant at first, but
| after getting used to it, I think it's a great compromise.
| josefresco wrote:
| Related: Drones (aka flying bladed copters) should have a
| hardware "land" button. To land my DJI I have to tap and hold a
| touchscreen button on my phone which is sometimes obscured by the
| apps notifications, or notifications from my phone.
| zx10rse wrote:
| Controls from touch screens should be banned.
|
| There is a reason why your cognitive memory performs far superior
| with physical buttons and knobs.
|
| There is a reason why formula 1 car steering wheel is full with
| buttons, not a touch screen.
|
| There are plenty of well established UX laws, and principles form
| 60's like Hick's law Fitt's law and so on. Plenty of studies of
| failures, because of bad UX.
|
| Every time I see tesla model 3 with that big screen, and not only
| model 3, I cringe so hard.
|
| Screens should be integrated in cockpits. Software should enhance
| the experience not add more cognitive load.
|
| I sometimes wonder do they even hire UX specialists or UI
| designers in those companies.
| jmyeet wrote:
| Using a touchscreen while driving has the obvious problem that
| you have to look at the screen vs physical buttons where tactile
| feedback and muscle memory can be sufficient.
|
| But the problem is way beyond that and goes way beyond cars.
| Touch UIs are inherently lazy and they encourage you to create
| bad UI/UX. Why? Because your UI becomes software and you can
| always update it later. The net result is you don't.
|
| Having tactile buttons forces you to do upront UI/UX work to make
| sure you have sufficient buttons, they make sense, etc. It's a
| cost-saving issue to just not do this kind of work.
|
| In any touchscreen on a car you'll find abasic options buried
| menus deep to the point where you have to Google where to find
| it. That's a big reason why touchscreens suck.
| feintruled wrote:
| I wonder if we will go back to the Star Trek paradigm, where
| everything is big chunky buttons and anything complex is
| initiated by voice control to a computer that understands you
| perfectly. (TOS of course, TNG went all in on touch screens).
| analog31 wrote:
| My family's 2020 Subaru has a touch screen. It is only for
| noncritical stuff -- the climate control has conventional buttons
| and knobs. With that said, the placement of the screen makes the
| rest of the controls sit much lower, so I have to look for them.
|
| I've found a "look twice" method minimizes the time that my eyes
| are off the road. I take one quick glance, to find the button
| that I want to push. Then a second quick look to actually push
| it.
|
| Based on complaints I've read about Subaru controls, they must
| have fixed a lot of problems in the latest version. It really
| does work nicely, though it does scold me once in a while. I love
| the adaptive cruise control, and I don't mind something that
| keeps me from falling asleep while driving.
| hahamrfunnyguy wrote:
| Bought a 2023 Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV. The software UX is so
| bad and the car's systems are so buggy. One example is that if
| you don't shut the door all the way and shift into drive you get
| a beeping sound and a big red message that says
|
| SHIFT [p] into range
|
| I don't understand what that means. Is it telling me to put the
| car back into park? Why not just say the door is open? My '05
| Subaru had lights on the dashboard that showed each door that was
| open - a really sensible way of indicating what to do without
| having to read anything.
| salamander014 wrote:
| My wife has a 2022 VW.
|
| If the door is not closed and you shift into drive, you also
| get a very loud annoying beep and visuals.
|
| Not only that, the brakes engage and the car LOCKS ITSELF IN
| PARK AND DOES NOT LET YOU DRIVE EVEN THOUGH THE SHIFTER IS IN
| 'D'!!!
|
| I pray the door sensor doesnt fail while driving on the
| highway, or theres never a situation that arises where the car
| needs to be driven regardless of the door being open.
|
| On top of that, the door locks /trunk locks act very strange
| while the engine is running /driver door is open. Still dont
| have that figured out.
|
| I've suggested that we don't purchase another VW.
| winstonprivacy wrote:
| We were in the market last year for a new car. After test driving
| a few with touch screens, we decided to instead go for a barely
| driven 10 year old model. No touch screens and far fewer digital
| parts and connections which well eventually break.
|
| That cost Mercedes $150k.
| sheepscreek wrote:
| Thank you automakers. I can't imagine using the touchscreen to
| change the wiper speed while my kid is yelling in the backseat
| and I'm driving on the highway. And some irresponsible driver
| cutting in my lane while I'm doing this.
|
| I also feel for the poor astronauts in a touchscreen only SpaceX
| Dragon cockpit (unless the design changed).
|
| The feeling of being helpless, even if it's perceived
| helplessness.
| natch wrote:
| Fortunately the wiper speed changes itself automatically, and
| contrary to what you may have been told by the internet, there
| is a hardware button that with one click brings the controls to
| where they can be operated without looking once you get the
| muscle memory. Before you get the muscle memory? Just leave
| them on auto. I mean, your kid is yelling. Also, auto emergency
| braking is fantastic.
| ptelomere wrote:
| IMHO, don't blame touch screens, blame bad UI design.
|
| My touch screen annoyance: "oops, it detected a swipe instead of
| a press, because the car just went through a bump!". Or, "Oops! I
| accidentally pressed cancel instead of back button, now my map
| navigation is gone!!!".
|
| Design the UI well, so that drivers can't screw things up easily.
| bloodyplonker22 wrote:
| It's not about the UI. It's about the tactile feel and being
| able to reach and touch a knob while keeping your eyes on the
| road.
| webprofusion wrote:
| I agree _some_ drivers prefer real buttons, I disagree that
| "Drivers hate touchscreens" as it implies 100%. I manage fine
| with just a touch screen and a few basic controls on the
| steering wheel.
|
| If you're driving you shouldn't be fiddling with anything
| extraneous. Lights/windshield wipers should be automatic in
| 99% of circumstances and if they're not then that's what
| needs to be improved.
|
| You shouldn't need to reach for _anything_ because if you do
| that 's already either a design fail or operator error.
| maxdo wrote:
| to all antiquarian fans. Car didn't stuck in time when you got
| your first car. Look at the latest modern cars, it knows when the
| rain starts, it has climate control so you don't need to rotate
| hit/cooling controls. To drive to front or back car knows itself,
| and you don't have to switch gears every minute or two. There is
| no parking break, it is automatic.
|
| Modern car is much, much SIMPLER, it will be more simpler, so
| it's a natural direction to boost multimedia, not been a soviet
| era airplane.
| oblio wrote:
| Well, you're both right and wrong. You're right in that your
| main point is right.
|
| You're wrong in that modern cars are much more complex than old
| cars for 2 reasons: reducing pollution (besides the point for
| this conversation) and safety. Safety makes a car much more
| complex.
|
| And touch screens are apparent simplicity which reduces safety.
|
| So they're a dumb idea for cars except for multimedia, as you
| put it.
| bigmattystyles wrote:
| I feel vindicated in a high school argument I had 25 years ago
| that the controls on the Star Trek Next Generation shuttlecrafts
| (and I guess the helm of the enterprise itself) would have been
| awful, especially in combat situations. In defense of the show,
| it must have felt like such a valid reason to make set design
| cheaper.
| sircastor wrote:
| I'm a former infotainment engineer. Touchscreens made it possible
| to make modern technologies available, and make them accessible
| in the car to people. If this results in car makers ditching
| touchscreens, people will get mad that they can't use CarPlay
| like they used to.
|
| In my experience, most people who have driven their car for ages
| can't use the buttons on their center console without looking at
| them. Maybe the volume control...
|
| As an experiment, I challenge you to draw a picture of your car's
| center console from memory. See how much of it you get right.
| This isn't to say that physical buttons aren't any better than
| touchscreens, but I think people romanticize how effective they
| are with their cars interface.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| I can do all of mine: three knobs are vent selection, fan
| speed, and temperature, three buttons below those are AC,
| defrost, and recirculate.
|
| Don't know every vent knob position, but the first (upper
| vents), second (adds floor vents), and last (defrost) are the
| important ones.
|
| I couldn't do the aftermarket Bluetooth radio, but the only
| buttons I use there are prev/next, plus the volume knob.
| stainforth wrote:
| Was response time of the screen analyzed at all? Just the
| screen itself, not what any of the functions a press would
| trigger.
| szundi wrote:
| Not me though. Model X is awesome. The index stick is missing
| though, lol.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| >"These screens are presented as this avant garde, minimalist
| design,"
|
| The idiotic trend of applying Jony Ive's minimalist iPad user
| interface designs to automotive touchscreen kills people.
|
| It pointlessly distracts from the primary purpose of designing
| user-friendly, intuitive, safe automotive touchscreens.
|
| Jony Ive Spearheads Minimalist Design Overhaul For iOS:
|
| https://bitrebels.com/technology/jony-ive-minimalist-design-...
|
| Guide: The Art of Minimalism in UI Design:
|
| https://sympli.io/blog/the-art-of-minimalism-in-ui-design
|
| Jony Ive's minimalist designs could reshape the future of iOS, OS
| X:
|
| https://appleinsider.com/articles/12/10/30/jony-ives-minimal...
|
| The Art of Minimalism in Mobile App UI Design:
|
| https://uxplanet.org/the-art-of-minimalism-in-mobile-app-ui-...
|
| More practical less vain interface designers are finally calling
| for an end to this terrible trend in minimalist interface design
| on mobile devices, but it never should have been applied to
| automotive interfaces in the first place, and there is already
| lots of blood on the hands of cocaine-addled cargo-cult iPad
| interface designers mindlessly aping John Ive while working on
| automotive interfaces.
|
| The designer behind one of the iPad's biggest apps is calling for
| an end to minimalism:
|
| https://www.fastcompany.com/90604970/the-designer-behind-one...
|
| The point of designing automotive touchscreen user interfaces is
| not to show off to the world what a brilliant sensitive snowflake
| of a minimalist avant garde artistic designer you are.
|
| It's not about designing beautiful enigmatic minimal screens
| uncluttered by pesky visual clues, signifiers, and affordances,
| more suited to be hung on the walls of art museums for patrons to
| stare at and interpret and argue over their ambiguous meaning in
| their leisure time.
|
| The art-first, safety-last trend of prioritizing aesthetics over
| usability in automotive interfaces should be outlawed, because it
| has a fatal impact in driver safety, that kills people.
| popey wrote:
| I've had an EV for a year now (a Mini). It has a touch screen,
| but also has a bunch of buttons. I almost _never_ use the
| touchscreen as a result, and when I do, it 'a annoying. Typing
| addresses into the navigation system is painful, even for the
| passenger, while driving. The various buttons and wheels which
| augment the touchscreen are way more usable.
| riverdweller wrote:
| Tesla unilaterally decided to push out a refactored UI to my old
| Model S a few months ago, changing the location of numerous
| functions to new sub-menu paths, and rendering years of muscle
| memory useless.
|
| Not only do I have to re-learn where everything is, but older
| memories interfere and confuse every time I try to access an
| infrequently used function.
|
| This experience has been irritating at best. It has felt
| extremely unsafe on more than one occasion.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| The phone and desktop OS user experience has now infected cars.
|
| "We must change things otherwise our work is not visible."
| CatWChainsaw wrote:
| IMO, if their work is visible, they did it wrong.
| 93po wrote:
| I'd recommend focusing on driving instead of messing with
| settings if it feels extremely unsafe.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| Saw the Impreza's 2024 redesign, apparently Subaru missed the
| memo. https://www.carscoops.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2022/11/2024-Su...
|
| I recently test drove a Mazda, and while I've seen people online
| complain about their "commander knob" and lack of touch screen, I
| liked it pretty well. Screen up further on the dashboard is nice
| for glancing at maps.
| Izikiel43 wrote:
| All hail Mazda. I love the spinny wheel in my cx5.
|
| The screen far away from arm reach is something they
| deliberately did because they argue you shouldn't touch a
| screen while driving, you should only use the knob as that
| minimizes time you don't look at the road.
| moron4hire wrote:
| It's why I left Subaru and skipped on Toyota to get my CX-5. It
| does take a little too much attention sometimes, but it's
| definitely better than the touchscreen systems overall
| am44jnsf wrote:
| actually that seems fine. there's probably >30 physical buttons
| in that picture, not including the touch screen. and it has
| physically buttons for volume and climate. I'mn pretty happy
| for most other things to go into the screen.
| ezfe wrote:
| It has physical volume and climate controls, including seat
| heaters - I don't mind this?
| wlesieutre wrote:
| Personally, I'd rather have the rest of the HVAC controls on
| buttons/knobs (for that matter, I'd rather have the
| temperature on knobs instead of buttons), and the screen is
| really low. The top edge of a map on that screen is going to
| be under the bottom edge of where a more dashboard integrated
| screen would be.
| joppy wrote:
| The Mazda software works ok with the wheel, but using something
| like CarPlay with it is almost impossible without taking your
| eyes off the road for a long time. It's worse than touch-
| screens in that respect: what will the spinning knob select
| next on a screen which has three separate panes?
| izacus wrote:
| Is CarPlay really that terrible? I don't have issues using
| Android Auto easily with my Mazda, it all takes a few very
| learnable clicks.
| rockinghigh wrote:
| Yes, it's terrible, CarPlay was designed to with touch in
| mind. You spend more time looking at the screen to figure
| out where your "cursor" is. I found the Tesla touch screen
| to be much safer to use.
| jmkni wrote:
| I have no issues with it in my Mazda3 on iOS, it's all
| muscle memory, and Siri isn't even that terrible once you
| learn the most effective commands.
| prettychill wrote:
| I use carplay in my CX5 and have no issues (my cx5 does not
| have a touch screen at all, 2022)
| post_break wrote:
| I have a new miata, the touch screen is disabled above a
| certain speed. It's the worse of both worlds. Touch screen
| sometimes, jog wheel other times. The cursor on the screen lags
| so you're looking at the screen trying to figure out what is
| highlighted vs taking 1 second to touch the button you want.
| It's so bad I ripped out the screen and installed a 3rd party
| wireless carplay screen before the first car payment. It's
| 1000% better now.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| Their new models allow you to enable it all the time (CX-50,
| I assume CX-90 and the upcoming CX-70), which I do think is a
| good idea.
|
| Not even just for the driver to be touching it, but if you
| have a passenger you can let them deal with putting in
| directions or managing your audio and the wheel is a lot less
| obvious than a touchscreen to someone who isn't familiar with
| it.
|
| And as a driver, it felt like there were some things where
| it'd be easier to just touch the screen too. Like for the
| buttons scattered around the corner of Maps, scrolling
| through a list or a grid is easy to navigate, random stuff
| all over the screen you'll have to learn the order.
| Izikiel43 wrote:
| Learn it, it takes 5 minutes, I know because I've done it.
| As a passenger dealing with the knob is easy enough, no
| need for touching the screen.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| I'll usually be driving with a visually impaired
| passenger, so it'd be more like "lean up close to the
| screen to try and find where the little selection
| highlight is and then reach backward to try and use the
| knob to move it around" so for us in particular a
| touchscreen would be easier. Realistically I would just
| end up doing everything myself instead, but a touchscreen
| option would be nice.
|
| Apparently the Japanese market version for 2024 is
| getting a 10.25" screen which I'm guessing is the same
| part as the CX-50. That could mean adding touch for
| CarPlay, but none of the articles mention it one way or
| the other. Maybe I'll wait and see about the US update
| before making any buying decisions.
| NoZebra120vClip wrote:
| Let's say like the FAA now, if an auto has a distracting
| touchscreen interface, a navigator in the passenger seat is
| mandatory, and must be well-trained on the user interface.
| That legislation should go over like a lead balloon!
| ghostpepper wrote:
| FWIW I've never had an issue with the wheel in my CX5. I
| don't use the touchscreen at all, even at low speeds.
| snow_mac wrote:
| I like a big display with buttons on the side. I like getting to
| see the song name, the station and some of that digital info, I
| like Apple Maps on Apple car play. Those are nice features. I
| love the back up camera display. But I have to have a button or
| knob to adjust temp, audio, next track, etc... because while
| those things are helpful, when I'm going down the highway and I
| need to adjust while paying attention jumping between screens and
| the road sucksssssss
| rdiddly wrote:
| Yeah seems like physical controls for input, screen for output
| is the sweet spot.
| hunter2_ wrote:
| It'll be interesting to see how Android Auto / Apple Car Play
| adopt physical controls, if at all. I guess at a basic level
| a rotary encoder could emulate a "tab" key when rotated and
| an "enter" key when pushed (keyboard support already exists
| in the mobile OS, of course). Until then, at least they have
| great voice input.
| nkrisc wrote:
| Car Play in my Mazda3 works just great with the knob
| control. I much prefer it than the touch-only controls in
| my Forester. In fact I'd go so far as to say it's the best
| physical option.
|
| For example, when I'm listening to a podcast I can turn the
| knob to highlight the skip forward button, and leave it
| there. Then when adds come on I can just feel for and press
| the knob without looking at the screen. In the Forester I
| have to awkwardly hold my arm out, breaking my hand with my
| thumb while I try to hit the right button. Usually I don't
| bother because it feels too unsafe.
|
| You can change what the forward/back buttons on the
| steering wheel do, such as changing them to skip, but then
| I'm In the same situation when I want to go to the next
| podcast or skip a few.
| kyralis wrote:
| Apple's Car Play has supported that from the beginning,
| since many of the first adopter cars didn't actually have
| _touch_ screens, just screens.
| hunter2_ wrote:
| Ah! Of all the cars I've owned (1) and rented (3+) that
| have it, all have had only touch screen input to it, as
| far as I noticed. Brb while I see if the Tune knob in my
| VW does anything in AA...
| NoZebra120vClip wrote:
| I'm not exactly sure how it works, but mobile OS
| accessibility layers provide support for "switch" devices
| which are used by disabled people. So I don't know if this
| is limited to on/off switches, or variable knobs as well,
| but this may be the same sort of principle that would guide
| a car-based OS interface with physical controls on the
| dash.
| p0ckets wrote:
| That's basically what Audi has (at least in some older
| models): it's a scroll wheel that also works as a d-pad. It
| works pretty well with Android Auto (no experience with
| Apple Car Play). Mazda also has a similar-looking
| interface.
|
| But it seems those two companies are moving towards
| touchscreens due to market demand.
| JauntyHatAngle wrote:
| I think you can go more detailed on that and say physical
| controls for common, quick inputs especially ones people use
| while they are driving and you don't want them to look down
| for.
|
| Touch screen is fine for setup screens, extra info, fine
| tuning stuff etc.
|
| Point is when I'm driving down the road I should be able to
| muscle memory/tactily skip song, change volume, change air-
| conditioning settings etc...
|
| But Bluetooth settings... changing colour of display,
| changing voice assistant tone... leave that on the touch
| screen. Don't need it.
| DJBunnies wrote:
| Just to offer a different opinion, I prefer inferior
| controls to a touchscreen for settings.
|
| Wheels and buttons respond faster, it forces vendors to be
| concise, and it doesn't gunk up my screen.
|
| Muscle memory forms quickly for anything that's a "one and
| done" setting.
| tnzk wrote:
| But I hate "push the volumn knob N times to intiate BT
| pairing, read carefully the alnum code displayed in 7
| segment LED" ...
| frosted-flakes wrote:
| You hate modal interfaces then. A non-modal interface
| would initiate pairing with a fixed button, this button
| would do the same thing every time, and it wouldn't
| require other inputs. Perhaps A, B, C buttons for three
| connections, where pressing once auto-connects to the
| previously saved device and holding initiates pairing
| (like a radio favourites button).
|
| A non-modal interface for controlling audio settings
| (volume, bass, treble, etc.) would be one knob for each
| function--not one knob which changes function when you
| click it, or having to dig seven layers deep through in a
| touch screen menu. I change audio settings all the time
| on my car depending on what I'm listening to, because
| there are 6 knobs for this (big volume knob, small knobs
| for bass/mid/treble/balance/fader.[1]
|
| Modal interfaces in cars are bad because their results
| are unpredictable. Touch screens are bad because they
| allow for non-modal interfaces, and also because they're
| not tactile.
|
| [1] https://d3inagkmqs1m6q.cloudfront.net/1517/media-
| photos/cp04...
| jjav wrote:
| > I think you can go more detailed on that and say physical
| controls for common, quick inputs especially ones people
| use while they are driving and you don't want them to look
| down for.
|
| Yes, anything that could ever conceivably be needed to be
| used by the driver while driving must have a physical,
| mechanical control.
|
| Things that can be configured while the car is parked and
| never need to be changed while driving, can be ok on a
| touch screen.
| clnq wrote:
| Our car UX is becoming terrible for both touchscreens and
| physical controls. It could benefit from simplification a
| lot, and I think Tesla had many good ideas, even if they
| might have over-committed to the touchscreen.
|
| For example, VW cars often have multiple knobs and buttons
| just for controlling the AC, which is far too complicated. If
| the car is electric, one might also need to put it into a
| regular mode (non-eco) to use AC and heating through a
| dedicated button/menu option. A better solution would be to
| emulate electric mirror adjustments, incorporating all
| climate control functions into one single knob - up-down for
| fan speed, left-right for temperature, and clockwise-ccw for
| zone/area.
|
| Similarly, gear shifters come in various forms, such as
| buttons, levers, and sticks, or a combination of both,
| creating confusion. For example, it's common for AT vehicles
| to have a parking mode on the gear shifter, but also a
| parking brake button or lever. Sometimes drive, neutral, and
| parking are buttons, but there is a lever for multiple drive
| modes. The most dangerous configuration so far I've seen is
| where D and R buttons are next to each other. Electric cars,
| in particular, should only require a simple but clear switch
| between forward and reverse as their pedals already can stop
| and go, and many will be effectively parked if fully stopped,
| they won't roll.
|
| Head units are also problematic with unclear and inconsistent
| button labels like "Media", "Source", "Input", "Map", "Nav",
| "Car", sometimes different on the head unit and the steering
| wheel.
|
| In some cases, like Porsches, there are over 60 buttons
| within the driver's reach, making it difficult to operate
| without looking. This is not much better than a touchscreen,
| it totally distracts you from the road. I would even say that
| any interface with more than 4-5 buttons in a row that feel
| the same isn't much better than a touchscreen.
|
| All these issues may not be as pronounced for those familiar
| with their own cars and are easier to see in rentals. And
| perhaps they are not big issues, there is still very
| significant room for UX improvement.
|
| I would like to see more cars go in the way of Tesla and
| remove a lot that is not necessary. This is not to say that
| they can't keep buttons. But as I said, climate control could
| be one knob, the automatic transmission selector could be
| another. If the parking brake will be electronic, just make
| the car automatically engage it when parked and turned off.
| The content shown/played on the media unit could be
| controlled by another knob - up/down for modes and input
| sources, left-right to skip tracks or tune radio stations,
| clockwise-ccw for volume. And then sure, the rest can be on
| the touchscreen.
|
| To sum up - many buttons (especially when mislabelled or when
| they handle the same function in combination with other
| inputs) are also attention-grabbing and inconvenient. Buttons
| or touchscreens - the UX in cars can be improved a lot.
| pySSK wrote:
| This has a lot to do with cultural preferences. German
| customers demand and expect complex multi-level menus. VW
| has a small UX team in Belmont where they simplify UIs for
| the American market.
| clnq wrote:
| Thanks for the insight, it would be very interesting to
| see some company's UX guidelines for the two markets.
|
| I've heard that Americans prioritize comfort and
| practicality in their cars while Germans prefer control
| and performance. But I always assumed that individual
| preferences vary so much that any overall correlations to
| region would be weak. For example, I hail from Central
| Europe, but strongly prefer the Tesla aesthetic, even if
| I am not a fan of touchscreening everything.
| emmelaich wrote:
| On the Tesla3, I use the on-wheel buttons for everything I
| need while driving.
|
| If I really need to i.e. hunt for a particular radio station
| I'll do it when stopped.
|
| I expected to dislike the screen but it's fine.
| ryantgtg wrote:
| Same for me. I very rarely touch the screen while driving.
| And then after I do I'm like, "why didn't I just a voice
| control for that?"
|
| I was pretty worried about getting a tesla because of the
| screen/controls, and I spent months only considering other
| brands. But! No regrets.
| seb1204 wrote:
| Do you also do AC control via voice?
| Zanni wrote:
| Tesla support this. "Set temperature to 70."
| ryantgtg wrote:
| Yeah, AC is usually the only thing I touch the screen
| for. And since they have such good voice commands for it
| I'm trying to get in that groove.
|
| But, I don't drive every day, and when I do it's usually
| a short trip, so I'm slow to build the habits.
|
| AC voice command examples
| https://www.tesla.com/support/voice-commands
|
| A generic command like "make it warmer" will bump it up 3
| degrees.
| derefr wrote:
| Imagine an iPod-like scrubwheel positioned so that your thumb
| can scroll while your hands are at 10 and 2.
| gonzo41 wrote:
| Imagine paying attention to the road and not needing to look
| at radio to be able to do everything.
| ninkendo wrote:
| It's the distraction of having to pay attention to where you
| are in the UI navigation that sucks... tactile buttons on the
| wheel wouldn't fix this if you only get to use them as a
| proxy for the same UI navigation.
|
| Physical buttons for common car features should be non-modal
| and not context dependent, and in a consistent location you
| can memorize without looking. You should be able to pause the
| music without having to navigate to some UI submenu first.
| Same with climate control, volume, etc.
| midoridensha wrote:
| Which is useless when you put your hands at 9 and 3 like
| you're supposed to.
| defrost wrote:
| ... with the caveat that
|
| > _10 and 2 o'clock is no longer recommended because it can
| be dangerous in vehicles with smaller steering wheels and
| equipped with airbags._
|
| (Source: https://driving-tests.org/beginner-drivers/how-to-
| hold-a-ste...)
|
| and the implication that _otherwise_ the trad 10 and 2
| position recommended for decades is still 100% A-OK.
| imafish wrote:
| Not sure about GP - but in my country they teach the 9
| and 3 position when you take your license. I've always
| thought 10 and 2 was an American thing.
| FactualActuals wrote:
| When I was in driver's ed in high school in America,
| there was a push to teach 8 and 4.
|
| As far as I am aware, teaching students 10 and 2 has long
| since been phased out supposedly due to the increase of
| arm injuries in the event of an accident. 9 and 3 wasn't
| recommended to us because if your air bag deploys, your
| right arm will smash into your passenger or the passenger
| air bag. 8 and 4 is supposed to be safer but it comes
| with the caveat that you have to steer your car a
| specific way.
|
| That being said, I prefer 9 and 3 and it's hard to find
| drivers in America that don't use this position as their
| default.
| defrost wrote:
| I'm in Australia (and wrote the comment above yours) and
| was taught to drive (late 1970s) using a higher hand
| position - "ten and two" but without that phrasing.
|
| Also to always have two hands on the wheel, sliding it
| through one hand by a solid grip of the other .. all
| centred about off bitumen rough road driving with
| unexpected dips, cambers, holes that might catch you by
| surprise.
|
| I suspect the higher hand position gives a greater
| advantage in older vehicles with direct under geared
| mechanical steering as there's more travel from the hand
| griping position downwards around the arc before "running
| out of travel" and having to move that hand .. ie better
| control on bad roads with odd cambers etc.
| seb1204 wrote:
| As a fellow Australian I can agree and see some good
| points in this. However I also think it no longer applies
| to post 2020 cars in a city/urban environment.
| jjav wrote:
| 9 & 3 is superior if you think about it, as it is
| symmetrical and thus gives you the optimal control
| regardless of how much you need to turn either way. It's
| what we teach for both street car control and track
| performance driving (been a performance driving
| instructor for over 20 years).
|
| That said, if someone absolutely has their heart set on
| 10 & 2, that is still better than 98% of drivers out
| there with random single hand steering placement, so it's
| ok.
|
| The absolute worst is single handed cross placement (e.g.
| right hand on 10'oclock). Please never do that, you stand
| zero chance of being able to do a controlled quick
| correction or emergency manouver if you have to.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| Laser projection on windshield is by far the best invention in
| car security in past decades for me. I would make it mandatory
| in all new cars, much more important than over-turbocharged
| tiny fragile engines that have low consumption only on paper.
|
| I literally don't lose sight of outside situation for hours. I
| have all the info I usually need - current speed, limit, any
| navigation info if I don't use google maps, selection of songs.
| Few buttons to control things on steering wheel is all you
| need.
|
| And yes touchscreens were and are crap, didn't like first
| Teslas exactly due to that, while crowds were hyped how new and
| cool it looked, ignoring practicality and safety issues.
| boring_twenties wrote:
| I'm pretty thrilled with my '23 BMW.
|
| Not only are there buttons and knobs for most of the obvious
| things (temperature, volume, etc.) but even the infotainment is
| controllable by buttons and a joystick+knob+touchpad. I
| virtually never touch the screen itself.
|
| For some bizarre reason, they do have a separate single row of
| touch "buttons" for a few functions, namely, seat heating and
| ventilation, which whatever, but also fan speed. Not the hugest
| deal, but just why? They were so close!
| johnwalkr wrote:
| One of the best things about carplay is you can use your phone
| to input your destination instead of the crappy touchscreen in
| your car.
| flyinghamster wrote:
| I think one of the most frustrating aspects of this whole
| kerfluffle is the automakers' longstanding willingness to ignore
| customers and double down at any pushback. It's downright stupid
| that it has taken this level of screaming from customers to roll
| back a design choice that should never have been made.
| yellowapple wrote:
| It ain't just cars. I can't think of very many people who
| genuinely enjoy the "smart" aspect of "smart TVs", for example;
| nearly everyone I know who owns a TV also owns some device that
| not only does everything the TV's "smarts" can do but does them
| consistently better _and_ can be trivially replaced should that
| ever change.
| midoridensha wrote:
| >I can't think of very many people who genuinely enjoy the
| "smart" aspect of "smart TVs", for example
|
| Count me in the camp that does. My TV runs GoogleOS
| (Android), and it's great, because I _don 't_ need some other
| device plugged in to do what I want to do with it. There's
| only 2 things I want from this thing:
|
| 1. Playing external media. It has a USB port, so I can plug
| in thumb drives and play video files from them. The built-in
| OS works fine for this, and seems to handle any media file or
| codec I throw at it.
|
| 2. Playing YouTube with a good player. Since it's Android, I
| can load APKs from wherever I want, and so I installed
| "SmartTubeNext", which blocks ads and sponsor segments
| automatically. It works almost _too_ well.
|
| I think the mistake most other people make with smart TVs is
| that they get ones with crappy proprietary OSes, so with
| those you have no control over anything and can't run any
| 3rd-party software like SmartTubeNext. Of course, eventually
| this model could lose support from the mfgr, causing security
| issues or not being compatible with the apps I want, but for
| now it's quite nice.
| anthonypasq wrote:
| im pretty sure nearly every single person in existence wants
| a tv that connects to the internet dude. people dont want to
| plug in an hdmi cord to access streaming services.
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| > im pretty sure nearly every single person in existence
| wants a tv that connects to the internet dude
|
| I'm guessing you've missed every thread here about Smart
| TVs. ref: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=smart+tv
| anthonypasq wrote:
| that must explain why 99.99% of tvs sold are dumb tv's
| because there is such a clamoring demand for them... oh
| wait.
| cdot2 wrote:
| In both cases it's a cost/finance reason. "Smart" TVs can
| profit from selling customer data and touch screen cars save
| some cost over tactile interfaces.
| bick_nyers wrote:
| Everyone always says this, but how much do they actually
| make per unit sale. I buy $2k+ TVs, are they making $50 off
| of my data, or $5? Does it even pay for the department they
| hired to write the software that collects the data?
| YetAnotherNick wrote:
| Same for car. It's hard to imagine manufacturers would
| care to reduce cost by $5(20 tactile buttons likely costs
| lesser than that) on a $10k car, but what would I know.
| te_chris wrote:
| My smart TV (LG C2) has never and will never touch the
| internet. Apple TV for all the functionality (and
| occasionally terreistrial)
| zeedude wrote:
| It's all about the bottom line. Touch screens consolidate a ton
| of otherwise expensive switch gear. Going back to physical
| knobs and buttons means going back to paying for engineering,
| assembling, testing, etc.
| civilized wrote:
| Profiting off of a less safe product that kills people could
| be seen as an egregious moral deficiency.
| yellowapple wrote:
| Corporations, being paperclip-maximizing automata, don't
| have morals in the first place, so no deficiency is
| possible.
| branko_d wrote:
| But... but... corporation are people! Aren't they? Mitt
| Romney, have you lied to me??
| xpe wrote:
| Indeed. Not uncommon but still unacceptable.
| rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote:
| From a product and even financial standpoint, the trade-off
| doesn't make sense. All the litigation that could occur due
| to accidents caused by a less safe design plus the
| reputational damage that an inexcellent product could cause
| to the brand sounds so expensive to me.
| ultrarunner wrote:
| It seems carmakers have situated themselves fairly
| comfortably regarding liability. If a car hits someone in
| "the road" the victim immediately becomes a "jay walker"
| and it's their fault. Otherwise the _driver_ made a
| mistake. Otherwise the DOT is at fault. It 's nearly
| impossible to blame automakers for the damage their
| products do.
|
| A good example of this might be the lack of intuitive
| feedback regarding headlights. More and more, dash lights
| stay on despite exterior lights being off, giving the
| driver the impression that everything is normal. IIRC
| several countries including Canada are moving to require
| exterior lights to be on at all times now, but it boggles
| my mind that such a simple to understand phenomenon with so
| many straightforward solutions has to be solved through
| regulation instead of the automakers just, you know...
| doing better.
|
| Still, despite a clear design defect and recognition by
| regulator agencies, no litigation is likely to occur.
| Eisenstein wrote:
| It's great that you mention jay walkers because this
| wasn't a thing before cars. When cars first started
| appearing on the road there was a huge backlash because
| kids played in the street and people cross the street and
| they got hit by cars and people got pissed off. Car clubs
| started popularizing the term 'jay walker' and shaming
| people for it in order to reduce the backlash against
| cars and drivers for hitting people that were using the
| street. After a while it became normalized that people in
| the street are at fault and drivers are not.
| tshaddox wrote:
| If it was just about the bottom line, and consumers actually
| cared enough to be willing to pay for physical controls, then
| why wouldn't there be plenty of options on the market?
| thfuran wrote:
| Designing two different sets of controls costs even more.
| tshaddox wrote:
| Then are you still saying that, adjusted by willingness
| to pay, consumers actually tend to prefer touch controls?
| modzu wrote:
| in every large business there is a very simple formula for
| decision making: what option maximizes profit? if we have to
| kill 100,000 cyclists and pedestrians in the process, who gives
| a shit, people die every day for no damn reason at all. lets
| kill em all, bastards arent our customers anyway
| oblio wrote:
| Case in point: SUVs and trucks.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| Tobacco companies have no problem killing their customers.
|
| People dying is just the cost of doing business.
| [deleted]
| code_runner wrote:
| I thought I would hate it but I really don't mind mine. I like a
| few important buttons on the steering wheel but I always to look
| to remember which is which anyways.
|
| Maybe I don't drive far enough often enough. I honestly expected
| to hate it but it's made almost no difference to me.
| n_eutrino wrote:
| Thats why i love mazda
| erfgh wrote:
| The problem is that people love touch screens. I could never
| figure that out. I have always hated touch screens. They are
| imprecise, dirty, they inevitably hide information when you have
| to place your hand over them and they make packing information
| tightly really hard.
|
| But, people love them because they have what appears to be zero
| learning curve and people hate to learn even the simplest of
| tasks.
| ChrisMarshallNY wrote:
| In case it wasn't referenced before, there was this great
| article, last year, about this very thing:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30140984
|
| Scott Jenson is probably one of the top UX people in the world. I
| hope Tesla listened to his valuable free advice.
|
| It's just as likely that Musk declared him a "pedo guy," and
| ignored his advice.
| mrfumier wrote:
| I think the vision of many car makers (Tesla at least) is self-
| driving and voice commands.
|
| In that context, the question touch screen vs physical buttons
| doesn't matter.
| nixass wrote:
| > (Tesla at least) is self-driving
|
| Oh yeah.. how's that going?
| mrfumier wrote:
| Quite good https://insideevs.com/news/623469/tesla-fsd-beta-
| no-safety-s...
| linkjuice4all wrote:
| There was a company (Tactus Technology - now defunct) that had a
| "morphing" touch screen wherein the surface of the screen could
| be raised up to provide tactile feedback about "where" your
| fingers are on the screen (e.g. 'raised' keys for a keyboard
| [0]).
|
| I recall this being "the next big thing" in touch screens about
| 10 years ago but the tech didn't seem to go anywhere. For small
| screens such as your phone it was probably overkill but cars
| seemed like the perfect use case if they could have gotten the
| technology right.
|
| [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JelhR2iPuw0
| hinkley wrote:
| There were other groups that were looking at how piezoelectrics
| in a surface could create vibrational patterns that the finger
| interprets as texture. Apple even through some money at this
| avenue at one point but I haven't heard anything in ages.
|
| Part of the problem of textured screens is that you have to be
| able to touch the interface without activating anything. That's
| newer enough tech that the prices are probably just now coming
| down.
| wolpoli wrote:
| Apple had that 3d touch screen that got depreciated. Perhaps
| people never got used to it.
| NoZebra120vClip wrote:
| Well, I'm glad it costs less now - how much would I spend
| to pick up a used model?
| quesera wrote:
| When you shoot for clever, sometimes you end up hitting
| confusing. :)
| ntkachov wrote:
| Knowning little about the specs required for automotive grade
| it could be that the tech couldn't handle the vibration, temp
| extremes/changes and other hardships that car parts encounter.
| Just a theory.
| zamnos wrote:
| Why is it overkill for phones? I spend _way_ more time looking
| at my phone than I ever look at my car 's AC controls. Ofc, my
| car's AC controls are physical buttons and I've had the car a
| while, so I don't need to look at them, but I think my point
| remains.
| alanbernstein wrote:
| Wouldn't it be more sensible to use on the device that you
| look at _less_ , as a percentage of usage time?
| modeless wrote:
| I think morphing screens are impractical. But that doesn't mean
| we have to give up on tactile affordances altogether. I think
| there's a real missed opportunity for Tesla, with their
| floating touchscreen. The natural way to adjust the temperature
| and other controls in the bottom bar is to put your fingers
| behind the screen to hold your hand steady and use your thumb
| to press the buttons. The back of the screen is currently a
| featureless flat surface, but it could easily have tactile
| features for your fingers to find. If you could feel where your
| fingers are relative to the screen then you could hit the
| bottom bar controls without looking. And it wouldn't ruin the
| minimalist aesthetic because it's all hidden from view behind
| the screen.
| piuantiderp wrote:
| Bigger pet peeve, cars today are made for hunched over people.
| The headrest just a ridiculous amount out from the back
| meling wrote:
| I try to not use the touchscreen while driving, but if I need to
| I will ensure to enable adaptive cruise control or FSD. Not
| perfect but helps. But we should have buttons for the most
| important functions at least. In terms of removing the screen,
| which some vendors seem to pride themselves with doesn't seem
| like a good option. The larger screen is quite helpful when
| parking.
| toss1 wrote:
| This is really fundamental
|
| The job of the cockpit designer is to 1) minimize the workload on
| the pilot/driver while providing 2) maximum practical ability to
| control the vehicle. Period.
|
| Ergonomic design to control the vehicle. Period. End of story.
| Style shouldn't even be in the top 10 considerations.
|
| ALL of this touchscreen, flattening and making the buttons the
| same, making unique configurations may be wonderful for the
| mental masturbation of the designers, but it is not even in the
| same profession as vehicle design.
|
| The pilot/driver should be able to make maximal use of prior
| knowledge (i.e., ways of doing things that are standard, either
| by law or by previous consensus), and make maximal use tactile
| and auditory feedback (e.g., buttons and dials with a familiar
| and distinct feeling and positive feedback) to minimize the need
| to direct vision anywhere other than out the windshield and
| mirrors.
|
| Well-designed display controls can be fantastic - - - - IF AND
| ONLY IF - the work is put into the design to minimize
| pilot/driver workload. Anything requiring a menu structure as we
| use on desktop machines is potentially deadly. Just because we
| are familiar with menu structures does not mean that they can be
| operated while negotiating traffic in the rain hurtling down the
| road at 30 meters per second. Any designer or manager who thinks
| that is reasonable or acceptable is incompetent. (obvious
| exception here is extensive setup operations to be done whilst
| parked)
|
| And, if you are going to put in a touchscreen that does have
| these characteristics, then at least allow the passenger to use
| it whilst in motion - you have the damn seat sensor data on the
| CAN bus for the airbag, so use it for the UI. I understand not
| wanting to be liable for crashing someone with your incompetent
| UI, but impairing use of the car & navigation just makes it worse
|
| Which brings us back to: just do the hard and expensive work of
| properly designing the cockpit UI. And spend the extra few bucks
| for good knobs and buttons. I'll happily pay $1000 more for
| something that works, is a pleasure to use, and isn't trying to
| make me fight it and risk my life every time I use it for the
| designer's ego and/or the manager's budget.
| mitchdoogle wrote:
| I always thought phones and other devices benefitted from keeping
| a few physical buttons for repetitive or key tasks. With phones,
| three buttons across the bottom are great - for going back or to
| the home screen for example. For a car, I can imagine that
| volume, climate control, defrost, things like that - should be
| kept as physical buttons
| wackycat wrote:
| You especially hate touchscreens if you have a Mazda with the
| "ghost touch" issue where the touchscreen will be randomly
| activated. Fun examples of things ghost touch has done for me -
| call a random spam number back, turn navigation guidance volume
| to full blast, adjust the music settings such that it is all bass
| or all treble. Only certain years, not mine, are covered by the
| recall even though it affects more years. Fix is 1200 to replace
| the whole nav set up. Or taking off the dash and disconnecting
| the touchscreen.
| kwhitefoot wrote:
| I don't. My Model S has a good combination of physical and
| virtual controls, all the things I need to control the car are on
| the steering column, the less frequently used things are on the
| touch screen and voice recognition. The latency is also good.
|
| But from what I have heard about many other vehicles with touch
| interfaces not all cars are so well designed
| munificent wrote:
| I'm surprised the article didn't mention one of the key
| regulations that led to this as an unintended consequence: By
| law, cars in the US must now have a back-up camera. That means
| every car _must_ have a screen.
|
| Given that, automakers figured they may as well use the damn
| thing for everything else too and cut costs.
|
| It wasn't _just_ that they wanted to take away tactile controls
| to save money. It was that they had to make room in there for the
| screen anyway, so they figured they 'd make the most of it.
| kccqzy wrote:
| My car has a screen. But it isn't a touch screen. It displays
| the imagery from the back-up camera when reversing, and
| displays what's currently playing when not reversing.
| Everything has tactile controls.
| overgard wrote:
| Eh, those backup cameras are super useful though, and the
| screen can be small. My 2013 Kia has mostly physical buttons
| and like an 8 inch or so touchscreen (that I never touch). I
| would hate losing that camera.
|
| Plus those screens _can_ be useful for safety. I much prefer
| the screen on my dashboard for maps compared to having it on my
| phone (even with a mount it 's bouncy and small)
| bushbaba wrote:
| But a small screen feels 'cheap' and for many ruins that
| car's experience.
| mike_d wrote:
| A small screen isn't going to ruin the otherwise luxury
| experience of a Hyundai or Kia.
| bdavbdav wrote:
| I'm not sure thats it at all - Most brands have had the option
| of the non-touchscreen screen before this, and most luxury
| brands have had a non-touchscreen by default before they all
| started going touch.
| morkalork wrote:
| Did back up cameras save that many lives?
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| Few that wouldn't have been saved by Suburbans and Excursions
| going out of vogue with the upper middle class in favor of
| 4Runner, Pilots and a myriad of crossovers.
| sundvor wrote:
| Start paying attention to driveway deaths involving little
| children, and you might wish a retrofit mandate of existing
| cars was already in place.
| berkes wrote:
| > driveway deaths involving little children,
|
| This leaves me with so many questions:
|
| * Why is this not an (actively discussed) issue in the EU?
|
| * Does this issue exist in other countries than the US?
|
| * If the problem is real, is a camera the only, or even
| best solution?
| Night_Thastus wrote:
| The reason actually ties into another US problem - the
| proliferation of very large SUVs, Crossovers and Pickups.
|
| These gigantic cars have a significant problem seeing
| things close to them, especially if they're small like
| little kids.
|
| This is why backup cameras are so crucial in the US, but
| not nearly as much in other countries. Those huge cars
| need them for safety.
|
| For smaller cars (sedans, coups, hatchbacks) the benefit
| is a lot less.
| im3w1l wrote:
| My guess would be that it faced little resistance as those
| cameras have many other benefits than saving lives.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| No, it faced a huge amount of resistance, took about 5
| years to pass a law, then about 10 years for the regulators
| to actually enforce it.
|
| Exactly like sane and popular gun control laws to prevent
| thousands of childrens' tragic deaths per year from guns
| face fanatical well funded resistance from insane and
| corrupt institutions like the NRA and GOP.
|
| Childhood's Greatest Danger: The Data on Kids and Gun
| Violence:
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/12/14/magazine/gun
| -...
|
| 'Misfire' takes a hard look at nepotism, fraud and
| corruption in the NRA:
|
| https://www.npr.org/2021/11/02/1051363337/misfire-takes-a-
| ha...
| CGamesPlay wrote:
| No, but it's still the law. By 2054 (31 years from now), the
| NHSTA's estimates say it will save less than 2000 lives.
| https://www.extremetech.com/cars/179635-car-backup-
| cameras-a...
| donalhunt wrote:
| What's the serious injuries figure? Road safety initiatives
| care about preventing deaths AND serious injuries.
| hackernewds wrote:
| What about pets? And injuries?
|
| Wouldn't imagine a reversal killing most healthy adults, so
| the fatality rate isn't a great measure
| [deleted]
| ambicapter wrote:
| I assume somebody's kid got ran over by a parent backing up
| into them and they then channeled their guilt and grief into
| lobbying for such a law.
| rsync wrote:
| "After His Son's Tragic Death, This Doctor Fought to Put
| Backup Cameras In Every Car"[1]
|
| "He had gone under the vehicle, I had gone right over his
| head and killed him. I jumped out of the car, tried to do
| CPR." Gulbransen can still taste his blood in his mouth,
| remembers the way Cameron bled from his nose, his ears. "I
| knew at that moment he was dead.""
|
| [1] https://www.kidsandcars.org/2018/05/14/after-his-sons-
| tragic...
| mr_november wrote:
| Completely unnecessary and upsetting quote. If you must,
| just link it with some background instead of quoting a
| sensationalized headline.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| You're really more upset at him for quoting a doctor who
| accidentally killed his own kid then fought to make
| backup cameras mandatory, than at the auto industry and
| regulators who fought against backup cameras for 15
| years?
|
| Just whose sensitive feelings are you trying to protect
| with such censorship, and why?
|
| Did reading that upsetting quote ruin your day as much as
| backing over and killing your own kid would?
|
| Some times you just have to upset people to affect
| change.
|
| Do you also oppose quoting grieving parents to pass gun
| control laws too?
|
| If you feel so strongly about it, then instead of just
| telling people to shut up, why not spend 15 years of your
| own life trying to pass a bill and enforce government
| regulations to prohibit quoting grieving parents -- maybe
| they'll name it after you.
|
| >But while King and then-Senator Hillary Clinton got on
| board early, automobile maker resistance made sure that
| results came slow. King and Clinton introduced backover
| safety legislation in Congress and the Senate in 2005 and
| Congress enacted the Cameron Gulbransen Kids
| Transportation Safety Act in 2008 requiring federal
| transportation officials to write a regulation to correct
| vehicle rear visibility problems. President George Bush
| signed the bill into law. But the the bill languished,
| thanks to the Office of Information and Regulatory
| Affairs.
|
| https://associationsnow.com/2018/05/advocacy-battle-
| behind-r...
|
| >The Advocacy Battle Behind Rearview Cameras in Cars
| Tragic "backover" accidents involving young children gave
| advocacy groups a reason to push for a law requiring the
| use of rearview cameras. This week, federal regulations
| will require the devices in every new car on the road--a
| decade after the law was passed.
|
| >[...] "I'm a pediatrician, I baby-proof my house, I go
| out of my way to make sure children are safe and
| healthy," Gulbransen said in a recent interview with
| WABC. "And it happened to me? OK, guess what? It can
| happen to anybody. So use my example. I own it, I took
| responsibility, here it is. Let's channel our grief and
| get something productive done out of it."
|
| >[...] "It took a long time, and sadly, along that
| journey, we had more families joining us in our fight
| because they had lost their children while knowing there
| is this preventable technology," Cathy Chase, president
| of Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, told the Los
| Angeles Times. "It's heartbreaking."
| Camus134 wrote:
| [dead]
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| Yes. I am. That guy (and everyone else involved) probably
| has ten times blood on his hands as a result of "wE doN't
| need TO CarE aBOUT REaR vIsIBILITY BeCaUsE we have a
| BACKup CaMERa" engineering and touch screen distractions
| than he's saved by getting backup cameras put in things.
|
| Backup cameras are the unholy trinity of upper middle
| class moral panic and shirking of responsibility,
| government Doing Something (TM) and people's inability to
| accept small but concentrated bad things versus large
| diffuse and hard to measure bad things.
| DonHopkins wrote:
| You can put duct tape over your federally mandated backup
| camera display if you really believe they're so
| distracting that they cause you to run over more people
| in reverse.
|
| But maybe you should just stay off the road instead, so
| you have less blood on your own hands.
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| >You can put duct tape over your federally mandated
| backup camera display if you really believe they're so
| distracting that they cause you to run over more people
| in reverse.
|
| >But maybe you should just stay off the road instead, so
| you have less blood on your own hands.
|
| Tape won't undo all the other changes to cars that OEMs
| engaged in once they were required to have a screen.
|
| Congratulations. Your pet regulatory change has reduced
| back over deaths by under a hundred a year. In a vacuum
| with spherical cow that's great but reality isn't a
| vacuum with spherical cows. And now that you've put this
| hardware in cars and engineers have taken advantage of it
| you've increased back out accidents and merging accidents
| (both are inversely correlated with rear visibility) and
| you've made many of the critical 2nd order functions of
| operating a car less intuitive and more distracting to
| use. You've but you don't care about that because the
| metric you were gaming (back over deaths) is marginally
| improved. And when called out by people who want to look
| at the big picture you respond with insults. Screw you
| and the safety vest you rode in on.
| JPws_Prntr_Fngr wrote:
| He's clearly talking about the second-order effects of
| backup camera-centric design (worse visibility through
| the windows and touchscreen controls). Try reading a
| little more closely.
| t-writescode wrote:
| Most vital and good laws are, sadly, written in blood.
|
| People tend to have to die before there's enough political
| initiative for real change to happen.
| izacus wrote:
| Plenty of automakers put those cameras elsewhere (e.g. Kia
| integrated it into rear view mirror) so your statement is
| nonsense.
| big_paps wrote:
| A good mechanical UI is somewhat timeless. Touchscreens just look
| supercheap and tasteless in cars.
| HeavyStorm wrote:
| Let me just say it: at some point I felt the industry was flooded
| by "UX professionals" coming from other backgrounds that knew a
| lot about making software look good and zero about making it
| usable.
| pnt12 wrote:
| UX and usability tests are dead. It's all shiny UIs and A/B
| testing now (and the metric is always profit, never ease of use
| or safety).
| egberts1 wrote:
| Always hated touchscreen. As a deaf driver, I hate taking my eyes
| off of the road to access the dashboard panel, ESPECIALLY if the
| panel has no definitive ridge, bumps, switch nor knobs.
| AlbertCory wrote:
| For some reason that I take no credit for, my voice works
| perfectly with most voice recognition systems I've tried. I still
| hate encountering it on an 800 number.
|
| My favorite story, though, was when someone left a voice message
| for me in Vietnamese, and Google's VR system tried to interpret
| it as English. "How about goddamn lunch?" is the thing I
| remember.
| hinkley wrote:
| How _about_ goddamned lunch?
| zouhair wrote:
| With my accent, on my phone I end up having to use the keyboard
| 80% of the time when I try to use Google assistant.
| brandonagr2 wrote:
| Is the entire premise of this article based on an intentional
| misunderstanding of JD Power saying "J.D. Power sees an average
| of 49.9 PP100 for infotainment-related items, including issues
| with voice-recognition systems, smartphone connectivity, and
| Bluetooth connection difficulties"
|
| Which might argue that drivers hate bad interfaces that most
| automakers are notorious for, but doesn't talk about touchscreens
| as an interface specifically.
| emrah wrote:
| When I had mentioned these issues to friends years ago when
| touchscreens were just starting to come out, I was criticized as
| being stuck in my old ways. I'm glad people are finally catching
| on. :)))
| 1-6 wrote:
| I like tactile buttons when I'm focusing on the road. Looking
| away from the road to see if I have my finger in the correct
| place on a screen is much more costly from an attention
| standpoint.
|
| I thought this was obvious. Why are we stating it?
|
| Here's where things can get interesting. If you've ever used a
| fancy audio mixer before, they pack a lot of features into a
| board with a few buttons and sliders. Cars can do similarly with
| controls for rolling, sliding, and pressing but dynamically
| adjust based on what's on the display.
| nashashmi wrote:
| remember the time when GM said it's not going to include CarPlay
| in its vehicles? And how most of hn was in revolt?
|
| here comes News that says we should get rid of touchscreens, why
| is hn supporting this? (For the record, I hated touch screens in
| cars before that was a thing and I am OK with gm removing
| carplay.)
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| They aren't removing touchscreens. They're trying to say they
| can do a better job at UX than Apple.
|
| Who knows, maybe they can. But there is no reason on earth to
| think so.
| NotAFood wrote:
| CarPlay replaces functionality built into the car that runs the
| navigation, dialer, podcasts, and music player. HN likely
| support CarPlay because the built-in functionality that does
| this is usually outdated, intuitive, or nonexistent. Most of
| the frustration around touchscreens involves them replacing AC
| controls, headlight stock, seat heaters, etc...
| tmh88j wrote:
| These are 2 separate issues you're discussing.
|
| > remember the time when GM said it's not going to include
| CarPlay in its vehicles? And how most of hn was in revolt?
|
| Most OEM's made terrible infotainment software that is
| outdated, lacking features and often extremely sluggish and
| clunky to use. CarPlay and Android Auto are able to bring
| modern features OEM's can't seem to figure out, like Google
| Maps integration instead of some terrible maps implementation
| that is outdated, as in not having addresses added in the last
| few years, not just "old" and cumbersome to use. I can just
| open up google maps on my phone, type an address and directions
| appear on my screen. Same with music streaming apps like
| Spotify.
|
| > here comes News that says we should get rid of touchscreens,
| why is hn supporting this?
|
| Not eliminate touchscreens entirely, but rather stop putting
| every single control they possibly can into them making
| vehicles dangerous to operate. Putting climate, radio,
| lighting, etc... into a touch screen, especially when buried in
| sub-menus, is just lazy cost cutting. The other big complaint
| are touch capacitive "buttons" and sliders. They're distracting
| and difficult to use, especially on anything but perfectly
| smooth roads. For example, the Cayenne's interior is basically
| just a wall of touch capacitive "buttons"[1] that you can't
| easily reach down to press with your eyes on the road, you have
| to look down at it. The other issue is feedback from it.
| Constant beeping from input on menus, like Toyota, just becomes
| obnoxious. Buttons provide instant mechanical feedback that
| does't lave you guessing if you pressed on the right spot.
| Here's a clip discussing some complaints about VW doing all of
| this to the Golf [2] and how frustrating it is to use.
|
| [1] https://cdn.carbuzz.com/gallery-images/2022-porsche-
| cayenne-...
|
| [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU92h1hez_8&t=159s
| [deleted]
| whynotkeithberg wrote:
| I have a 2015 VW GTI with a touch screen in front... My Border
| Collie rides shotgun 99% of the time and the touch screen
| malfunctions like crazy because he constantly sends bits of
| slobber running down it. I have to hold the button down for 10
| seconds to reset it quite often because it will randomly just
| keep triggering a button press skipping songs, or going into a
| random menu.
|
| I should have just replaced it with a different deck, but the
| area it fills with that screen is rather large and it will be
| hard to find something that looks good in the gap that doesn't
| also have a screen.
| rkagerer wrote:
| Good. Give me a space shuttle dashboard worth of buttons, knobs,
| levers and switches. I'd love a Play/Pause button that's always
| in the same spot, a clock that never disappears, temperature and
| volume dials I can turn without looking, etc.
| kmarc wrote:
| A bit off topic but I enjoyed reading the conversation here from
| people with different perception / opinion about touch vs button.
|
| I'm more on the button side of the argument, but that's not the
| point.
|
| I rather wonder how many years from now would I think back of
| these arguments as some "could have happened in the past but now
| it's absolutely irrelevant", as autonomous cars* would take over,
| and human-driven ones would be lawfully banned on 99% of the
| roads*, as horse carriages are banned today compared to 100 years
| ago.
|
| * or their future equivalents
| DeathArrow wrote:
| > I rather wonder how many years from now would I think back of
| these arguments as some "could have happened in the past but
| now it's absolutely irrelevant", as autonomous cars* would take
| over, and human-driven ones would be lawfully banned on 99% of
| the roads, as horse carriages are banned today compared to 100
| years ago.
|
| I wonder if software will first check the subscription and
| social credit before starting the car. If you are in a remote
| area without mobile network coverage, then tough luck.
| kmarc wrote:
| Oh, good one!
|
| When I say autonomous, I truly mean autonomous, in the sense
| that for the basic functionality (go around, authenticate,
| communicate with the rest of the cars) the system would not
| need to be centralized at all. No Internet connection needed.
| atoav wrote:
| As an hardware guy with a love for good interfaces I can only
| say: told ya so (ca. 5 years ago).
|
| Touch screens can be nice for a lot of things, but sometimes
| actual haptic feedback and positional consistency is worth more
| than the flexibility gained. Especially in devices or machines we
| interact with multiple hours a day, where flexibility isn't the
| point. E.g. a tablet using a touch screen makes a lot of sense,
| as that flexibility makes sense here. But it makes less sense in
| a car, except maybe for the entertainment system and even there
| actual physical switches, dials and levers can be superiour in
| terms of usability.
|
| What I _love_ are really nice things like motor faders on upper
| class mixing desks. You have a physical interface that can follow
| whatever digital state you have stored, it is just perfect.
|
| There is a future in devices that combine screens, physical
| dials, levers and latches with haptic feedback, e.g. like this
| amazing project: https://github.com/scottbez1/smartknob
|
| (A dial with a motor and a screen, which allows for virtual
| "limits" and dedents)
| MangezBien wrote:
| I know car software is an afterthought for companies because most
| consumers don't make their car buying decisions based on how good
| the software is, but if any company made truly intuitive car
| software, I would be won as a customer.
| notoverthere wrote:
| Isn't that what Tesla tried to do? I've heard their software
| was good. Or maybe I'm imagining that.
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| I do not think drivers hate touchscreens. I think drivers hate
| idiot developers and their idiot management.
|
| First the touchscreens' esthetics are in the 90's.
|
| Then the touchscreens' performance are in the 90's
|
| Third the management strategy is to piss off the drivers by
| shoving down their throats the two above.
|
| I dream of a car where I (that is me personally) can set up what
| I want to see.
|
| I do not give a fuck about the temperature of the engine or my EV
| efficiency. I want a huge digital speed meter and a smaller
| distance I can drive with my current fioul. And that's all.
|
| Is it that difficult to provide a default setup and then let the
| user choose what they want to see on their reactive touchscreen?
|
| Toyota managed in my RAV4 to create the dashboard I hate most,
| with passion.
| Hendrikto wrote:
| > I do not think drivers hate touchscreens.
|
| I do, and have spoken to many who agree.
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| Did you ask them what they hate, exactly? The fact that there
| is no physical button (because they like the feeling of a
| physical button), or that the touchscreen buttons are not
| reactive enough and never show what you would like them to?
| berkes wrote:
| ... and going by this thread, many, many others hate them as
| well. Regardless of their appearance.
| neogodless wrote:
| I'm a driver and I hate touchscreens.
|
| I don't care about the aesthetics or performance, because I
| don't want to look at it to control it. Touchscreen control is
| for something you look directly at, focus on, and use as an
| input. That's incompatible with _driving_.
| hinkley wrote:
| <picture of Leo Dicaprio pointing energetically>
|
| The ridiculous thing is we should just be about at the point of
| programmable buttons and instead we have an embedded webapp
| running our car.
| uf00lme wrote:
| Blackberry. If you know, you know.
| aikinai wrote:
| Someone should do something like this smart knob[0]. It looks
| incredible.
|
| [0] https://youtu.be/ip641WmY4pA?t=58
| hinkley wrote:
| There's an older 'smart' knob out there that was meant I think
| for CAD interfaces. I don't recall if it's made anymore, but I
| do know that it's shown up on the bridge of a number of scifi
| aircraft/spaceships over the last decade.
|
| But for the purposes of this discussion, having a couple three
| of those on the dashboard and using them a bit like radial
| menus would probably split the difference pretty well.
| speedbird wrote:
| https://3dconnexion.com/us/product/spacemouse-compact/
| hinkley wrote:
| That's the one! Looks like they still make it. Not sure why
| I thought they stopped.
|
| I thought I saw it most recently on The Expanse, but it
| does not appear to be part of the MCRN Frigate pilot's
| seat. So either I'm thinking of some other ship, or a
| different bridge.
| robocat wrote:
| Neat. Jog control knobs are great when you want fine control
| over a large dynamic range. They can feel wrong when used for
| for controlling a limited range that only needs coarse tuning.
| My microwave has a rotary encoder for the power level (10% to
| 100%) and it just feels so wrong that it doesn't have a limit
| but can just keep turning (actually a slider would be a lovely
| UI for power level, however the knob is multi-functional and
| also sliders are harder to keep clean and physically reliable).
| My cheap stereo has a similar rotary encoder for the volume -
| uggggh.
| yellowapple wrote:
| I feel like it should be feasible to add a motor that gives
| tactile feedback by resisting turning by a little bit (e.g.
| for discrete power/volume level values within the allowed
| range) or a _lotta_ bit (e.g. for the boundaries of said
| range).
|
| Re: multi-functional sliders, I do know that motorized
| sliders exist in the pro audio space (e.g. to be able to
| program presets on mixers and such); shouldn't be too hard to
| adapt them to multiple functions (probably with some sort of
| indicator on or adjacent to the slider to show the function
| being manipulated).
| vonnieda wrote:
| Just FYI what you've described is exactly what the GPs
| video shows. I only mention it cause that knob and video
| are absolutely amazing and deserves a watch.
| yellowapple wrote:
| Well I'll be. That's what I get for not watching videos
| before replying lmao
| diziet wrote:
| The BMW X-Drive controller is somewhat similar with additional
| up/down/left/right buttons
| bdavbdav wrote:
| Yep - very similar. You can navigate huge lists by spinning
| it fast and it freewheels. Its a pretty nicely designed
| interface.
| awill88 wrote:
| Does anyone else feel the timing is somewhat suspicious? I don't
| know a single conversation I've had with anyone literally bitchin
| about how much they despise not having a button. PITA sure, but
| feels oddly close to all this supply chain stuff.. I'm probably
| nuts here..
| egberts1 wrote:
| Even US Navy prohibits touchscreens on weapon systems and radars.
|
| Slapping your ship bow from the crest might likely press the
| wrong coordinate or fire button instead.
| klabb3 wrote:
| Someone should do a skit where military UIs are all replaced by
| current consumer-tech UIs, along with its dark patterns. That'd
| actually be hilarious.
| elcritch wrote:
| This scene close enough?
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDLvUqhwHZc
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-04-27 23:02 UTC)