[HN Gopher] The subtle art of designing physical controls for cars
___________________________________________________________________
The subtle art of designing physical controls for cars
Author : vsdlrd
Score : 119 points
Date : 2025-02-11 19:15 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theturnsignalblog.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theturnsignalblog.com)
| mhb wrote:
| 1. Cars should have physical controls.
|
| 2. The smart knob is a clever device.
|
| 3? Smart knob somehow addresses cars no longer having physical
| controls.
| xp84 wrote:
| I applaud the author for putting thought into how to design
| digital controls, in contrast to the "just put whatever garbage
| on a touch screen" strategy most carmakers do today.
|
| However, I still question the benefit of this complex, modal
| control (you have to press a single knob to "cycle between"
| multiple modes). My ancient, 2016 car features three knobs. This
| luxury allows me to, without looking, adjust any of three
| settings (temp, fan, air location), as well as a button which
| does each seat heater, without any "check what mode it's in, tap,
| look at the tiny screen, tap again if necessary" step.
|
| True, in this trim, my car does not have a thermostat mode, which
| in theory is useful, but it is so trivial to modulate the
| temperature based on "do I feel cold, hot or comfortable right
| now" and reaching over to twist one of the controls anyway, and
| even in the other car I have which has this mode, I frequently
| need to adjust things anyway, except in that car some of the
| functions require multiple mode changes on the touch screen and
| looking away from the road.
| WildRyc wrote:
| The author is pretty clear that having more than two modes
| diminishes the usefulness of the interface. Three modes was
| complex enough that he redesigned it down.
|
| I've changed the channel tuner when I've reached for the volume
| knob. If the haptic feedback between the two is clearly
| different, that will help, no?
| layer8 wrote:
| Controls that require a feedback loop have more cognitive
| overhead than controls you can just use "blindly" (this
| includes not having to check for haptic feedback to test what
| mode it's in) and from pure muscle memory. For example, you
| learn that your preferred volume when driving on a highway is
| at (say) the two o'clock position, and with time you'll
| blindly turn the knob to that position without even
| consciously thinking about it. If, on the other hand, you
| "know" that the knob could be in a wrong mode, you'll tend to
| hesitate when operating it because of that anticipation,
| having to check back whether the knob is indeed in the
| correct mode.
| Animats wrote:
| Right. This "smart" knob is symmetrical, with no pointer
| that you can feel before turning the knob. So it's hard to
| use without looking. This is inferior to a simple
| mechanical knob.
| oidar wrote:
| I agree. I don't want a "smart" knob. I'm dreading going car
| shopping sometime this next year. I anticipate having to rule
| out a large pool of cars to keep my controls navigable without
| looking.
| residentraspber wrote:
| I've found one good solution to this problem (for AC, at
| least): go for a car with a good "auto" mode!
|
| I hardly ever touch my AC, I just leave it on auto and the
| car does the rest to get it to the right temperature as
| quickly as possible.
|
| I suspect this is what most automakers think the real
| solution should be, just make it easy enough to set a temp
| and leave the rest to the computer.
| groby_b wrote:
| There's also the fact that most thermostats do manage to keep
| the sensor input constant, but that's surprisingly uncorrelated
| with how you actually _feel_.
|
| (Often due to the slightly bonkers idea that single sensor,
| often not in any location the user is, will correctly reflect
| the actual environment)
|
| "Make it warmer/colder" is sufficient input and doesn't pretend
| a precision it doesn't have.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| My 1997 Lexus has a knob that controls the digital climate
| control. Except that instead of a spinny position encoder, they
| used a knob with stops so you have tactile feedback for when
| the temperature is all the way up or down.
|
| This is the kind of detail that I love about a well engineered
| car.
| carabiner wrote:
| Toyota 3 knobs undefeated.
| contingencies wrote:
| Simplicity: are they _exactly the same_ knob, thus lowering
| ordering costs, shipping and receiving costs, inventory
| costs, supply chain costs, design costs, and error potential?
| Quite likely. This also allows upstream suppliers to double
| down on volume and work to lower costs at their end.
|
| Versus... the designer of a custom complex multi-part powered
| assembly (manufacturing cost not discussed, cleaning not
| discussed, visibility in varying light conditions not
| discussed) who has the fantasy that users want to squint at a
| tiny screen on a knob while driving, and that pushing all
| this and associated documentation down a global service
| network is going to come at an acceptable cost to users.
|
| This begs the question: who's the _real_ knob?
| s0rce wrote:
| I find the thermostat mode only works on overcast days or at
| night as the sun contributes so much feeling of warmth when
| driving (in California) that the heating and cooling thermostat
| doesn't work well.
| scottbez1 wrote:
| Oh, hi, creator of the SmartKnob (mentioned in the article) here
| - I'm continually blown away by how much UX discussion it has
| generated over the years!
|
| One of the things I regret a bit about the prototype and demo I
| originally shared is that I used a press action and the screen as
| a modal/menu interface. The screen makes for a snazzy demo video,
| and works great for interfaces where you have the user's full
| attention (like a smart home control panel) but I think there's a
| lot more potential for just the haptics, paired with other
| dedicated buttons to switch to specific (i.e. not a menu of)
| modes, like this later demo I built using the haptic feedback for
| a video timeline jog tool: https://youtu.be/J9192DfZplk
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| The smart knob you made is genuinely one of the best hardware
| creations I have _ever_ seen. I only wish that I was creative
| enough to think up good uses for it so that I could put it to
| work, lol.
| scottbez1 wrote:
| Haha, I've built at least 5 of them and my problem is that I
| enjoy the hardware/design portion as a hobby, but writing the
| software to put them to use feels too much like my day job,
| so I haven't actually done anything too useful yet...
| hinkley wrote:
| There's a commercial product that looks like a fancy fancy
| version of this and I think has a tilt sensor as well.
|
| It's notable not just because it is loved by some media people,
| both art and video, but also because it's shown up on the
| pilot's chair in several notable sci fi movies/series with an
| outer space theme.
|
| I do want more smart devices with analog inputs and outputs
| though. I feel like Ambient Technologies were onto something
| but never found the market fit I hoped they would find.
| crote wrote:
| Let me guess: 3DConnexion's SpaceMouse?
| 0_____0 wrote:
| I've used it for 3D CAD and seen it on The Expanse as part
| of the bridge crash couch props on the Martian vessels.
| They also used an older model of Black Diamond headlamp for
| the space suit lights in early seasons. There's a balance
| to be struck here - too much reuse of modern objects and it
| pulls you out of the action. I think the Expanse did it
| well.
| LoganDark wrote:
| I wish the devkits were not out of stock!! I've been wanting to
| get or make one of these for years
| conferza wrote:
| That's pretty cool! Thanks for sharing.
| modzu wrote:
| should read, "the _lost_ art of designing physical controls... "
| uberdru wrote:
| This is a solved problem. My 2009 4Runner has the perfect temp
| control. I couldn't tell you how it works. But my hand knows.
| Which is perfect tool design.
| bigstrat2003 wrote:
| Car manufacturers, please hire this guy to build your interfaces.
| He gets it. Touch screens _must not_ be used for controls you are
| going to frequently operate while driving the car, it 's maximum
| unsafe.
| the_snooze wrote:
| I feel like car touch screens are designed like those 3D
| hologram interfaces in Minority Report: they look really cool
| and you want them, but they're entirely impractical in day-to-
| day operation. If car manufacturers are optimizing for cars
| looking cool in the dealership, whiz-bang touchscreens win over
| boring physical controls.
| groby_b wrote:
| I wish that was the unsafest thing car manufacturers did.
|
| Jeep, for example, has just discovered a predilection for
| random full-screen alerts with a blaring alarm sound, if, for
| example, they magically inferred there's a tow-truck somewhere.
| (There's about a 50% chance you'll encounter a tow truck in the
| next 10 minutes, at best)
|
| This is great if, say, you're three hours into a night drive,
| all alone on the road, and suddenly ALARM THE WORLD IS ENDING.
|
| I actively hate car manufacturers. They should not be allowed
| to use touch screens. Even if they could be useful - they have
| repeatedly proven they are too stupid to use them well.
| m463 wrote:
| I'm pretty sure car manufacturers "get it" too, but the
| marketing team/parts count person has a conflicting agenda.
| _tariky wrote:
| My Skoda Superb(2015) have very similar knobs for controlling
| temperature and when pressed it turns on seat heater.
|
| From the first time I used it. It felt so natural and intuitive
| to use.
|
| But unfortunately touch screen infotainment system is pure
| garbage.
| Animats wrote:
| Mandatory XKCD.[1]
|
| [1] https://xkcd.com/2704/
| 51Cards wrote:
| Kudos for to the author for the work put into this and the
| intelligence functions are interesting. I do have a couple
| concerns though.
|
| A. Trying to design down to two knobs makes each knob multi-
| modal. This removes a lot of muscle memory benefits requiring a
| glance at a screen, a small screen that is now partially covered
| by your hand while operating the knob. Haptic feedback might be
| able to help you know what mode you're in without looking but now
| you have a lot more to memorize to use it while keeping your eyes
| on the road which may begin to defeat the simplicity benefits.
|
| B. Haptic feedback... will this work with gloves on? (will you
| feel it, will it sense your touch)
|
| A lot of manual systems now have 3 knobs, not much more than the
| 2 presented here, which will always do the same thing each time
| you reach for them. My concern would be how long it would take
| the user to be familar with the interface without looking. One
| quick thought, I would be inclined to think that feedback through
| a large screen not covered by your fingers might have advantages.
|
| It's a great study on UI consistancy however, esp around how to
| program the detents, etc.
| crote wrote:
| I think the multi-modal stuff can be mostly fixed by dedicated
| mode selection buttons, which can be blindly pressed to enter a
| specific mode. The logical option would be to place them around
| the dial like a pie chart, as that would be trivial to find
| without looking. Place those buttons _underneath_ the dial
| instead and you can use the display as a clear mode indicator
| as well, without the hand obscuring it.
|
| You could also put a copy of the display somewhere in the
| driver's HUD. It'd still draw some attention, but having it for
| example temporarily fill up the center of the speed dial
| (perhaps in some way only when the driver is touching it?)
| would be a lot less distractive than having to look all the way
| over on the infotainment panel.
|
| As to B: it's a physical knob, with a motor pushing against
| your turning force. It'll have zero trouble with gloves.
| pmontra wrote:
| A very tangential note about this:
|
| > Much like a door handle should communicate whether to pull or
| push a door,
|
| For many common doors it's not the handle, it's the frame.
| Standing on one side of the frame we see that the door is free
| and we can pull it. On the other side we see that the door hits
| the frame and we must push it.
| crote wrote:
| Yeah, but it's not _supposed_ to. With good design it is
| immediately obvious whether the door is push or pull - even
| when the frame doesn 't have any clear indications. For
| example, the door in [0] (apologies for the YT short) has no
| immediately clear hints if you look at the frame or handle.
|
| Both sides look exactly the same, so how are you supposed to
| know? Add a "push/pull" sticker you'll miss 90% of the time?
|
| The Vox vodcast(?) in [1] goes a lot further into the problem,
| starting from a very similar door. The solution is pretty
| simple, in hindsight: if they designed the door properly, you
| won't even be _able_ to pull on a push door. Have a pull handle
| on the pull side, and a push _plate_ on the push side.
|
| [0]: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/oJnEjV8vQJg
|
| [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY96hTb8WgI
| Terr_ wrote:
| I wish car manufacturers would refocus from touchscreens (for
| reasons I will assume everyone understands) to a cost-cutting
| compromise of _modular_ physical knobs and buttons.
|
| Imagine if there was a standard form-factor, so manufacturers
| could install a 1x4 unit and then plug in a line of dials or
| button-clusters, where each section has its own tiny display that
| can be software-controlled to show what it does.
|
| Yeah, it won't always match the exact lines and swoops designers
| want to use, but I want usability, I don't buy a car to show off
| the interior to others. The people who _do_ do that are probably
| buying much more expensive cars and can easily afford to do
| things the classic way.
| crote wrote:
| Cars used to have modular buttons. It was _very_ common to have
| a couple of blanks in your infotainment cluster.
|
| The problem is that it still requires custom per-feature
| assembly. A single car model needs a dozen different button
| configs, with a dozen different wiring harnesses. That's a lot
| more expensive than a simple one-size-fits-all touch screen you
| install into literally every single car and configure with a
| software flag.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _Cars used to have modular buttons. It was very common to
| have a couple of blanks in your infotainment cluster._
|
| My brand-new luxury-brand EV still has blanks. Not all trim
| levels get the rear fog lights, or a few other things I can't
| remember. Also, they're used for buttons related to adding
| the towing package.
| Terr_ wrote:
| AFAICT those were generally modular _per trim level_ , and
| mainly involved excluding features at lower trims.
|
| What I mean is something that is modular per-manufacturer or
| maybe even across manufacturers, where customization comes
| from the arrangement in a grid and what is pumped through
| each control's little display screen to identify its purpose
| and status.
|
| Installation would be a matter of screwing in a block of
| sockets, plugging in a wiring harness, and then snapping in
| the commodified dials/buttons/multi-button-clusters.
|
| > A single car model needs a dozen different button configs,
| with a dozen different wiring harnesses.
|
| That seems to assume every button/dial will have a direct
| connection, I'm thinking it would all terminate in the block
| of sockets, which the manufacturer would program with logic
| like: "Analog input in socket 1 controls resistance on wires
| A and D with the following mapping. When value is in this
| range, show this picture."
|
| The motivating idea here is: "Can we keep a variety of
| physical controls while making them cheaper, more-functional,
| and easier to repair?"
| jimkleiber wrote:
| This is one of the many things my dad did in his 40+ year career
| as an engineer at GM. I'm really excited to share this with him
| and grateful for such a write-up.
|
| A big thank you to the author, the person posted it here, and all
| those who upvoted it.
| steezeburger wrote:
| Reminds me of m5stack's dial
| https://shop.m5stack.com/products/m5stack-dial-esp32-s3-smar...
|
| I got a few to play around with for my home automation system,
| but haven't had the time.
| scottbez1 wrote:
| The m5stack dial is just a screen with rotary input ring, but
| doesn't have haptic feedback. They actually just launched a new
| product the roller485 or rollerCAN that in theory is a nice
| off-the-shelf BLDC haptic knob, but I haven't had a chance to
| play with mine yet
| dlcarrier wrote:
| Designing car controls is easy. You take what engineers have
| spent 100 yeas fine tuning every element of, for precision and
| ergonomics, then you give to someone with an industrial design
| degree who throws it all out the door to make something shiny,
| and it kills Anton Yelchin, amongst others.
| hammock wrote:
| It's Google Nest for your car.
|
| OP mentions the Braun work on pots (potentiometers, the common
| lingo for rotary dials). I suggest they also check out the entire
| subculture around pots and faders in the music industry, where a
| lot of thought goes into them as relates to mixing board design
| and experience.
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| I think a good analogy here is retro digital cameras. I have a
| Fuji X-T30, which is about five years old now. Still a decent
| camera and it has a lot of physical controls. Except they are not
| really physical controls. They are buttons and dials that are re-
| programmable. Even the aperture ring on my lens is not physically
| connected to anything. The aperture is controlled digitally. The
| aperture ring just gives off a signal to the camera that is than
| hooked up to the aperture. Some lenses even have re-programmable
| buttons now. Some cheaper lenses don't have dedicated controls
| like that. But you can still hook up one of the other dials on
| the body to do the same. There are wheel-button thingies on the
| front and the back that you can bind to whatever.
|
| Cars basically could use controls like that. Maybe with some
| sensible defaults; and there's going to be a bunch of things that
| most people would like to control with a button or a dial. Not
| that hard to execute and you can sell cars with more and less
| dials. Or no dials at all. The touch screen is always the cheap
| fallback. The buttons are a nice up-sell. And with the right APIs
| and wireless protocols, it wouldn't even be too hard to have
| third party bluetooth buttons even; or a strip of buttons that
| plugs in a USB socket. Or similar. You can buy flight simulator
| hardware that emulate most of a modern cockpit with physical
| buttons. Most of these things are USB devices. Some of these
| things are pretty affordable even. Throttle compartments, landing
| gear buttons, buttons with a satisfying click/thunk/etc. Whatever
| you want.
|
| Like it or not, this stuff is basically cost related. Buttons
| have lots of wires, components, etc. That increases cost of
| assembly and bill of materials. They can also break and cause
| additional cost under warranty. People need training on how to
| install and repair that stuff. The nice thing with a touch screen
| is that it's just a handful of components and wires. Installs in
| no time and if it breaks, it's easy to replace.
|
| So, the question for manufacturers then becomes what is the car
| with the least buttons that drivers still pay a premium for?
| Because, that's the most profitable for them. And the reality of
| course is that what people say what they'll buy mostly doesn't
| match their behavior in the show room.
|
| It's the same with a lot of products. It doesn't matter whether
| people are buying a TV, a phone, a new laptop or whatever. Some
| people really know what they are buying, but most don't, and some
| only think they know and talk themselves into buying crap they
| definitely are not going to be happy with.
|
| In the end, people mostly just select the thing with the largest
| feature matrix that still fits their budget. And the nice thing
| with software features is that there's no assembly or component
| cost involved. Modern cars are smart phones with wheels.
| Literally made by smart phone manufacturers like Huawei and
| Xiaomi even (both sell lots of cars in China).
| costcopizza wrote:
| One overlooked feature of physical controls is that they also
| give interiors an identity and experience.
|
| Growing up obsessed with cars, I loved seeing how different
| brands would lay out the cabin. Volvos from the 2000s used a
| rather large diagram of a seated person to select the HVAC vent
| for example.
|
| Also, in my brain, a 3000+ pound object just dang requires some
| stuff to physically press, push, and hear click!
|
| A couple giant touchscreens with touch controls nearly eliminates
| that.
| masklinn wrote:
| > Volvos from the 2000s used a diagram of a seated person to
| select the HVAC vent for example.
|
| ... don't all cars do this? I can't remember seeing anything
| other than that to represent which vents are active.
| rdlw wrote:
| Here's a picture: https://www.media.volvocars.com/uk/en-
| gb/media/photos/47385/...
| russellbeattie wrote:
| I get what you're saying, but I totally disagree with it. It
| reminds me of mid-2000s Nokia, where each year they completely
| redesigned their phones simply to change them. It turned out
| what people wanted was a brick with a few common buttons, a
| nice screen and a standard GUI.
|
| The main problem stems from the fact that car manufacturers
| will always choose novel designs over usability. They change
| components not to improve functionality, but simply for
| differentiation. As you pointed out, even if a control is well
| designed like Volvo's HVAC, it's phased out during the next
| refresh.
|
| A newer problem is that every single car maker is beyond
| incompetent when it comes to software and UX. It's not part of
| their culture and expertise. So in addition to bad or missing
| buttons, even the screens are a nightmare.
|
| This is an entrenched idea in the automotive industry, so it
| probably won't change, but it's something that really needs to
| stop in my opinion.
| nraleigh wrote:
| This is nice. So tired of touch screen controls that I can't
| access without breaking my focus from driving. This is a nice
| middle ground where you can display rich graphics if you're
| looking down at the knob, but can also control by feel without
| losing focus.
| maxglute wrote:
| Standardizing voice control in cars will go a long way until
| vendors decide to standardize physical controls or car OS. I
| should be able to get in any car and say "Set heat to X",
| "Defrost Windows" etc.
| wnissen wrote:
| Told a rented Telsa "Turn on wipers". It replied that it didn't
| understand "Turn on vipers". Yes, car, I have a basket of
| venomous snakes in the back and wish them to be activated!
| Bravo!
|
| Once LLMs are a lot better at understanding intent, that is
| probably what we'll get, since it will be cheaper than even
| bargain basement mechanical controls.
| thecrumb wrote:
| Does that work with kids talking in the backseat, the radio
| playing, GPS reading directions out loud, all at the same time?
| bbarnett wrote:
| You should! Choice is great. I also should not have to talk to
| my car, I hate doing so.
| tiffanyh wrote:
| I'm always reminded of the QuickTime v4.0 volume rocker and how
| painful it was to use.
|
| Screenshot:
| https://www.macintoshrepository.org/_resize.php?imgenc=ZmlsZ...
|
| Fortunately, it was changed to just a slider in v5.0 as seen
| here: https://jablickar.cz/en/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Apple-
| Qui...
| ge96 wrote:
| Is that over kill to use a BLDC for a dial? They are pretty cheap
| nowadays
| thecrumb wrote:
| As I get older the one thing these designer overlook is aging
| eyesight. My Honda has decent controls but the small display
| (like on these knobs) is very difficult to see sitting still. At
| night, while driving - it's impossible. The icons are tiny. Given
| the size of the current screens in cars - that's a lot of real
| estate for knobs. Use it.
| usaphp wrote:
| I like controls in the upcoming Rivian cars, it's basically
| changing the physical feedback based on what you are selecting
| [1]
|
| 1 - https://youtu.be/k0Gt_PUyldc?si=VxK1rzWr0Vx0JUHd&t=371
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| My favorite car control system is the BMW iDrive rotary dial.
|
| Touch screens are fine for given much more fine-grained access to
| controls. But they should be limited to controls that you _don't
| need to set while driving_. It's absurd that it takes 3 taps on a
| screen -- diverting my attention to the screen -- on my Tesla to
| turn on defogging (a common event here!) while I can do it with a
| one touch (now muscle-memorized) on my Subaru.
| NotYourLawyer wrote:
| Touch screens are such a lazy, shitty, dangerous way to implement
| 90% of the functions they're currently used for. Good to see that
| at least one person is working on this problem.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-02-11 23:00 UTC)