4 ms·
Some comments here completely miss the key point of the article and instead go down the route of whether the shifter itself should change or not. The blunder (
by neosat 10y ago
Some comments here completely miss the key point of the article and instead go down the route of whether the shifter itself should change or not.
The blunder (and yes, it is a blunder and not only in hindsight) in the shifter is that it provides poor feedback to the human. While changing technology may render some types of control not necessary, and thus correctly invite new design thinking, the fundamental human need for feedback does not change. In fact, when something that is so habitual to you changes, that is precisely when the design should provide even more feedback because otherwise you are likely to miss it. This is amplified if the consequences of not comprehending ones actions are high - which clearly was the case here.
The designers here dropped the ball. There is no way early feedback through rigorous testing on prototypes would have not identified this issue way before it went into production.
- et-al 10y agoFollowing up on feedback for the user, for automobiles designers should opt to communicate feedback in non-visual ways. You know which gear your car is by the position of the shift lever. You know when to shift up/down by the sound of an engine. You know what speed the AC fan is at by the direction of the dial and can crank it up and down accordingly. On an older car, a driver can be blindfolded and operate many of the accessory functions without trouble. On a newer car, I wager it's much difficult, especially those with touchscreen interfaces. Yes, there are more functions now, but should they be added at the expense of our safety? I want to be able to switch on the defogger by a simple button, not by diving into a menu.
- bambax 10y ago> Some comments here completely miss the key point of the article and instead go down the route of whether the shifter itself should change or not. Well, the point of the article is "bad design can be dangerous", but there is another point that can be discussed which is: why change what works? Regarding the shifter, the traditional shifter is physically connected to the gear box; in newer cars where everything happens via software, the physical connection no longer exists, and so designers thought there was an opportunity to redo it. But, just because you can doesn't mean you should. That said, your point about necessary feedback is extremely valid; it is believed that the crash of the Air France flight 447 in 2009 is due in no small part to insufficient feedback (either pilot could take back control of the plane, without the other pilot knowing they didn't have control anymore).
- marvin 10y agoIt was actually worse than that in the Air France case -- if the rudder inputs from the two pilots were different, they were averaged before being applied to the physical control surfaces.
- bambax 10y agoIt could work both ways: either with one pilot in control or with both. The averaging thing was not as stupid as it sounds when values are close. It's completely crazy when both rudders were in the opposite direction at the maximum (average of -100,+100 = 0), but it must have seemed an impossible case to the designers...
- neosat 10y ago> "why change what works?" To make it better. And then to make it even better :) Isn't that what a significant amount of engineering and design endeavor is about?