3 ms·

Seems like a terrible design choice to make lots of basic adjustments use the touch screen. Adjusting the mirror and AC vents with a touch screen is almost guar

Seems like a terrible design choice to make lots of basic adjustments use the touch screen. Adjusting the mirror and AC vents with a touch screen is almost guaranteed to be a terrible experience, especially since people do those often while they're driving.

craftyguy 8y ago
You frequently adjust your mirror when driving? That's something I do once in a few months (if that), twice if someone drives my car and adjusts the mirrors to fit them.. Perhaps you should adjust your seat instead?
- dragontamer 8y ago
  Mirrors? No. Air conditioning? Yes. On longer drives, the positioning of the sun greatly determines whether or not my AC is running. Radio stations also are frequently changed, as is volume. If someone is talking to me in the passenger's seat, I instinctively turn down the volume of the radio for example. I personally prefer physical buttons for these various tasks. Physical buttons are always there. I don't have to look at the screen to ensure that I'm on the "correct app" or whatever before trying to fiddle with the AC or volume.
- timeisapear 8y ago
  Living in a city, I must manually retract side mirrors when parking on small streets and extend them before driving. Often need to readjust the mirrors each time after extending them.
  - greglindahl 8y ago
    I take it that you don't drive a car that folds its mirrors when you put it in Park, which is now a common feature.
- kalleboo 8y ago
  I share a car with my wife, who is much shorter than I am, so yes
icc97 8y ago
I can only think that their intention is that everything can be updated over the air, this includes all the buttons and controls. It's certainly a bad thing from a UX perspective. The number of controls in a car / aircraft is a very typical example of why modes are bad. One button for one action is the easiest to learn over the long run, there is a clear mapping in the drivers head of what each of the controls does. They all have different affordances, which is much harder on a touch screen. However saying that, there's clearly problems with BMW's car UX [0]. Tesla have put a lot of thought into the UX [1] but it seems to be more on a grand scale with specific user cases in mind (your garage magically opening as you approach), rather than the mundane of reducing the number of clicks for the average task. [0]: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/why-consumer-products-have-bad-ux/ https://www.nngroup.com/articles/why-consumer-products-have-... [1]: https://uxmag.com/articles/tesla%E2%80%99s-groundbreaking-ux-an-interview-with-user-interface-manager-brennan-boblett https://uxmag.com/articles/tesla%E2%80%99s-groundbreaking-ux...
cc439 8y ago
It's a terrible design in terms of ergonomics and user experience but it's frankly genius in terms of development timeline efficiency and cost control. Tesla was able to condense hundreds of indididual parts that come from a supply chain involving a dozen plus companies into a single component. Radios, HVAC controls, gauges, and the fancy dashboards which contain them are among the most expensive parts to develop in terms of both time and money. The amount of time Tesla saved in PPAPs (Production Part Approval Process) alone might be as much as a year and when working with a timeline as aggressive as those demanded by Musk, anything that reduces development time is more valuable than gold. It's a genius way to reduce the time needed to bring a car to market, the final bill of materials, and the complexity of assembly and installation of such a key component as a dashboard. It's a terrible idea in terms of driver experience but those are the kinds of compromised that must be made to bring something like a Model 3 to market at the promised $35,000 price point.
- ghaff 8y ago
  I can't decide if this is snark or not. The decisions you make to optimize your processes are irrelevant to me as a consumer. Yes, you have to make calls on compromises but if you don't make the right ones, that's on you.
  - cc439 8y ago
    It's actually not snark. I work in the industry and I legitametely believe Tesla's call to forgo traditional controls is defensible when viewed through this lense. Tesla's current business model is, and has been, 100% dependent on getting the Model 3 to market at the famously touted price of $35,000. Bringing a car like the Model 3, with all the features promised over the years, into mass production (100k+ per year production rate) within a timeframe required to secure a position in the market where 100k example can be sold necessitates such wild thinking. Yes, it's a terrible design for the driver, but Tesla beat every other manufacturer to the punch by at least 4 years. The "everything is contained in one, basocally off the shelf touchscreen" idea makes part of the ownership experience worse bit it got the Model 3 in consumer's hands at least 1 year earlier than it would have been otherwise and likely shaved a grand or two off the final base price. I'd never buy a Model 3 because the touchscreen is so offensivley terrible. However, when a quarter million people are willing to put their money down to buy one simply due to the range, pricw point, and expected launch date, then any compromise that helps get the car into their hands as promised, without a revolt among depositors, is "smart" in its own right.
elsonrodriguez 8y ago
This is an area where Land Rover got things shockingly right. They put knobs with LCD screens within the larger LCD center panel, and they put tiny OLED screens on the steering wheel buttons. Tesla's UI design is an obtuse dead end. https://youtu.be/S6YYun90S8g?t=6m22s https://youtu.be/S6YYun90S8g?t=6m22s
- nojvek 8y ago
  I think that is UX done right. Very impressed that they have tactile context aware buttons and knobs. I would pay for something like that in a phone as a skin or a case.
sschueller 8y ago
I would say it is clear safety hazard and should prevent such a car from being given the ok by the DOT. But then again Tesla assumes their cars will be driving themselves anyway so getting distracted trying to adjust the AC should not be a problem...

craftyguy 8y ago

You frequently adjust your mirror when driving? That's something I do once in a few months (if that), twice if someone drives my car and adjusts the mirrors to fit them.. Perhaps you should adjust your seat instead?

dragontamer 8y ago
Mirrors? No. Air conditioning? Yes. On longer drives, the positioning of the sun greatly determines whether or not my AC is running. Radio stations also are frequently changed, as is volume. If someone is talking to me in the passenger's seat, I instinctively turn down the volume of the radio for example. I personally prefer physical buttons for these various tasks. Physical buttons are always there. I don't have to look at the screen to ensure that I'm on the "correct app" or whatever before trying to fiddle with the AC or volume.
timeisapear 8y ago
Living in a city, I must manually retract side mirrors when parking on small streets and extend them before driving. Often need to readjust the mirrors each time after extending them.
- greglindahl 8y ago
  I take it that you don't drive a car that folds its mirrors when you put it in Park, which is now a common feature.
kalleboo 8y ago
I share a car with my wife, who is much shorter than I am, so yes

icc97 8y ago

I can only think that their intention is that everything can be updated over the air, this includes all the buttons and controls. It's certainly a bad thing from a UX perspective. The number of controls in a car / aircraft is a very typical example of why modes are bad. One button for one action is the easiest to learn over the long run, there is a clear mapping in the drivers head of what each of the controls does. They all have different affordances, which is much harder on a touch screen. However saying that, there's clearly problems with BMW's car UX [0]. Tesla have put a lot of thought into the UX [1] but it seems to be more on a grand scale with specific user cases in mind (your garage magically opening as you approach), rather than the mundane of reducing the number of clicks for the average task. [0]: https://www.nngroup.com/articles/why-consumer-products-have-bad-ux/ https://www.nngroup.com/articles/why-consumer-products-have-... [1]: https://uxmag.com/articles/tesla%E2%80%99s-groundbreaking-ux-an-interview-with-user-interface-manager-brennan-boblett https://uxmag.com/articles/tesla%E2%80%99s-groundbreaking-ux...

cc439 8y ago

It's a terrible design in terms of ergonomics and user experience but it's frankly genius in terms of development timeline efficiency and cost control. Tesla was able to condense hundreds of indididual parts that come from a supply chain involving a dozen plus companies into a single component. Radios, HVAC controls, gauges, and the fancy dashboards which contain them are among the most expensive parts to develop in terms of both time and money. The amount of time Tesla saved in PPAPs (Production Part Approval Process) alone might be as much as a year and when working with a timeline as aggressive as those demanded by Musk, anything that reduces development time is more valuable than gold. It's a genius way to reduce the time needed to bring a car to market, the final bill of materials, and the complexity of assembly and installation of such a key component as a dashboard. It's a terrible idea in terms of driver experience but those are the kinds of compromised that must be made to bring something like a Model 3 to market at the promised $35,000 price point.

ghaff 8y ago
I can't decide if this is snark or not. The decisions you make to optimize your processes are irrelevant to me as a consumer. Yes, you have to make calls on compromises but if you don't make the right ones, that's on you.
- cc439 8y ago
  It's actually not snark. I work in the industry and I legitametely believe Tesla's call to forgo traditional controls is defensible when viewed through this lense. Tesla's current business model is, and has been, 100% dependent on getting the Model 3 to market at the famously touted price of $35,000. Bringing a car like the Model 3, with all the features promised over the years, into mass production (100k+ per year production rate) within a timeframe required to secure a position in the market where 100k example can be sold necessitates such wild thinking. Yes, it's a terrible design for the driver, but Tesla beat every other manufacturer to the punch by at least 4 years. The "everything is contained in one, basocally off the shelf touchscreen" idea makes part of the ownership experience worse bit it got the Model 3 in consumer's hands at least 1 year earlier than it would have been otherwise and likely shaved a grand or two off the final base price. I'd never buy a Model 3 because the touchscreen is so offensivley terrible. However, when a quarter million people are willing to put their money down to buy one simply due to the range, pricw point, and expected launch date, then any compromise that helps get the car into their hands as promised, without a revolt among depositors, is "smart" in its own right.

elsonrodriguez 8y ago

This is an area where Land Rover got things shockingly right. They put knobs with LCD screens within the larger LCD center panel, and they put tiny OLED screens on the steering wheel buttons. Tesla's UI design is an obtuse dead end. https://youtu.be/S6YYun90S8g?t=6m22s https://youtu.be/S6YYun90S8g?t=6m22s

nojvek 8y ago
I think that is UX done right. Very impressed that they have tactile context aware buttons and knobs. I would pay for something like that in a phone as a skin or a case.

sschueller 8y ago

I would say it is clear safety hazard and should prevent such a car from being given the ok by the DOT. But then again Tesla assumes their cars will be driving themselves anyway so getting distracted trying to adjust the AC should not be a problem...