3 ms·

> Touch screen controls in automotive environment is such a bad idea Touch screen controls are a bad idea in general when the form factor has space for adequat

by ardy42 7y ago

> Touch screen controls in automotive environment is such a bad idea Touch screen controls are a bad idea in general when the form factor has space for adequate physical controls. The only time they're an acceptable compromise is for small devices like phones. Even then careful use of a small number of buttons can be a great improvement.

PascLeRasc 7y ago
One of the best features of switching from Android to an iPhone is the physical mute switch. Whenever I'm going into a meeting, I can mute my phone without taking it out of my pocket. With Androids (At least, version 6 from when I left) you have to take it out and go through all the separate volume menus. It was so refreshing to have the confidence that my phone wouldn't vibrate or disturb others during a meeting.
kube-system 7y ago
The situation is more nuanced than "touchscreens are bad"; the number of controls has grown exponentially since touchscreens have made it easier to put literally hundreds of buzzers and whistles on modern vehicles. It's fairly common now for cars to have configuration settings like: the number of seconds that the courtesy lights stay on after locking the car. This is a feature that would never need to be operated while the vehicle is in motion, and likely wouldn't be configured more than once by any given owner. Features like this are more than adequately served by touchscreen controls. Really, you would have a worse UI if there was a hardware slider for this on the dash. But yes, all controls that a driver would want to use while the vehicle is in motion should be controllable with hardware controls that can be located and operated tactilely.
- catalogia 7y ago
  > "It's fairly common now for cars to have configuration settings like: the number of seconds that the courtesy lights stay on after locking the car. This is a feature that would never need to be operated while the vehicle is in motion, and likely wouldn't be configured more than once by any given owner." Features like that could be implemented as dipswitches/etc hidden in a compartment under the hood, or not at all. The "configuration screen with a gazillion tweakable settings" thing has generally fallen out of favor in desktop and mobile software, and I expect the car industry will eventually catch up.
  - kube-system 7y ago
    > Features like that could be implemented as dipswitches/etc hidden in a compartment under the hood, or not at all. How is this an improvement over having it on a touch screen?
    - catalogia 7y ago
      I thought that was obvious; because then you can eliminate the touchscreen entirely. Cars are better without them.
- ardy42 7y ago
  > The situation is more nuanced than "touchscreens are bad"; the number of controls has grown exponentially since touchscreens have made it easier to put literally hundreds of buzzers and whistles on modern vehicles. Touchscreens aren't necessary for any of that, though. There are alternative, better UI interfaces. For instance: f-key driven soft menus. Those have tactile feedback, have reliable key-press detection, and can be operated with regular gloves. The only situation in a car where I could see a touchscreen being the right option are cases where a soft keyboard is needed. > It's fairly common now for cars to have configuration settings like: the number of seconds that the courtesy lights stay on after locking the car.... Features like this are more than adequately served by touchscreen controls. My Honda has a button-operated menu for that, and that's better than a touchscreen. > you would have a worse UI if there was a hardware slider for this on the dash. I never said that cars should have a dedicated, physical control for each function. What I said was touchscreens are unnecessary and sub-optimal. Commonly used functions should have dedicated physical controls, especially those that are likely to be used while in motion (driving controls, climate control, basic audio stuff). The next most common set of functions should be implemented with a combination of shortcut keys and f-keys. Finally, seldom-used functions (such as configuration) should be accessed with f-key driven menus.
  - kube-system 7y ago
    I do like key-driven soft menus (like the steering wheel controls commonly used for HUDs or gauge cluster menus), but they get a bit unwieldy with longer lists. Some automakers (GM) address this by nesting all the options in a bunch of sub-menus, but I find this frustrating because I end up just having to search through a bunch of menus to find what I want. Some automakers (Mazda, BMW) use a knob instead, which makes it a bit quicker to scroll through a longer list, but I have found myself overshooting and then having to back track which is sometimes annoying. There's really pros and cons to whatever implementation is used. While I completely agree that any function that might be operated while driving needs to be able to be operable with hard controls, I also don't think it's a good idea to clutter those menus with a bunch of junk that you don't want or need while driving. I think there's a good case to be made for 3 levels of controls: * Things that must have dedicated hard keys: anything that must be adjusted rapidly for driver attentiveness, control, or comfort -- HVAC, audio levels and basic tuning, all lighting and vehicle controls. * Things that must have hard keys, but can live in a shared menu: anything that a driver may want to adjust while driving, but is not essential for immediate use -- trip data, infotainment, non-critical gauge monitoring etc. * Things that don't need hard keys and should not clutter any of the above interfaces: odd-ball configuration settings that a driver would not need to operate while driving -- key fob configuration, entry-exit preference configuration, software updates, integrations with external services, maintenance logs, etc.

by ardy42 7y ago

PascLeRasc 7y ago

One of the best features of switching from Android to an iPhone is the physical mute switch. Whenever I'm going into a meeting, I can mute my phone without taking it out of my pocket. With Androids (At least, version 6 from when I left) you have to take it out and go through all the separate volume menus. It was so refreshing to have the confidence that my phone wouldn't vibrate or disturb others during a meeting.

kube-system 7y ago

The situation is more nuanced than "touchscreens are bad"; the number of controls has grown exponentially since touchscreens have made it easier to put literally hundreds of buzzers and whistles on modern vehicles. It's fairly common now for cars to have configuration settings like: the number of seconds that the courtesy lights stay on after locking the car. This is a feature that would never need to be operated while the vehicle is in motion, and likely wouldn't be configured more than once by any given owner. Features like this are more than adequately served by touchscreen controls. Really, you would have a worse UI if there was a hardware slider for this on the dash. But yes, all controls that a driver would want to use while the vehicle is in motion should be controllable with hardware controls that can be located and operated tactilely.

catalogia 7y ago
> "It's fairly common now for cars to have configuration settings like: the number of seconds that the courtesy lights stay on after locking the car. This is a feature that would never need to be operated while the vehicle is in motion, and likely wouldn't be configured more than once by any given owner." Features like that could be implemented as dipswitches/etc hidden in a compartment under the hood, or not at all. The "configuration screen with a gazillion tweakable settings" thing has generally fallen out of favor in desktop and mobile software, and I expect the car industry will eventually catch up.
- kube-system 7y ago
  > Features like that could be implemented as dipswitches/etc hidden in a compartment under the hood, or not at all. How is this an improvement over having it on a touch screen?
  - catalogia 7y ago
    I thought that was obvious; because then you can eliminate the touchscreen entirely. Cars are better without them.
ardy42 7y ago
> The situation is more nuanced than "touchscreens are bad"; the number of controls has grown exponentially since touchscreens have made it easier to put literally hundreds of buzzers and whistles on modern vehicles. Touchscreens aren't necessary for any of that, though. There are alternative, better UI interfaces. For instance: f-key driven soft menus. Those have tactile feedback, have reliable key-press detection, and can be operated with regular gloves. The only situation in a car where I could see a touchscreen being the right option are cases where a soft keyboard is needed. > It's fairly common now for cars to have configuration settings like: the number of seconds that the courtesy lights stay on after locking the car.... Features like this are more than adequately served by touchscreen controls. My Honda has a button-operated menu for that, and that's better than a touchscreen. > you would have a worse UI if there was a hardware slider for this on the dash. I never said that cars should have a dedicated, physical control for each function. What I said was touchscreens are unnecessary and sub-optimal. Commonly used functions should have dedicated physical controls, especially those that are likely to be used while in motion (driving controls, climate control, basic audio stuff). The next most common set of functions should be implemented with a combination of shortcut keys and f-keys. Finally, seldom-used functions (such as configuration) should be accessed with f-key driven menus.
- kube-system 7y ago
  I do like key-driven soft menus (like the steering wheel controls commonly used for HUDs or gauge cluster menus), but they get a bit unwieldy with longer lists. Some automakers (GM) address this by nesting all the options in a bunch of sub-menus, but I find this frustrating because I end up just having to search through a bunch of menus to find what I want. Some automakers (Mazda, BMW) use a knob instead, which makes it a bit quicker to scroll through a longer list, but I have found myself overshooting and then having to back track which is sometimes annoying. There's really pros and cons to whatever implementation is used. While I completely agree that any function that might be operated while driving needs to be able to be operable with hard controls, I also don't think it's a good idea to clutter those menus with a bunch of junk that you don't want or need while driving. I think there's a good case to be made for 3 levels of controls: * Things that must have dedicated hard keys: anything that must be adjusted rapidly for driver attentiveness, control, or comfort -- HVAC, audio levels and basic tuning, all lighting and vehicle controls. * Things that must have hard keys, but can live in a shared menu: anything that a driver may want to adjust while driving, but is not essential for immediate use -- trip data, infotainment, non-critical gauge monitoring etc. * Things that don't need hard keys and should not clutter any of the above interfaces: odd-ball configuration settings that a driver would not need to operate while driving -- key fob configuration, entry-exit preference configuration, software updates, integrations with external services, maintenance logs, etc.