14 ms·

The consensus regarding automobiles and touch interfaces is starting to form that they are just a bad idea. Physical switches, knobs, toggles, buttons -- these

The consensus regarding automobiles and touch interfaces is starting to form that they are just a bad idea. Physical switches, knobs, toggles, buttons -- these things can be activated using one's hands without needing to coordinate with sight, meaning, our eyes can stay on the road. There is no road to keep your eyes on in space though, so needing to coordinate hands and eyes is clearly not that big a problem for the Dragon, and might even be better than lots of physical inputs: you can cram more virtual inputs into the same area by using menus and what not, and that might make it easier to navigate one's way around them. Then again, complex menus might make things worse in an emergency. There's not that much for the astronauts to do in Dragon though, so it's probably all OK.

joshvm 6y ago
Mission/emergency critical buttons on dragon are physical (things like chute release) - there is a row of switches underneath the panel. https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/2018-08-17-182711-1170x802.jpg https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/2...
- tyingq 6y ago
  The picture looks like those don't have any tactile feedback either. Though maybe just the picture.
  - s_y_n_t_a_x 6y ago
    There's clearly a seam around the buttons allowing them to be depressed along with an internal light. Looks like most car hazard light buttons. If we're going to speculate based on a picture lets go with the most likely that the physical buttons do have tactile feedback lol.
    - tyingq 6y ago
      Zoom in and look at the left side group of buttons. Is that a clear overlay that flips down or something? That may be why it looks flat to me.
      - plttn 6y ago
        Yeah, they're all covered with safety covers to avoid bumping.
  - pugworthy 6y ago
    Keep in mind you might be operating them with a spacesuit gloved hand. I'm not sure how thick/solid they are, but there would be a decreased sense of physical tactile feedback. Looking at the left panel, I'm guessing you first select the function you want (Water Deorbit, Deorbit Now, Breakout, Depress Response, Suppress Fire, Fire Response), then click either Execute or Cancel. Lights on the switches help you know what is selected.
gibolt 6y ago
What consensus? Bad interfaces on low-end touch screens are terrible, but plenty of Tesla owners would take the screen over the plethora of physical knobs. Volume and vehicle control/steering are the main inputs where physical makes sense.
- codenesium 6y ago
  After riding as a passenger in a Tesla I was shocked at how often the driver looked down at the screen and not at the road.
  - m0xte 6y ago
    Same experience here. Model 3 is absolutely terrible for this. My father actually kerbed his and screwed up the alloys looking at the screen.
  - rootusrootus 6y ago
    As a Tesla owner I completely agree. I really like what Ford did on the new Mach-E. They unabashedly 'stole' the touchscreen idea, then iterated. Now I want the smaller, wider LCD in front of the driver, and the big knob at the bottom of the center touchscreen. Maybe Tesla can copy that idea and iterate it some more... add some programmable buttons along the bottom or something ;-)
    - gibolt 6y ago
      You have physical volume knobs on the steering wheel. That is less distracting than any reach to the console.
      - rootusrootus 6y ago
        For some things, absolutely, but for the times when you need to interact with things on the screen that are more complicated than simple volume, a knob is still a pretty great option to have.
  - 6y ago
goshx 6y ago
Do you have a source about the said "consensus"? It sounds more like resistance to change than an actual rationale. You have always had the need to look at the buttons, like reaching out to the radio. From my experience, the majority of people who drive a car with touch interfaces don't want to look back to old fashioned buttons.
- mlyle 6y ago
  > From my experience, the majority of people who drive a car with touch interfaces don't want to look back to old fashioned buttons. Many automakers that had touch-heavy interfaces are moving back towards physical controls, both because of market demand and evolving industry safety considerations. e.g. https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1121372_why-mazda-is-purging-touchscreens-from-its-vehicles https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1121372_why-mazda-is-pur... https://jalopnik.com/honda-follows-mazda-by-ditching-some-touchscreen-contro-1842564375 https://jalopnik.com/honda-follows-mazda-by-ditching-some-to... https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/06/17/ford-myford-touch-infotainment-sync/2432489/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/06/17/ford-my... I have no problem with touch controls in general, but replacing a volume knob I can find blindly with a relatively small pair of "Vol+" and "Vol-" touch targets is mildly infuriating. It's OK as the driver because there is an actual tactile control on the steering wheel, but downright unpleasant as a passenger.
  - goshx 6y ago
    One of the issues with those automakers is that their interfaces are in general unresponsive and slow. The one in my BMW sucked. The Jaguar I-PACE is very slow as well. Tesla got this right with both the touch screen and the physical buttons on the steering wheel for things like volume control.
    - mlyle 6y ago
      Your comment has nothing to do with what I stated. As I mentioned already, I do have a tactile steering wheel control for volume. But even the experience for a passenger adjusting volume sucks compared to a knob. And my touch screen, in general, is snappy enough.
csours 6y ago
Disclaimer, I work for GM, any thoughts or opinions are solely my own. I do not work on car user interface. I agree that anything you need to do while driving should be a physical interface, but some of the 3D haptic stuff looks really cool. I don't think touch screens are going away because the display is so valuable, and there's so much stuff that is non-critical that you can configure from a touch screen.
- jjeaff 6y ago
  And you can't put customized ads on a physical switchboard.
  - GuB-42 6y ago
    Of course you can. If it has any form of display, it can display customized ads. Some radio stations manage to put ads on the 14-segment display that is supposed to show the station name and/or frequency. And if it doesn't, there is always room for a sticker. Buy a new laptop and you are going to see half a dozen ads before you even turn it on: on the box, on leaflets inside the box, and in the form of stickers,... It seems that only Apple doesn't play that game, but the privilege is expensive.
    - avmich 6y ago
      > Some radio stations manage to put ads on the 14-segment display that is supposed to show the station name and/or frequency. We can talk about hardware protection against ads. The hardware would need to recognize allowed data - like station name and frequency - and reject disallowed, like attempts to make a running text. This will limit functionality; maybe it's worth it. We can talk about software protection - when user controls some layer of software. We can implement it as a type system, with the same result (only now we can modify the software layer if we need). Type system which makes ads non-representable looks like a nice solution. Guilty myself in writing a game resembling Tetris on a 8-segment display (blocks moving horizontally), so yes, people can be inventive...
- GuB-42 6y ago
bkanber 6y ago
My car has a holographic HUD that displays on the windshield, and responds to hand and voice gestures. (The HUD is _awesome_, but the gesture recognition is hit or miss at present). I agree with you that touchscreens in autos are garbage. However I don't agree that physical or haptic switches are the _only_ solution. I think touchscreens in autos were just a technical stepping stone towards something new, like this combo of holographic/gesture/voice control UI.
- cryptonector 6y ago
  Do you have to take your focus off the road and mirrors in order to use the HUD? If so then it's dangerous.
  - fomine3 6y ago
    It is opposite. Don't need to focus off from front glass.
    - cryptonector 6y ago
      I'm talking about having to move the focus from the road to the windshield. That still takes time. If the HUD is "at infinity" then it's ok, but would you need special glasses to make that work?
      - bkanber 6y ago
        I use the term "holographic" for a reason. The HUD appears to be projected at a distance of, say, 20-30', and is positioned low on the windshield so that it essentially overlays on the road. You do not need to refocus your eyes on the windshield. Focusing on the road also focuses on the HUD projection.
  - bkanber 6y ago
    No, not at all. The HUD is positioned so that you're watching the near-field road ahead. The hologram is projected so that it appears maybe 30' ahead of you, on the road. The HUD also has minimal information. If nav is off the HUD shows you your current speed and the speed limit only. If nav is on, the HUD gives you a simple map display showing your next turn, and that only appears as you approach. It's a really excellent system. Not at all invasive or distracting, and MUCH better focus- and attention-wise when using navigation vs, say, staring at a smartphone or console display.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
> There is no road to keep your eyes on in space The "road" are the instruments. Having the instruments be directly intractable with makes sense on a rocket. I agree with you in respect of cars.
- cryptonector 6y ago
  Everything is automated though. There's almost nothing for astronauts to do except pull an abort handle. Instruments and telemetry are shared with ground control, and anyways, they don't need the astronauts to touch anything unless there is so much instrumentation to present that the astronauts have to page through it.
VMisTheWay 6y ago
As someone that works in Auto on buttons and works with the head unit team, you are incorrect. The benchmarking shows nearly every company is moving to screens. Sure you might have a few models that remove the screen, but these are cheap cars with limited features. You literally can't have a button for every car feature. And if your car doesn't have all the features, you won't sell well. And if you disagree with all of this, you probably aren't the type of person to drop 40k-50k on a new car. You'd be happy with a 2014 car for 10k.
- paulryanrogers 6y ago
  Where does the proliferation of features end and concern for public safety begin?
  - moduspol 6y ago
    It might happen when statistics actually show cars with touchscreens are measurably less safe. It'd be even safer if we removed the radio all together, and banned any physical controls that aren't on the steering wheel (to ensure you don't have to take your hand off the wheel to use them). Why do we only care about public safety in one circumstance but not the other?
    - drusepth 6y ago
      >Why do we only care about public safety in one circumstance but not the other? Outside of armchair theorists online, I'm not convinced anyone in charge of car design actually cares about car safety at all. Car accidents are the leading cause of death for people age 15-29 and the second leading cause of death for people age 5-14. Nearly 3,300 people die every day in car accidents, and double that number are permanently disabled. If people actually cared about car safety, it feels like these numbers would have gone down in the last 30 years. They haven't. [1] [1] https://i.imgur.com/FE6lZu4.png https://i.imgur.com/FE6lZu4.png
      - moduspol 6y ago
akira2501 6y ago
> so needing to coordinate hands and eyes is clearly not that big a problem for the Dragon Two things. During ascent the g load on the passengers is steadily increasing. By the time you're 6:30 into the burn, you'll be experiencing about 2.5g, and just before MECO at about 8:15 into the burn you're close to 3.2g. I'm not sure using a touch screen in a high-g environment is a good idea. Second thing, right after MECO you're suddenly very close to 0-g. Which is a fun ride to be sure, but _everything else_ in the cabin is suddenly weightless as well. Items have a tendancy to start floating around the cabin and knocking into things. > There's not that much for the astronauts to do in Dragon though, so it's probably all OK. When everything is going according to plan.. there isn't much to do. This isn't the scope you want to design for, though.
- itsspring 6y ago
  > I'm not sure using a touch screen in a high-g environment is a good idea. Agreed. All of the events during this time are fully automatic. If the astronauts needed to personally abort for a reason that ground control did not see, I saw what appeared to be a physical abort switch that needed to be turned and pulled (but I could be wrong)
inamberclad 6y ago
Hand-eye coordination is actually quite difficult shortly after reaching microgravity. You're so trained compensate for the weight of your arm that you'll hit above where you expect when you reach for things. The opposite goes for landing again.
mrfusion 6y ago
I wish we could invent some kind of haptic interface for touch screens. The flexibility of a touch screen is great but very hard to find things without looking.
- amelius 6y ago
  Even on a physical keyboard it's difficult to find things without looking if you don't know yet where they are. The problem with touch screens is that they change what you can touch all the time. If you'd fix that, you might as well install a physical interface.
varjag 6y ago
For infotainment, touchscreens are a huge help, no debate really. Anyone doubting this should get a refresher by inputing a street name with a twist dial.
- cryptonector 6y ago
  > Anyone doubting this should get a refresher by inputing a street name with a twist dial. Perfect input method. No one would input street names while driving if that was the way to do it. (FYI, I didn't downvote your comment.)
Diesel555 6y ago
As a fighter pilot, the ability to move switches without touching them is incredibly important. But most of that is achieved via HOTAS (Hands on Throttle and Stick). Anything outside of HOTAS if already hands off and a "labor". That's where fast access to data is important. Our checklists have migrated to iPads over paper products and that has honestly been great. The physical limitation of number of buttons to achieve an effect is an issue. So.... I need physical buttons where I need real feedback fast on touch. I can use touch screens where I need to access a lot of data but have seconds to spare.

joshvm 6y ago

Mission/emergency critical buttons on dragon are physical (things like chute release) - there is a row of switches underneath the panel. https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/2018-08-17-182711-1170x802.jpg https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/2...

tyingq 6y ago
The picture looks like those don't have any tactile feedback either. Though maybe just the picture.
- s_y_n_t_a_x 6y ago
  There's clearly a seam around the buttons allowing them to be depressed along with an internal light. Looks like most car hazard light buttons. If we're going to speculate based on a picture lets go with the most likely that the physical buttons do have tactile feedback lol.
  - tyingq 6y ago
    Zoom in and look at the left side group of buttons. Is that a clear overlay that flips down or something? That may be why it looks flat to me.
    - plttn 6y ago
      Yeah, they're all covered with safety covers to avoid bumping.
- pugworthy 6y ago
  Keep in mind you might be operating them with a spacesuit gloved hand. I'm not sure how thick/solid they are, but there would be a decreased sense of physical tactile feedback. Looking at the left panel, I'm guessing you first select the function you want (Water Deorbit, Deorbit Now, Breakout, Depress Response, Suppress Fire, Fire Response), then click either Execute or Cancel. Lights on the switches help you know what is selected.

gibolt 6y ago

What consensus? Bad interfaces on low-end touch screens are terrible, but plenty of Tesla owners would take the screen over the plethora of physical knobs. Volume and vehicle control/steering are the main inputs where physical makes sense.

codenesium 6y ago
After riding as a passenger in a Tesla I was shocked at how often the driver looked down at the screen and not at the road.
- m0xte 6y ago
  Same experience here. Model 3 is absolutely terrible for this. My father actually kerbed his and screwed up the alloys looking at the screen.
- rootusrootus 6y ago
  As a Tesla owner I completely agree. I really like what Ford did on the new Mach-E. They unabashedly 'stole' the touchscreen idea, then iterated. Now I want the smaller, wider LCD in front of the driver, and the big knob at the bottom of the center touchscreen. Maybe Tesla can copy that idea and iterate it some more... add some programmable buttons along the bottom or something ;-)
  - gibolt 6y ago
    You have physical volume knobs on the steering wheel. That is less distracting than any reach to the console.
    - rootusrootus 6y ago
      For some things, absolutely, but for the times when you need to interact with things on the screen that are more complicated than simple volume, a knob is still a pretty great option to have.
- 6y ago

goshx 6y ago

Do you have a source about the said "consensus"? It sounds more like resistance to change than an actual rationale. You have always had the need to look at the buttons, like reaching out to the radio. From my experience, the majority of people who drive a car with touch interfaces don't want to look back to old fashioned buttons.

mlyle 6y ago
> From my experience, the majority of people who drive a car with touch interfaces don't want to look back to old fashioned buttons. Many automakers that had touch-heavy interfaces are moving back towards physical controls, both because of market demand and evolving industry safety considerations. e.g. https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1121372_why-mazda-is-purging-touchscreens-from-its-vehicles https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1121372_why-mazda-is-pur... https://jalopnik.com/honda-follows-mazda-by-ditching-some-touchscreen-contro-1842564375 https://jalopnik.com/honda-follows-mazda-by-ditching-some-to... https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/06/17/ford-myford-touch-infotainment-sync/2432489/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/06/17/ford-my... I have no problem with touch controls in general, but replacing a volume knob I can find blindly with a relatively small pair of "Vol+" and "Vol-" touch targets is mildly infuriating. It's OK as the driver because there is an actual tactile control on the steering wheel, but downright unpleasant as a passenger.
- goshx 6y ago
  One of the issues with those automakers is that their interfaces are in general unresponsive and slow. The one in my BMW sucked. The Jaguar I-PACE is very slow as well. Tesla got this right with both the touch screen and the physical buttons on the steering wheel for things like volume control.
  - mlyle 6y ago
    Your comment has nothing to do with what I stated. As I mentioned already, I do have a tactile steering wheel control for volume. But even the experience for a passenger adjusting volume sucks compared to a knob. And my touch screen, in general, is snappy enough.

csours 6y ago

Disclaimer, I work for GM, any thoughts or opinions are solely my own. I do not work on car user interface. I agree that anything you need to do while driving should be a physical interface, but some of the 3D haptic stuff looks really cool. I don't think touch screens are going away because the display is so valuable, and there's so much stuff that is non-critical that you can configure from a touch screen.

jjeaff 6y ago
And you can't put customized ads on a physical switchboard.
- GuB-42 6y ago
  Of course you can. If it has any form of display, it can display customized ads. Some radio stations manage to put ads on the 14-segment display that is supposed to show the station name and/or frequency. And if it doesn't, there is always room for a sticker. Buy a new laptop and you are going to see half a dozen ads before you even turn it on: on the box, on leaflets inside the box, and in the form of stickers,... It seems that only Apple doesn't play that game, but the privilege is expensive.
  - avmich 6y ago
    > Some radio stations manage to put ads on the 14-segment display that is supposed to show the station name and/or frequency. We can talk about hardware protection against ads. The hardware would need to recognize allowed data - like station name and frequency - and reject disallowed, like attempts to make a running text. This will limit functionality; maybe it's worth it. We can talk about software protection - when user controls some layer of software. We can implement it as a type system, with the same result (only now we can modify the software layer if we need). Type system which makes ads non-representable looks like a nice solution. Guilty myself in writing a game resembling Tetris on a 8-segment display (blocks moving horizontally), so yes, people can be inventive...
GuB-42 6y ago

bkanber 6y ago

My car has a holographic HUD that displays on the windshield, and responds to hand and voice gestures. (The HUD is _awesome_, but the gesture recognition is hit or miss at present). I agree with you that touchscreens in autos are garbage. However I don't agree that physical or haptic switches are the _only_ solution. I think touchscreens in autos were just a technical stepping stone towards something new, like this combo of holographic/gesture/voice control UI.

cryptonector 6y ago
Do you have to take your focus off the road and mirrors in order to use the HUD? If so then it's dangerous.
- fomine3 6y ago
  It is opposite. Don't need to focus off from front glass.
  - cryptonector 6y ago
    I'm talking about having to move the focus from the road to the windshield. That still takes time. If the HUD is "at infinity" then it's ok, but would you need special glasses to make that work?
    - bkanber 6y ago
      I use the term "holographic" for a reason. The HUD appears to be projected at a distance of, say, 20-30', and is positioned low on the windshield so that it essentially overlays on the road. You do not need to refocus your eyes on the windshield. Focusing on the road also focuses on the HUD projection.
- bkanber 6y ago
  No, not at all. The HUD is positioned so that you're watching the near-field road ahead. The hologram is projected so that it appears maybe 30' ahead of you, on the road. The HUD also has minimal information. If nav is off the HUD shows you your current speed and the speed limit only. If nav is on, the HUD gives you a simple map display showing your next turn, and that only appears as you approach. It's a really excellent system. Not at all invasive or distracting, and MUCH better focus- and attention-wise when using navigation vs, say, staring at a smartphone or console display.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

> There is no road to keep your eyes on in space The "road" are the instruments. Having the instruments be directly intractable with makes sense on a rocket. I agree with you in respect of cars.

cryptonector 6y ago
Everything is automated though. There's almost nothing for astronauts to do except pull an abort handle. Instruments and telemetry are shared with ground control, and anyways, they don't need the astronauts to touch anything unless there is so much instrumentation to present that the astronauts have to page through it.

VMisTheWay 6y ago

As someone that works in Auto on buttons and works with the head unit team, you are incorrect. The benchmarking shows nearly every company is moving to screens. Sure you might have a few models that remove the screen, but these are cheap cars with limited features. You literally can't have a button for every car feature. And if your car doesn't have all the features, you won't sell well. And if you disagree with all of this, you probably aren't the type of person to drop 40k-50k on a new car. You'd be happy with a 2014 car for 10k.

paulryanrogers 6y ago
Where does the proliferation of features end and concern for public safety begin?
- moduspol 6y ago
  It might happen when statistics actually show cars with touchscreens are measurably less safe. It'd be even safer if we removed the radio all together, and banned any physical controls that aren't on the steering wheel (to ensure you don't have to take your hand off the wheel to use them). Why do we only care about public safety in one circumstance but not the other?
  - drusepth 6y ago
    >Why do we only care about public safety in one circumstance but not the other? Outside of armchair theorists online, I'm not convinced anyone in charge of car design actually cares about car safety at all. Car accidents are the leading cause of death for people age 15-29 and the second leading cause of death for people age 5-14. Nearly 3,300 people die every day in car accidents, and double that number are permanently disabled. If people actually cared about car safety, it feels like these numbers would have gone down in the last 30 years. They haven't. [1] [1] https://i.imgur.com/FE6lZu4.png https://i.imgur.com/FE6lZu4.png
    - moduspol 6y ago

akira2501 6y ago

> so needing to coordinate hands and eyes is clearly not that big a problem for the Dragon Two things. During ascent the g load on the passengers is steadily increasing. By the time you're 6:30 into the burn, you'll be experiencing about 2.5g, and just before MECO at about 8:15 into the burn you're close to 3.2g. I'm not sure using a touch screen in a high-g environment is a good idea. Second thing, right after MECO you're suddenly very close to 0-g. Which is a fun ride to be sure, but _everything else_ in the cabin is suddenly weightless as well. Items have a tendancy to start floating around the cabin and knocking into things. > There's not that much for the astronauts to do in Dragon though, so it's probably all OK. When everything is going according to plan.. there isn't much to do. This isn't the scope you want to design for, though.

itsspring 6y ago
> I'm not sure using a touch screen in a high-g environment is a good idea. Agreed. All of the events during this time are fully automatic. If the astronauts needed to personally abort for a reason that ground control did not see, I saw what appeared to be a physical abort switch that needed to be turned and pulled (but I could be wrong)

inamberclad 6y ago

Hand-eye coordination is actually quite difficult shortly after reaching microgravity. You're so trained compensate for the weight of your arm that you'll hit above where you expect when you reach for things. The opposite goes for landing again.

mrfusion 6y ago

I wish we could invent some kind of haptic interface for touch screens. The flexibility of a touch screen is great but very hard to find things without looking.

amelius 6y ago
Even on a physical keyboard it's difficult to find things without looking if you don't know yet where they are. The problem with touch screens is that they change what you can touch all the time. If you'd fix that, you might as well install a physical interface.

varjag 6y ago

For infotainment, touchscreens are a huge help, no debate really. Anyone doubting this should get a refresher by inputing a street name with a twist dial.

cryptonector 6y ago
> Anyone doubting this should get a refresher by inputing a street name with a twist dial. Perfect input method. No one would input street names while driving if that was the way to do it. (FYI, I didn't downvote your comment.)

Diesel555 6y ago

As a fighter pilot, the ability to move switches without touching them is incredibly important. But most of that is achieved via HOTAS (Hands on Throttle and Stick). Anything outside of HOTAS if already hands off and a "labor". That's where fast access to data is important. Our checklists have migrated to iPads over paper products and that has honestly been great. The physical limitation of number of buttons to achieve an effect is an issue. So.... I need physical buttons where I need real feedback fast on touch. I can use touch screens where I need to access a lot of data but have seconds to spare.