6 ms·

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

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
      They probably have gone down per capita, right? We just have a lot more people than we did 30 years ago. A car built today is certainly safer than one from 30 years ago. My hope is that driverless cars end up solving this faster than we otherwise could politically, but obviously that may be a bit ambitious.
  - cryptonector 6y ago
    Mazda believes we're there now.
    - moduspol 6y ago
      Nokia believed we'd mostly prefer smartphones with physical keyboards.
      - Silhouette 6y ago
        And some of us would have done. Trying to write anything longer than a brief text message or Tweet using any modern touchscreen phone is excruciating. Swipe-style keyboards have made entering text tolerable, but correcting the mis-reads or even the most basic editing takes orders of magnitude longer than it needs to. Admittedly, modern phones do provide a neat demonstration of various technologies designed to correct the errors caused by an otherwise slow and inaccurate input device.
  - cryptonector 6y ago
    Forget about the radio. Climate controls are needed, full stop, and they are distracting if touchscreen-driven.
    - moduspol 6y ago
      Not for me. I'm quite content setting a target temperature and leaving the rest on "auto", although I know for many drivers that's not the case. And obviously it's still in my interests that other drivers not be distracted. But those, too, could be controlled by physical buttons on the steering wheel and/or voice commands.
rblatz 6y ago
The Navy went big in touch screens and is rolling that back. Mazda, by no means a luxury brand, is abandoning touch screens. I think touch screens will stick around for tasks that aren’t routinely done while driving, but there will be a massive correction away from touchscreen as the only interface to the car.
Fiahil 6y ago
Higher-end units are using a "control knob" to navigate on the screen. "Touching" is for "lower-end" vehicles. So, as a matter of fact, yes, you can have _one_ button for every car feature.
setpatchaddress 6y ago
Well, Mazda is going in the opposite direction. More and bigger screens are certainly the way of the future for most cars/SUVs, but I'd advocate strongly for a large set of ergonomic, reassignable hard controls. The best thing about the Tesla Model 3 controls is the configurable control gadget on the steering wheel (though I wish they'd used better materials -- feels absurdly cheap in a $50k car).
throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
> The benchmarking shows nearly every company is moving to screens You're confusing a benchmark with... something else. And I really dislike my new-ish MP3 player with it's damn screen that I have to keep looking at to operate, to do anything. > And if your car doesn't have all the features My MP3 player has a ton of features and I don't need 90% of them. I want it to do one job well - play my music and a few other basic controls, just like my old, physically-operated MP3 player did. I don't want awesome UX/UI bullshit to get in the way, I just want it to do its job. (plz excuse rant)
- Fogest 6y ago
  That's your opinion and an old-school one at that. The vast majority of customers do not want something that basic.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    That is my opinion which is why I kept on saying "I". I see nothing wrong at all with 'old-school'. There are too many self proclaimed UI/UX "experts" who keep screwing things up for people (edit: I'll restate that: fucking over their users). I only want what works. > The vast majority of customers do not want something that basic. And you accuse me of 'opinion'. Well, provide evidence of this claim.
  - filoleg 6y ago
    This. There will always be a niche of people who want barebones single-purpose old-school experience out of any given device. Goes for literally anything, from cars to phones to music equipment. I definitely fall into this category for some of the things myself. However, it is important to remember that this is not representative at all of what the majority prefers.
    - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
      This is a better post than its parent, and in some cases, sure I agree. I can't argue with someone who wants the new & shiny, if it works for them, great. But it's being pushed on us so such luddites as myself have no choice any more - it's all touchscreens now. It's become marketing driven. The choice is gone. > this is not representative at all of what the majority prefers I was very careful to not to project my desires on others in my original post, but you're telling me about what "majority prefers". So back this up. I don't think you can.
ohazi 6y ago
> The consensus regarding automobiles and touch interfaces is starting to form that they are just a bad idea. > The benchmarking shows nearly every company is moving to screens. The fact that everyone is moving to screens because they're flashy and cheap ($/feature) doesn't automatically make them a good idea. GP is correct. The consensus from a safety and usability perspective is that touchscreens in cars are a bad idea. Fuck the bean counters.
- trixie_ 6y ago
  All that matters is what sells. Create a car with tons of buttons and switches today, go out of business tomorrow.
  - TeMPOraL 6y ago
    That's why we can't have nice things, only things that are barely fit for purpose.
  - Silhouette 6y ago
    That looks like an excellent argument for stronger safety regulations. It is now illegal to drive any vehicle on public roads that does not meet the following safety standards: X, Y, Z. There you go, market for idiots who like flashy gadgets over safe vehicle controls eliminated. We did it with drink driving. We did it with driving on phones (though both the laws and the enforcement are still far from ideal on this one). We can do it with obviously dumb ideas for vehicle controls where there is evidence of severe safety problems too.
elsonrodriguez 6y ago
I've pasted this before, but there's a middle ground between touch screens and buttons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6YYun90S8g&feature=youtu.be&t=6m22s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6YYun90S8g&feature=youtu.be...
- cryptonector 6y ago
  I will not be buying any cars with that interface. Climate controls must be physical, full bloody stop.
cryptonector 6y ago
What a ridiculous reply. > The benchmarking shows nearly every company is moving to screens. Benchmarking? Really. > Sure you might have a few models that remove the screen Mazda is removing or de-emphasizing them across their product line if I understood correctly. > You literally can't have a button for every car feature. Yes, true, very very true. Also irrelevant. The point is that features like: - climate control - stereo volume (and other radio controls) - defrost - etc should be physical buttons because drivers use them a lot and should not have to take their eyes off the road to use them and should NEVER have to their eyes off the road to see if their inputs took (touch/display latency sucks). > And if your car doesn't have all the features, you won't sell well. The features that must have physical input methods, must have them, and the others can be touch screens if you really like. Also, fewer features is kinda fine, really, if it makes the roads safer. > 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. I.e., I must be cheap. Or maybe I would be happy with older cars (or newer Mazdas) precisely because they have these physical inputs / lack those dangerous touchscreens that I detest.
krupp3 6y ago
Are you working for American auto maker? Because Europe and Japan also had this idea how touch screen is cool, new and the future. 2016-2018 were the blunder years with everything being touch. And soon people realized that touch, no surprise, is shit. So for most common operations makers have added buttons back - climate and audio controls. For never used settings - like should interior lights come up when you open the door, beep sound loudness, interior light brightness, etc - yea, touch screen is good. For stuff that you actually use - no. It blows my mind people think touch screens are good. If they are so good, why don't we use touch inputs for blinker signals behind steering wheel? For steering itself? Swipe left to go left. Why no touch input for shift paddles? Hell, why I never saw anyone using touch screen keyboard instead of a physical one? Silicon valley devs could easily afford one and to them touch is superior to physical buttons. Nope, 1970s or w/e physical keyboards for every computer, it's like there's a bubble somewhere where "new = always good and old = always bad".

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
    They probably have gone down per capita, right? We just have a lot more people than we did 30 years ago. A car built today is certainly safer than one from 30 years ago. My hope is that driverless cars end up solving this faster than we otherwise could politically, but obviously that may be a bit ambitious.
- cryptonector 6y ago
  Mazda believes we're there now.
  - moduspol 6y ago
    Nokia believed we'd mostly prefer smartphones with physical keyboards.
    - Silhouette 6y ago
      And some of us would have done. Trying to write anything longer than a brief text message or Tweet using any modern touchscreen phone is excruciating. Swipe-style keyboards have made entering text tolerable, but correcting the mis-reads or even the most basic editing takes orders of magnitude longer than it needs to. Admittedly, modern phones do provide a neat demonstration of various technologies designed to correct the errors caused by an otherwise slow and inaccurate input device.
- cryptonector 6y ago
  Forget about the radio. Climate controls are needed, full stop, and they are distracting if touchscreen-driven.
  - moduspol 6y ago
    Not for me. I'm quite content setting a target temperature and leaving the rest on "auto", although I know for many drivers that's not the case. And obviously it's still in my interests that other drivers not be distracted. But those, too, could be controlled by physical buttons on the steering wheel and/or voice commands.

rblatz 6y ago

The Navy went big in touch screens and is rolling that back. Mazda, by no means a luxury brand, is abandoning touch screens. I think touch screens will stick around for tasks that aren’t routinely done while driving, but there will be a massive correction away from touchscreen as the only interface to the car.

Fiahil 6y ago

Higher-end units are using a "control knob" to navigate on the screen. "Touching" is for "lower-end" vehicles. So, as a matter of fact, yes, you can have _one_ button for every car feature.

setpatchaddress 6y ago

Well, Mazda is going in the opposite direction. More and bigger screens are certainly the way of the future for most cars/SUVs, but I'd advocate strongly for a large set of ergonomic, reassignable hard controls. The best thing about the Tesla Model 3 controls is the configurable control gadget on the steering wheel (though I wish they'd used better materials -- feels absurdly cheap in a $50k car).

throwaway_pdp09 6y ago

> The benchmarking shows nearly every company is moving to screens You're confusing a benchmark with... something else. And I really dislike my new-ish MP3 player with it's damn screen that I have to keep looking at to operate, to do anything. > And if your car doesn't have all the features My MP3 player has a ton of features and I don't need 90% of them. I want it to do one job well - play my music and a few other basic controls, just like my old, physically-operated MP3 player did. I don't want awesome UX/UI bullshit to get in the way, I just want it to do its job. (plz excuse rant)

Fogest 6y ago
That's your opinion and an old-school one at that. The vast majority of customers do not want something that basic.
- throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
  That is my opinion which is why I kept on saying "I". I see nothing wrong at all with 'old-school'. There are too many self proclaimed UI/UX "experts" who keep screwing things up for people (edit: I'll restate that: fucking over their users). I only want what works. > The vast majority of customers do not want something that basic. And you accuse me of 'opinion'. Well, provide evidence of this claim.
- filoleg 6y ago
  This. There will always be a niche of people who want barebones single-purpose old-school experience out of any given device. Goes for literally anything, from cars to phones to music equipment. I definitely fall into this category for some of the things myself. However, it is important to remember that this is not representative at all of what the majority prefers.
  - throwaway_pdp09 6y ago
    This is a better post than its parent, and in some cases, sure I agree. I can't argue with someone who wants the new & shiny, if it works for them, great. But it's being pushed on us so such luddites as myself have no choice any more - it's all touchscreens now. It's become marketing driven. The choice is gone. > this is not representative at all of what the majority prefers I was very careful to not to project my desires on others in my original post, but you're telling me about what "majority prefers". So back this up. I don't think you can.

ohazi 6y ago

> The consensus regarding automobiles and touch interfaces is starting to form that they are just a bad idea. > The benchmarking shows nearly every company is moving to screens. The fact that everyone is moving to screens because they're flashy and cheap ($/feature) doesn't automatically make them a good idea. GP is correct. The consensus from a safety and usability perspective is that touchscreens in cars are a bad idea. Fuck the bean counters.

trixie_ 6y ago
All that matters is what sells. Create a car with tons of buttons and switches today, go out of business tomorrow.
- TeMPOraL 6y ago
  That's why we can't have nice things, only things that are barely fit for purpose.
- Silhouette 6y ago
  That looks like an excellent argument for stronger safety regulations. It is now illegal to drive any vehicle on public roads that does not meet the following safety standards: X, Y, Z. There you go, market for idiots who like flashy gadgets over safe vehicle controls eliminated. We did it with drink driving. We did it with driving on phones (though both the laws and the enforcement are still far from ideal on this one). We can do it with obviously dumb ideas for vehicle controls where there is evidence of severe safety problems too.

elsonrodriguez 6y ago

I've pasted this before, but there's a middle ground between touch screens and buttons: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6YYun90S8g&feature=youtu.be&t=6m22s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6YYun90S8g&feature=youtu.be...

cryptonector 6y ago
I will not be buying any cars with that interface. Climate controls must be physical, full bloody stop.

cryptonector 6y ago

What a ridiculous reply. > The benchmarking shows nearly every company is moving to screens. Benchmarking? Really. > Sure you might have a few models that remove the screen Mazda is removing or de-emphasizing them across their product line if I understood correctly. > You literally can't have a button for every car feature. Yes, true, very very true. Also irrelevant. The point is that features like: - climate control - stereo volume (and other radio controls) - defrost - etc should be physical buttons because drivers use them a lot and should not have to take their eyes off the road to use them and should NEVER have to their eyes off the road to see if their inputs took (touch/display latency sucks). > And if your car doesn't have all the features, you won't sell well. The features that must have physical input methods, must have them, and the others can be touch screens if you really like. Also, fewer features is kinda fine, really, if it makes the roads safer. > 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. I.e., I must be cheap. Or maybe I would be happy with older cars (or newer Mazdas) precisely because they have these physical inputs / lack those dangerous touchscreens that I detest.

krupp3 6y ago

Are you working for American auto maker? Because Europe and Japan also had this idea how touch screen is cool, new and the future. 2016-2018 were the blunder years with everything being touch. And soon people realized that touch, no surprise, is shit. So for most common operations makers have added buttons back - climate and audio controls. For never used settings - like should interior lights come up when you open the door, beep sound loudness, interior light brightness, etc - yea, touch screen is good. For stuff that you actually use - no. It blows my mind people think touch screens are good. If they are so good, why don't we use touch inputs for blinker signals behind steering wheel? For steering itself? Swipe left to go left. Why no touch input for shift paddles? Hell, why I never saw anyone using touch screen keyboard instead of a physical one? Silicon valley devs could easily afford one and to them touch is superior to physical buttons. Nope, 1970s or w/e physical keyboards for every computer, it's like there's a bubble somewhere where "new = always good and old = always bad".