4 ms·
> Fog lights for example. I've never driven a Tesla or another car with a touchscreen. I almost never need fog lights, so I wouldn't even know which knob to tu
by adwn 6y ago
> Fog lights for example.
I've never driven a Tesla or another car with a touchscreen. I almost never need fog lights, so I wouldn't even know which knob to turn which way in my new car. Doesn't help that it's different for every car manufacturer. I'd actually prefer a touchscreen with big, properly labeled buttons for this.
- henrikschroder 6y agoThe controls might be different, but the symbols are a global standard.
- adwn 6y agoYes, but I also need to take my eyes off the road (like for the touchscreen) and look for small symbols in a badly lit corner of the dashboard (unlike for the touchscreen). Look, I'm not arguing for replacing physical controls with touchscreens, I'm just pointing out that it's not as clear-cut as some knob-proponents would have you believe.
- henrikschroder 6y agoSure, a touchscreen might be better for discovery, for when you need to use a thing you've never used before. Physical controls excel at repeated use though, because you develop muscle memory for it. Imagine if the blinkers had to be activated through the touch screen. That sounds completely ridiculous, right?
- adwn 6y ago> Physical controls excel at repeated use though, because you develop muscle memory for it. Imagine if the blinkers had to be activated through the touch screen. Again, you're arguing against a point of view which I've never professed. Yes, of course it would be ridiculous if you had to activate your blinkers through the touchscreen. Did anyone claim otherwise? Are the blinkers in a Tesla controlled through the touchscreen?
- henrikschroder 6y ago> Again, you're arguing against a point of view which I've never professed. Fair enough, but your argument that physical buttons aren't so great basically boils down to "they suck the first time". Which is correct, but in the long run they're simply superior.