3 ms·
Not that I'm defending the technology in this case, but I notice that some people still believe it's unnecessary to read the user's manual of a modern car. Mayb
by MrGilbert 5y ago
Not that I'm defending the technology in this case, but I notice that some people still believe it's unnecessary to read the user's manual of a modern car. Maybe this mindset has to change.
- yholio 5y agoStrongly disagree. If you mimic the established user interface of the car people have been using for generations, then it should behave like people expect it too. If special qualifications are required to drive it, then you should sell it only to those who can prove them. You cannot build something that looks like an elevator, has buttons with numeric labels, and when people push one button the doors close and they find out they just selected the power setting of a giant microwave oven. I mean, you can build it, if you don't care about people getting microwaved.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 5y agoMaybe the problem is, at best, alpha level software is being field tested by million’s of people with life and death consequences. Cars computer systems should always fail safely. If that can’t be designed right now then test it with professional drivers.
- jacquesm 5y agoThe user interface of a car was standardized 100 years ago. If you need to read the manual of a car to decide which crap feature to disable seven menu layers deep in a configuration menu - assuming that the function to disable it even exists - then that vehicle should come with a mandatory examination before you can drive it and should not be allowed to be used for rental / short lease fleets. Your typical manufacturer makes a very large fraction of their income from exactly those two applications. If there is a mindset that has to change then it is that sticking something somewhere in a manual is sufficient disclaimer to be able to claim 'user error' in case of trouble.