8 ms·

I knew this thread would be filled will people that dislike touchscreens. I hate them too and and when we bought our first car, we looked at a used Subaru at th

I knew this thread would be filled will people that dislike touchscreens. I hate them too and and when we bought our first car, we looked at a used Subaru at the last model-year that kept physical controls. I'm a synthesizer designer, so I'm a bit biased towards knobs. My dad just bought a new Toyota Civic and I've watched him be completely frustrated and overwhelmed by the touch screen. I've also had to use it a few times while driving it and noticed that my eyes needed to be off the road for way longer than I'm comfortable with (just to turn the volume down!). Is there ever going to be a movement towards these car companies going back to physical controls for this stuff? Or are we pretty much heading towards a steeringwheel-less wrap around touchscreen dashboard that plays advertisements for nearby businesses. I'm legitimately curious about the safety of these things, and has any studies been done? It's just strange to have car companies investing billions in self-driving cars claiming "you're too distracted to operate a car yourself" and then making current models where adjusting the A/C requires drilling down thru menus.

youeseh 5y ago
I think Mazda makes cars that have a screen whose controls are physical.
- fishywang 5y ago
  Yes. I had a last gen (2014 Mazda 3) and traded it in for a current gen (2021 Mazda 3) earlier this year. On last gen models they do have touch screen, but the touch part is auto disabled when the speed is above a low threshold (5 or 10 mph). In the current gen they just removed touch part completely. With the last gen I only barely used the touch function in the pre-Android-Auto days, to help put the address to its builtin navigation system faster. Later they provided the optional upgrade of Android Auto (for $500) and I don't think I ever used the touch feature after the upgrade. In the current gen Android Auto is standard configuration and I never missed touching. Besides the removal of touching, they also have some other small but useful improvements on the screen on the current gen that I really appreciate: 1. They made the screen wider in the current gen, so with Android Auto you can have 2 apps displaying at the same time, usually maps and music, with one horizontal and one vertical. 2. They made the screen slightly slanted towards the driver in the current gen. Another thing I think most people don't realize is that the design around non-touch screen could mean that the screen can be placed to a better position. When the screen is touchable, it has to be within arms reach, which usually means it has to been lower, and the driver has to look down when they need some info from the screen. The current gen Mazda move it upper, so the driver only need to roll their eyes slightly to see it.
  - 29083011397778 5y ago
    Another 2021 Mazda 3 owner - I hadn't even realized you last point about screen position, but now that you've mentioned it, it's obvious. And frankly, fantastic. The physical-only controls are the entire reason we went with a Mazda, and remembering my 2016 Civic, watching Hagerty's review of the 8th gen Golf, and reading through this is just vindicating that choice. I'd recommend a Mazda, on this basis alone, to anyone that asks - and ridicule other brands when it comes up (with someone that hasn't just dropped thousands on a new car).
- crooked-v 5y ago
  Yes, they had touchscreens for a while but started disabling/removing them from new cars (pre-COVID) for safety reasons. I believe their 2021 cars have all switched to physical controls plus one of those puck things.
jdjdjrj 5y ago
It should be obvious any romantic notions of things like helping the environment or saving lives are just costumes for the reality of most modern business motivations: making money.
- koheripbal 5y ago
  I don't think these cynical comments add anything to the conversation. The reality is that even if the knobs and the touchscreen were identical in cost, the touch screen allows for a separation between the software and hardware design teams. It's quicker to update, enhance, patch, redesign, etc. It's just better from a manufacturing perspective, and aside from the tactile loss, allows more options and more data presentation for the consumer in a much smaller space.
  - consumer451 5y ago
    I am also a cynical, if admitting market forces is cynical. :) The only 75% cynical part of me thought that the move to touchscreens, removing ports, etc improved device lifetime and also lowered the unit cost of things like AppleCare. The less moving parts the less chance of failure, right?
    - cassianoleal 5y ago
      > The less moving parts the less chance of failure, right? Of failure by impact and vibration, perhaps. But that's pretty much a solved problem in car dials and buttons - we have decades ols cars with fully functional dashboards and controls. Otherwise, risk of failure is driven up by complexity, in which case a computer, with all its components, plus an operating system, drivers, etc, and apps on top of it add many layers of complexity in comparison with buttons and dials.
    - lttlrck 5y ago
      an electric motor, wiring harness and software to control vent direction versus a couple of injection molded pieces of plastic... which is less likely to fail and which is easier to repair/replace?
0xy 5y ago
HN leans contrarian and older. Car buyers below 31 prefer touch screens. [1] [1] https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/best-cars-blog/2012/01/young-car-buyers-want-hybrids-lots-of-tech https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/best-cars-blog/2012/01/y...
- kelnos 5y ago
  Prefer, perhaps, but do they increase incidence of distracted driving? That's really the only metric that matters.
- peoplefromibiza 5y ago
  makes sense > Drivers ages 16-17 continue to have the highest rates of crash involvement, injuries to themselves and others and deaths of others in crashes in which they are involved. Drivers age 80 and older have the highest rates of driver deaths. Drivers ages 60-69 were the safest drivers by most measures examined. edit: tangentially, physical controls of newer BMW are badly placed as well.
  - dymk 5y ago
    That group has always had the highest rate of crash involvement, even before touchscreens in cars were a thing.
    - peoplefromibiza 5y ago
      that's the point. the preferences of people with little or no experience shouldn't drive safety considerations.
      - desmosxxx 5y ago
        why? that still makes no sense.
        peoplefromibiza 5y ago
rodgerd 5y ago
> Is there ever going to be a movement towards these car companies going back to physical controls for this stuff? Mazda and Honda already are: https://www.motorbiscuit.com/honda-and-mazda-ditch-touchscreen-controls-for-knobs-finally/ https://www.motorbiscuit.com/honda-and-mazda-ditch-touchscre...
ajsnigrutin 5y ago
Touchscreens in cars are great... for non-essential stuff. Want to change the backlight color for the instrument cluster? Touchscreen is a lot better for that (given a good gui menu system) than holding two buttons at the same time, then holding one, and clicking the other 6 times, waiting 3 seconds, and then clicking through the colors. Touchscreen for radio control, AC, answering (bluetooth) phone, and stuff... no, thank you, give me physical controls.
- switch007 5y ago
  > than holding two buttons at the same time, then holding one, and clicking the other 6 times, waiting 3 seconds, and then clicking through the colors. Why can’t it be a dedicated dial? If you run out of room, maybe it’s not so important
  - tokamak-teapot 5y ago
    The Mini has a dedicated button to switch instrument panel colours. Or at least, older models did.
  - saganus 5y ago
    That's the point of touchscreens I think. Being able to offer users a myriad of config options without the need for tons of knobs. Not saying I like it, but a lot of people seem to. I guess the ideal setup would be knobs for essential stuff like volume, AC, etc, and then a touchscreen for the rest of the stuff.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - bmakdbd 5y ago
    You want a dial to “change the backlight color for the instrument cluster”??
skwirl 5y ago
Subarus still have physical controls, so I'm confused by your first sentence. They also include a touch-screen infotainment system, but it doesn't really replace any physical controls (except maybe favorite radio station buttons?)
asaph 5y ago
> My dad just bought a new Toyota Civic and ... Honda makes the Civic, not Toyota.
- ianai 5y ago
  Don't know about all of their models, but my Rav4 Prime has plenty of knobs and buttons. I think I only really use the touchscreen for changing Apple Car apps and switching Spotify playlists.
- 1-6 5y ago
  Nitpicking is fun
1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago
I want to see the marketing studies where marketers provide evidence that touchscreens actually reduce costs and/or increase sales.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
hellbannedguy 5y ago
As a former mechanic, and some who has only once brought a car to a dealership for repair; my concern is Reparibility. My father bought his last new truck in 1998. The salesman ask my father about power windows, and other accessories. My father was a Shade Tree mechanic his whole life. He just looked a me, and said, "I hope I never see the day I can't roll down a window, and those motors are just another thing to fix." I was comfortable with the computer controlling the truck. I knew they had federal standards, and requirements. I also remember an instructor telling us, you will see a lot of mechanics replace the computer. It's not the computer. The failures rate of a vechicle's computer is extremely low. What happens is the mechanics damages the computer by checking it's ohms with the wrong DVOM, or short it out by accident. My point is about simplicity, and the availability of parts. I believe the only computers that the federal government demands high standards for are the main computer that you plug your scan tool into, and in many vechicles the sewerage power train computer. All those dash computers don't have the same quality demands from the government? I just don't want to see the day where only wealthy people buy vechicles because of maintenance/repair costs.
Waterluvian 5y ago
Out of curiosity which Subaru were you looking at? I got a 2020 Forester with a touch screen but 100% of non-home-theatre and 75% of home theatre controls had physical interfaces. I was really quite happy with the balance.
Krisjohn 5y ago
"I'm a synthesizer designer, so I'm a bit biased towards knobs." Plenty of those still on the roads.
turtlebits 5y ago
IMO it's about UX than touchscreen vs physical controls. I bought a new Toyota tacoma and it has the worst UX I've seen in a vehicle. The touchscreen UI is bad, the physical button layout is terrible also. It took me a good 5 minutes to figure out how to turn off the truck bed light. The steering wheel button placement is also horrible. Even the push to start button has like 3 different modes (which I don't fully understand). A number of pushes for accessories only, accessories + power windows, ignition.
- nyc640 5y ago
  I think it's arguably both. Bad UX means that it's difficult to learn how to do things and can make it easy to press the wrong button even once you are used to it. However, having driven my share of cars that are exclusively touch screen, even when you know where something is (capacitative volume buttons, touchscreen climate change controls), it takes too long to find and adjust the settings compared to having physical knobs that you can easily reach over and adjust without taking your eyes off the road.
ronnier 5y ago
IMO only Tesla got this right. I absolutely love the touch screen. Though I wouldn't mind some physically buttons for a few essentials like A/C
Infinitesimus 5y ago
Your experience with the Honda Civic is largely because of poor UX. You can make thoughtful touchscreen designs and combine them with physical buttons for a great user experience. Pinching to zoom and using your finger to drag a map around to get sense of the terrain in an unknown area is fantastic. Using a touchscreen to reduce volume is stupid. Etc. Etc. I specifically avoided Honda/Toyota/Mazda because I didn't like the UX of their touch screens. People seem okay to Tesla's implementations as well because they also have a very responsive system. Don't forget that you can have crappy UX with physical controls as well.
itronitron 5y ago
Existing research on change blindness would be a good starting point. http://nivea.psycho.univ-paris5.fr/#CB http://nivea.psycho.univ-paris5.fr/#CB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change_blindness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change_blindness

youeseh 5y ago

I think Mazda makes cars that have a screen whose controls are physical.

fishywang 5y ago
Yes. I had a last gen (2014 Mazda 3) and traded it in for a current gen (2021 Mazda 3) earlier this year. On last gen models they do have touch screen, but the touch part is auto disabled when the speed is above a low threshold (5 or 10 mph). In the current gen they just removed touch part completely. With the last gen I only barely used the touch function in the pre-Android-Auto days, to help put the address to its builtin navigation system faster. Later they provided the optional upgrade of Android Auto (for $500) and I don't think I ever used the touch feature after the upgrade. In the current gen Android Auto is standard configuration and I never missed touching. Besides the removal of touching, they also have some other small but useful improvements on the screen on the current gen that I really appreciate: 1. They made the screen wider in the current gen, so with Android Auto you can have 2 apps displaying at the same time, usually maps and music, with one horizontal and one vertical. 2. They made the screen slightly slanted towards the driver in the current gen. Another thing I think most people don't realize is that the design around non-touch screen could mean that the screen can be placed to a better position. When the screen is touchable, it has to be within arms reach, which usually means it has to been lower, and the driver has to look down when they need some info from the screen. The current gen Mazda move it upper, so the driver only need to roll their eyes slightly to see it.
- 29083011397778 5y ago
  Another 2021 Mazda 3 owner - I hadn't even realized you last point about screen position, but now that you've mentioned it, it's obvious. And frankly, fantastic. The physical-only controls are the entire reason we went with a Mazda, and remembering my 2016 Civic, watching Hagerty's review of the 8th gen Golf, and reading through this is just vindicating that choice. I'd recommend a Mazda, on this basis alone, to anyone that asks - and ridicule other brands when it comes up (with someone that hasn't just dropped thousands on a new car).
crooked-v 5y ago
Yes, they had touchscreens for a while but started disabling/removing them from new cars (pre-COVID) for safety reasons. I believe their 2021 cars have all switched to physical controls plus one of those puck things.

jdjdjrj 5y ago

It should be obvious any romantic notions of things like helping the environment or saving lives are just costumes for the reality of most modern business motivations: making money.

koheripbal 5y ago
I don't think these cynical comments add anything to the conversation. The reality is that even if the knobs and the touchscreen were identical in cost, the touch screen allows for a separation between the software and hardware design teams. It's quicker to update, enhance, patch, redesign, etc. It's just better from a manufacturing perspective, and aside from the tactile loss, allows more options and more data presentation for the consumer in a much smaller space.
- consumer451 5y ago
  I am also a cynical, if admitting market forces is cynical. :) The only 75% cynical part of me thought that the move to touchscreens, removing ports, etc improved device lifetime and also lowered the unit cost of things like AppleCare. The less moving parts the less chance of failure, right?
  - cassianoleal 5y ago
    > The less moving parts the less chance of failure, right? Of failure by impact and vibration, perhaps. But that's pretty much a solved problem in car dials and buttons - we have decades ols cars with fully functional dashboards and controls. Otherwise, risk of failure is driven up by complexity, in which case a computer, with all its components, plus an operating system, drivers, etc, and apps on top of it add many layers of complexity in comparison with buttons and dials.
  - lttlrck 5y ago
    an electric motor, wiring harness and software to control vent direction versus a couple of injection molded pieces of plastic... which is less likely to fail and which is easier to repair/replace?

0xy 5y ago

HN leans contrarian and older. Car buyers below 31 prefer touch screens. [1] [1] https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/best-cars-blog/2012/01/young-car-buyers-want-hybrids-lots-of-tech https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/best-cars-blog/2012/01/y...

kelnos 5y ago
Prefer, perhaps, but do they increase incidence of distracted driving? That's really the only metric that matters.
peoplefromibiza 5y ago
makes sense > Drivers ages 16-17 continue to have the highest rates of crash involvement, injuries to themselves and others and deaths of others in crashes in which they are involved. Drivers age 80 and older have the highest rates of driver deaths. Drivers ages 60-69 were the safest drivers by most measures examined. edit: tangentially, physical controls of newer BMW are badly placed as well.
- dymk 5y ago
  That group has always had the highest rate of crash involvement, even before touchscreens in cars were a thing.
  - peoplefromibiza 5y ago
    that's the point. the preferences of people with little or no experience shouldn't drive safety considerations.
    - desmosxxx 5y ago
      why? that still makes no sense.
      - peoplefromibiza 5y ago

rodgerd 5y ago

> Is there ever going to be a movement towards these car companies going back to physical controls for this stuff? Mazda and Honda already are: https://www.motorbiscuit.com/honda-and-mazda-ditch-touchscreen-controls-for-knobs-finally/ https://www.motorbiscuit.com/honda-and-mazda-ditch-touchscre...

ajsnigrutin 5y ago

Touchscreens in cars are great... for non-essential stuff. Want to change the backlight color for the instrument cluster? Touchscreen is a lot better for that (given a good gui menu system) than holding two buttons at the same time, then holding one, and clicking the other 6 times, waiting 3 seconds, and then clicking through the colors. Touchscreen for radio control, AC, answering (bluetooth) phone, and stuff... no, thank you, give me physical controls.

switch007 5y ago
> than holding two buttons at the same time, then holding one, and clicking the other 6 times, waiting 3 seconds, and then clicking through the colors. Why can’t it be a dedicated dial? If you run out of room, maybe it’s not so important
- tokamak-teapot 5y ago
  The Mini has a dedicated button to switch instrument panel colours. Or at least, older models did.
- saganus 5y ago
  That's the point of touchscreens I think. Being able to offer users a myriad of config options without the need for tons of knobs. Not saying I like it, but a lot of people seem to. I guess the ideal setup would be knobs for essential stuff like volume, AC, etc, and then a touchscreen for the rest of the stuff.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- bmakdbd 5y ago
  You want a dial to “change the backlight color for the instrument cluster”??

skwirl 5y ago

Subarus still have physical controls, so I'm confused by your first sentence. They also include a touch-screen infotainment system, but it doesn't really replace any physical controls (except maybe favorite radio station buttons?)

asaph 5y ago

> My dad just bought a new Toyota Civic and ... Honda makes the Civic, not Toyota.

ianai 5y ago
Don't know about all of their models, but my Rav4 Prime has plenty of knobs and buttons. I think I only really use the touchscreen for changing Apple Car apps and switching Spotify playlists.
1-6 5y ago
Nitpicking is fun

1vuio0pswjnm7 5y ago

I want to see the marketing studies where marketers provide evidence that touchscreens actually reduce costs and/or increase sales.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

hellbannedguy 5y ago

As a former mechanic, and some who has only once brought a car to a dealership for repair; my concern is Reparibility. My father bought his last new truck in 1998. The salesman ask my father about power windows, and other accessories. My father was a Shade Tree mechanic his whole life. He just looked a me, and said, "I hope I never see the day I can't roll down a window, and those motors are just another thing to fix." I was comfortable with the computer controlling the truck. I knew they had federal standards, and requirements. I also remember an instructor telling us, you will see a lot of mechanics replace the computer. It's not the computer. The failures rate of a vechicle's computer is extremely low. What happens is the mechanics damages the computer by checking it's ohms with the wrong DVOM, or short it out by accident. My point is about simplicity, and the availability of parts. I believe the only computers that the federal government demands high standards for are the main computer that you plug your scan tool into, and in many vechicles the sewerage power train computer. All those dash computers don't have the same quality demands from the government? I just don't want to see the day where only wealthy people buy vechicles because of maintenance/repair costs.

Waterluvian 5y ago

Out of curiosity which Subaru were you looking at? I got a 2020 Forester with a touch screen but 100% of non-home-theatre and 75% of home theatre controls had physical interfaces. I was really quite happy with the balance.

Krisjohn 5y ago

"I'm a synthesizer designer, so I'm a bit biased towards knobs." Plenty of those still on the roads.

turtlebits 5y ago

IMO it's about UX than touchscreen vs physical controls. I bought a new Toyota tacoma and it has the worst UX I've seen in a vehicle. The touchscreen UI is bad, the physical button layout is terrible also. It took me a good 5 minutes to figure out how to turn off the truck bed light. The steering wheel button placement is also horrible. Even the push to start button has like 3 different modes (which I don't fully understand). A number of pushes for accessories only, accessories + power windows, ignition.

nyc640 5y ago
I think it's arguably both. Bad UX means that it's difficult to learn how to do things and can make it easy to press the wrong button even once you are used to it. However, having driven my share of cars that are exclusively touch screen, even when you know where something is (capacitative volume buttons, touchscreen climate change controls), it takes too long to find and adjust the settings compared to having physical knobs that you can easily reach over and adjust without taking your eyes off the road.

ronnier 5y ago

IMO only Tesla got this right. I absolutely love the touch screen. Though I wouldn't mind some physically buttons for a few essentials like A/C

Infinitesimus 5y ago

Your experience with the Honda Civic is largely because of poor UX. You can make thoughtful touchscreen designs and combine them with physical buttons for a great user experience. Pinching to zoom and using your finger to drag a map around to get sense of the terrain in an unknown area is fantastic. Using a touchscreen to reduce volume is stupid. Etc. Etc. I specifically avoided Honda/Toyota/Mazda because I didn't like the UX of their touch screens. People seem okay to Tesla's implementations as well because they also have a very responsive system. Don't forget that you can have crappy UX with physical controls as well.

itronitron 5y ago

Existing research on change blindness would be a good starting point. http://nivea.psycho.univ-paris5.fr/#CB http://nivea.psycho.univ-paris5.fr/#CB https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change_blindness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Change_blindness