4 ms·

Many of the top rated comments in here are kind of missing the point. “No touch screens” isn’t the optimal configuration. Instead, you want buttons on the dash

by atty 4y ago

Many of the top rated comments in here are kind of missing the point. “No touch screens” isn’t the optimal configuration. Instead, you want buttons on the dash or wheel for commonly used actions, and you want less common actions on a nice large touch screen that also functions as a good GPS screen. The touch screen, since it can have scrollable menus, gives significantly more customization opportunity than pure physical controls allow. I’d also point out many of the things they asked the driver to do are things you wouldn’t normally be doing once you’re already driving, you’d do then before you started. A much more representative sample of things you’d do while driving would be something like “turn down volume, turn on windshield wipers”.

alexb_ 4y ago
>The touch screen, since it can have scrollable menus, gives significantly more customization opportunity than pure physical controls allow. You can do this while also having actual physical interfaces. You just have to put actual effort into making a design. Touchscreens are not the end-all-be-all of good design.
jollyllama 4y ago
Speak for yourself; I'd rather be able to leave the GPS at home when I want.
tinsmith 4y ago
What you described should be the industry ideal. I point to my 2017 Kia Niro as a good example of this. For the most part, it offers physical buttons for all common and "while driving" actions, leaving the touch screen to be an effective passive display for navigation. In fact, this is largely why I purchased the vehicle after test driving a few others that had much bigger touch screens, but less physical buttons. The Niro felt the most balanced. Oddly (perhaps not?), I use this same thought process when shopping for smartphones. One or two physical buttons is not enough, especially with screens being prone to the same failures they were 10 years ago.
- sbradford26 4y ago
  So my wife owns a 2017 Kia Niro and I have a 2017 Hyundai Ioniq. The cars have the same drive train and the infotainment systems and controls are similar but there are small differences between the two of them. For one both cars have dials for controlling the temperature but my Ioniq has a dedicated display for the temperature while the Niro only has a display overlay that appears when you adjust it. Just always thought it was odd to have a physical control for something but then relegate the display for that control to a pop up on the touch screen.
MaulingMonkey 4y ago
> “No touch screens” isn’t the optimal configuration [citation needed] > Instead, you want buttons on the dash or wheel for commonly used actions, Yes. > and you want less common actions on a nice large touch screen that also functions as a good GPS screen. No, I don't want a whole second set of controls tossed willy nilly into an entirely different physical interface as a second-class afterthought because the designers were too lazy to figure out how to do it properly with physical controls. Consoles like the XB1 and PS4 have been doing fine building gamepad-driven user interfaces with a relatively limited number of physical inputs, no touchscreens required. Yes, including such things as scrollable menus. And given the disappointing nature of bespoke car GPSes (my current one can't even handle my home address!) I'd honestly prefer a proper phone dock replacing that touch screen, and allowing my car's manufacturer to focus on their core competencies, and allowing me a modular choice for handling what the car lacks. > [...] gives significantly more customization opportunity than pure physical controls allow. A power which is used for evil far more than it's used for good. "Customizable" and "bespoke and standardsless" are synonymous here. The limitations and constraints of physical controls are a wonderful forcing function that made for more consistent, tactile interfaces, that will inevitably be skipped over for some gauche touchscreen based vomit whenever there's an opportunity to do so.
- vsdlrd 4y ago
  > I'd honestly prefer a proper phone dock replacing that touch screen So you are not against touch screens, but against poorly designed touch interfaces
  - MaulingMonkey 4y ago
    I'm seriously considering "downgrading" to a flip phone with real buttons and no touch screen, despite the absolute ubiquity of touch-driven mobile software - so no, that's a premature narrowing of my words. I disable touchscreens on laptops because 90% of my interaction with them has always been accidental, even ignoring the cases where an overheating panel "touches" itself. Even a touchpad demands a physical toggle, or palm-triggered touches while typing will make using the device an exercise in masochistic self-flagellation. My poor mom is constantly accidentally triggering her's cellphone's touch screen by the slightest brushes of a trailing finger, or simply by holding the edges of the phone. Put another way: I dispute the existence of touch interfaces - at least for cars - that aren't poorly designed. I will admit the possibility of the existence of touch interfaces for other things that aren't poor, but I'm becoming ever more skeptical of that over time as well.
jehlakj 4y ago
Does "turn down volume" work when you're playing loud music or have the windows down driving on a windy/noisy road?
karaterobot 4y ago
> The touch screen, since it can have scrollable menus, gives significantly more customization opportunity than pure physical controls allow. I do want a screen for GPS navigation, and for the backup camera, but I don't need it to be touchable at all. I'd rather have fewer features that need customization than add a whole system that allows me to customize those features.
- LtWorf 4y ago
  The screen should also be matte. The glossy screens which point the sun at my face when the sun is behind aren't so good.
cush 4y ago
If the only way to access the extra "less common" features is via touch, then it's a fail. Mazda has lots of menu options, and you can access it all via their click wheel. It's a great UI, and if you like touching, you can touch the screen too.

by atty 4y ago

alexb_ 4y ago

>The touch screen, since it can have scrollable menus, gives significantly more customization opportunity than pure physical controls allow. You can do this while also having actual physical interfaces. You just have to put actual effort into making a design. Touchscreens are not the end-all-be-all of good design.

jollyllama 4y ago

Speak for yourself; I'd rather be able to leave the GPS at home when I want.

tinsmith 4y ago

What you described should be the industry ideal. I point to my 2017 Kia Niro as a good example of this. For the most part, it offers physical buttons for all common and "while driving" actions, leaving the touch screen to be an effective passive display for navigation. In fact, this is largely why I purchased the vehicle after test driving a few others that had much bigger touch screens, but less physical buttons. The Niro felt the most balanced. Oddly (perhaps not?), I use this same thought process when shopping for smartphones. One or two physical buttons is not enough, especially with screens being prone to the same failures they were 10 years ago.

sbradford26 4y ago
So my wife owns a 2017 Kia Niro and I have a 2017 Hyundai Ioniq. The cars have the same drive train and the infotainment systems and controls are similar but there are small differences between the two of them. For one both cars have dials for controlling the temperature but my Ioniq has a dedicated display for the temperature while the Niro only has a display overlay that appears when you adjust it. Just always thought it was odd to have a physical control for something but then relegate the display for that control to a pop up on the touch screen.

MaulingMonkey 4y ago

> “No touch screens” isn’t the optimal configuration [citation needed] > Instead, you want buttons on the dash or wheel for commonly used actions, Yes. > and you want less common actions on a nice large touch screen that also functions as a good GPS screen. No, I don't want a whole second set of controls tossed willy nilly into an entirely different physical interface as a second-class afterthought because the designers were too lazy to figure out how to do it properly with physical controls. Consoles like the XB1 and PS4 have been doing fine building gamepad-driven user interfaces with a relatively limited number of physical inputs, no touchscreens required. Yes, including such things as scrollable menus. And given the disappointing nature of bespoke car GPSes (my current one can't even handle my home address!) I'd honestly prefer a proper phone dock replacing that touch screen, and allowing my car's manufacturer to focus on their core competencies, and allowing me a modular choice for handling what the car lacks. > [...] gives significantly more customization opportunity than pure physical controls allow. A power which is used for evil far more than it's used for good. "Customizable" and "bespoke and standardsless" are synonymous here. The limitations and constraints of physical controls are a wonderful forcing function that made for more consistent, tactile interfaces, that will inevitably be skipped over for some gauche touchscreen based vomit whenever there's an opportunity to do so.

vsdlrd 4y ago
> I'd honestly prefer a proper phone dock replacing that touch screen So you are not against touch screens, but against poorly designed touch interfaces
- MaulingMonkey 4y ago
  I'm seriously considering "downgrading" to a flip phone with real buttons and no touch screen, despite the absolute ubiquity of touch-driven mobile software - so no, that's a premature narrowing of my words. I disable touchscreens on laptops because 90% of my interaction with them has always been accidental, even ignoring the cases where an overheating panel "touches" itself. Even a touchpad demands a physical toggle, or palm-triggered touches while typing will make using the device an exercise in masochistic self-flagellation. My poor mom is constantly accidentally triggering her's cellphone's touch screen by the slightest brushes of a trailing finger, or simply by holding the edges of the phone. Put another way: I dispute the existence of touch interfaces - at least for cars - that aren't poorly designed. I will admit the possibility of the existence of touch interfaces for other things that aren't poor, but I'm becoming ever more skeptical of that over time as well.

jehlakj 4y ago

Does "turn down volume" work when you're playing loud music or have the windows down driving on a windy/noisy road?

karaterobot 4y ago

> The touch screen, since it can have scrollable menus, gives significantly more customization opportunity than pure physical controls allow. I do want a screen for GPS navigation, and for the backup camera, but I don't need it to be touchable at all. I'd rather have fewer features that need customization than add a whole system that allows me to customize those features.

LtWorf 4y ago
The screen should also be matte. The glossy screens which point the sun at my face when the sun is behind aren't so good.

cush 4y ago

If the only way to access the extra "less common" features is via touch, then it's a fail. Mazda has lots of menu options, and you can access it all via their click wheel. It's a great UI, and if you like touching, you can touch the screen too.