5 ms·

no hate here - the "replace everything with an iPad" movement of car dash design has been generally, IMO, a horrible change. When driving, you need tactile feed

no hate here - the "replace everything with an iPad" movement of car dash design has been generally, IMO, a horrible change. When driving, you need tactile feedback when adjusting things like the cabin temperature so that you can keep your eyes on the road. Replacing knobs with GUI sliders on a screen that you have to see to manipulate is a step backwards. I would love it if auto manufacturers came to their senses and went back to old-fashioned knobs and buttons, but I suspect that just sticking everything on a screen is cheaper to manufacture and maintain, so I won't hold my breath. :(

DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
I agree entirely. Heterogenous (I.e. distinctly shaped) physical controls are essential for safe driving without taking one’s eyes off the road. …but that doesn’t mean my last car’s abysmal “Ford MyTouch” or “Ford Sync” or whatever they rebrand it’s as was ever fit-for-purpose. How can a UI that can’t render faster than ~5fps be considered acceptable by the world’s leading carmaker? Where is the pride in their work?
- genocidicbunny 4y ago
  You have a very good and valid point. Incidentally, despite being not a fan of Tesla's UX, I also see a bit of the silver lining in that it at least got people to start talking about it, both via the point you're making (that all other car UX sucks too) and also starting to ask the questions about what makes a good UX rather than a pretty one.
  - DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
    > at least got people to start talking about it You speak as though this is something new. It isn't. It was the same story back with Apple's iPod's clickwheel-and-drilldown UX. Nothing was stopping Apple's competitors from innovating on their own and potentially making something superior (and I was particularly fond of the contemporaneous UI of MS's PocketPC 2000's Media Player[1]). But they didn't. Instead everyone: Creative, Dell[2], Rio/iRiver, everyone just kept on putting out unusable plastic flash players that took 30 minutes to sync 10 minutes of 32kbps mono MP3 over COM1 or bulky HDD players unusuable to everyone except those people with ponytails who run that strange new "Linux" operating system I've been hearing so much about. And before that, it was probably Braun vs. Philips. For noncoherent reasons that I can't string together into a readable paragraph (I wasted over 10 minutes trying to already) I'll just say I think it's inevitable that in any consumer industry there will eventually be only one company with a monopoly on good taste and good design. Also consider how companies will hire people who are already aligned with the company's values, and we know Apple hires people with an eye for design regardless of their role, but Apple's competitors never had an eye for design, so they neve hired people with an eye for design, so they're never able to compete with Apple on the design front. Upstart competitors might be formed with an objective to wrest-away Apple's monopoly on good design but (post-1997) how could any design-focused small-fry compete with Apple on design? They can't. They'd ever get bought-out before they become too big to become a threat (if Apple's feeling nice), or end-up as another also-ran Android vendor with a nice handset, but you're still stuck with Google, and without the leverage of Samsung. I don't know where I'm going with this post now, so I'll just end it here. [1] Rightmost screenshot: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/KMKZKDjJzWY/maxresdefault.jpg https://i.ytimg.com/vi/KMKZKDjJzWY/maxresdefault.jpg [2] https://daringfireball.net/2005/09/ditty https://daringfireball.net/2005/09/ditty
genocidicbunny 4y ago
I think part of the problem is also the expansion of functionality in infotainment systems, especially if you're using android auto or similar. You end up needing to have a touch screen for some things like text entry (or having a much clunkier input method) and once the touch screen is there, the temptation to cut costs by replacing physical buttons and switches with some software is just too great.
- slondr 4y ago
  Adding a touchscreen to the vehicle's infotainment system is absolutely not required for text entry when you are already connecting a device with a touchscreen to that infotainment system. Carplay/Android Auto devs just aren't creative, I guess.
  - DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
    > Adding a touchscreen to the vehicle's infotainment system is absolutely not required for text entry when you are already connecting a device with a touchscreen to that infotainment system. It is, because a lot of car-makers intentionally make the phone physically inaccessible by being out-of-reach when plugged in for CarPlay/AndroidAuto (they don't want to be complicit in texting-while-driving deaths - would you?). Most societies agree it's okay to use a large touch-screen keyboard thats part of the dashboard because (at least it's meant to be) positioned such that your eyes can still see the road ahead to some degree, and big chunky virtual keys go a long way too. ...telling me to fumble around for my iPhone, then somehow unlock it, get to the right app, then precisely poke its tiiiiny keyboard keys and hope autocorrect doesn't get it wrong (and it will) just to enter a new navigation address when I'm trying to negotiate traffic is a bad idea.

DaiPlusPlus 4y ago

I agree entirely. Heterogenous (I.e. distinctly shaped) physical controls are essential for safe driving without taking one’s eyes off the road. …but that doesn’t mean my last car’s abysmal “Ford MyTouch” or “Ford Sync” or whatever they rebrand it’s as was ever fit-for-purpose. How can a UI that can’t render faster than ~5fps be considered acceptable by the world’s leading carmaker? Where is the pride in their work?

genocidicbunny 4y ago
You have a very good and valid point. Incidentally, despite being not a fan of Tesla's UX, I also see a bit of the silver lining in that it at least got people to start talking about it, both via the point you're making (that all other car UX sucks too) and also starting to ask the questions about what makes a good UX rather than a pretty one.
- DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
  > at least got people to start talking about it You speak as though this is something new. It isn't. It was the same story back with Apple's iPod's clickwheel-and-drilldown UX. Nothing was stopping Apple's competitors from innovating on their own and potentially making something superior (and I was particularly fond of the contemporaneous UI of MS's PocketPC 2000's Media Player[1]). But they didn't. Instead everyone: Creative, Dell[2], Rio/iRiver, everyone just kept on putting out unusable plastic flash players that took 30 minutes to sync 10 minutes of 32kbps mono MP3 over COM1 or bulky HDD players unusuable to everyone except those people with ponytails who run that strange new "Linux" operating system I've been hearing so much about. And before that, it was probably Braun vs. Philips. For noncoherent reasons that I can't string together into a readable paragraph (I wasted over 10 minutes trying to already) I'll just say I think it's inevitable that in any consumer industry there will eventually be only one company with a monopoly on good taste and good design. Also consider how companies will hire people who are already aligned with the company's values, and we know Apple hires people with an eye for design regardless of their role, but Apple's competitors never had an eye for design, so they neve hired people with an eye for design, so they're never able to compete with Apple on the design front. Upstart competitors might be formed with an objective to wrest-away Apple's monopoly on good design but (post-1997) how could any design-focused small-fry compete with Apple on design? They can't. They'd ever get bought-out before they become too big to become a threat (if Apple's feeling nice), or end-up as another also-ran Android vendor with a nice handset, but you're still stuck with Google, and without the leverage of Samsung. I don't know where I'm going with this post now, so I'll just end it here. [1] Rightmost screenshot: https://i.ytimg.com/vi/KMKZKDjJzWY/maxresdefault.jpg https://i.ytimg.com/vi/KMKZKDjJzWY/maxresdefault.jpg [2] https://daringfireball.net/2005/09/ditty https://daringfireball.net/2005/09/ditty

genocidicbunny 4y ago

I think part of the problem is also the expansion of functionality in infotainment systems, especially if you're using android auto or similar. You end up needing to have a touch screen for some things like text entry (or having a much clunkier input method) and once the touch screen is there, the temptation to cut costs by replacing physical buttons and switches with some software is just too great.

slondr 4y ago
Adding a touchscreen to the vehicle's infotainment system is absolutely not required for text entry when you are already connecting a device with a touchscreen to that infotainment system. Carplay/Android Auto devs just aren't creative, I guess.
- DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
  > Adding a touchscreen to the vehicle's infotainment system is absolutely not required for text entry when you are already connecting a device with a touchscreen to that infotainment system. It is, because a lot of car-makers intentionally make the phone physically inaccessible by being out-of-reach when plugged in for CarPlay/AndroidAuto (they don't want to be complicit in texting-while-driving deaths - would you?). Most societies agree it's okay to use a large touch-screen keyboard thats part of the dashboard because (at least it's meant to be) positioned such that your eyes can still see the road ahead to some degree, and big chunky virtual keys go a long way too. ...telling me to fumble around for my iPhone, then somehow unlock it, get to the right app, then precisely poke its tiiiiny keyboard keys and hope autocorrect doesn't get it wrong (and it will) just to enter a new navigation address when I'm trying to negotiate traffic is a bad idea.