4 ms·

They needed a study for this?

by temporallobe 4y ago

SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
On the one hand, "no kidding, we knew that. Duh." On the other hand, doing a study to confirm what we think we know to be true is not always wasted effort. For the simple reason that we are sometimes wrong. And for the reason that studies can measure magnitude of such an effect. And variation. And for the reason that for many contexts (e.g. safety legislation or safety standards) a study is proof and a call to act, in ways that "everybody knows that" is not. I don't know if this will result in legislation, but it is a step on that path.
- temporallobe 4y ago
  Of course I was being facetious, and I agree that studies needed (and need) to be done in order to “prove” that tactile controls are safer. It has always been extremely hypocritical to me that certain states like Maryland crack down harshly on mobile device usage but basically ignore distracted driving because of engagement with a screen in your vehicle, which can be just as dangerous. In my opinion, screens per se aren’t bad, however there should be a set of standards (possibly international) for a core set of redundant tactile controls such as audio volume/mute, any and all essential vehicle functions, ALL climate control functions, and obvious preset buttons for major infotainment functions such as audio, climate, navigation, and communication. I drove a vehicle recently that didn’t have an easy way to switch between Waze on CarPlay and the vehicle’s built-in SiriusXM audio. And some makes have moved to a completely screen-based gauge cluster, which is neat in concept but allows for shenanigans such as the possibility of accidentally choosing a “theme” that hides basic information or is confusing with no obvious way to revert. Mercedes is especially guilty of this. There are so many more examples. Essentially, we need a Vehicle Control Bill of Rights.

4 ms·

They needed a study for this?

by temporallobe 4y ago

They needed a study for this?

SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
On the one hand, "no kidding, we knew that. Duh." On the other hand, doing a study to confirm what we think we know to be true is not always wasted effort. For the simple reason that we are sometimes wrong. And for the reason that studies can measure magnitude of such an effect. And variation. And for the reason that for many contexts (e.g. safety legislation or safety standards) a study is proof and a call to act, in ways that "everybody knows that" is not. I don't know if this will result in legislation, but it is a step on that path.
- temporallobe 4y ago
  Of course I was being facetious, and I agree that studies needed (and need) to be done in order to “prove” that tactile controls are safer. It has always been extremely hypocritical to me that certain states like Maryland crack down harshly on mobile device usage but basically ignore distracted driving because of engagement with a screen in your vehicle, which can be just as dangerous. In my opinion, screens per se aren’t bad, however there should be a set of standards (possibly international) for a core set of redundant tactile controls such as audio volume/mute, any and all essential vehicle functions, ALL climate control functions, and obvious preset buttons for major infotainment functions such as audio, climate, navigation, and communication. I drove a vehicle recently that didn’t have an easy way to switch between Waze on CarPlay and the vehicle’s built-in SiriusXM audio. And some makes have moved to a completely screen-based gauge cluster, which is neat in concept but allows for shenanigans such as the possibility of accidentally choosing a “theme” that hides basic information or is confusing with no obvious way to revert. Mercedes is especially guilty of this. There are so many more examples. Essentially, we need a Vehicle Control Bill of Rights.