4 ms·

Around 10 years ago, I started looking into buying a new car. I couldn't believe the number of cars that switched to touch controls even 10 years ago. It boggle

Around 10 years ago, I started looking into buying a new car. I couldn't believe the number of cars that switched to touch controls even 10 years ago. It boggles my mind just how car makers thought it was safer/easier to have touch in a car while one is driving. I refused to buy any car that replaced physical buttons with touch controls 10 years ago and I still have this rule today. Then again, it also boggles my mind how car makers in the US continue to use flashing red lights as the turn signal instead of yellow lights. You can barely see the red light in sunlight and it's harder to tell the red light from brake lights. Furthermore, the same car will have yellow signal lights in the front and side. So yellow signal lights in front and side, red in the back. Just make it all yellow for turn signal!

bolasanibk 3y ago
I would the main driver was economics. It would be easier and cheaper to manufacture one big screen in the middle compared to a bunch of physical controls with wiring. Also makes it easier to change things later in the design if you do not have a bunch of physical controls to move.
- aurareturn 3y ago
  I get the cheaper and the ability to update thing. But if any car makers had done any proper UX testing, they'd quickly find out that physical buttons in a car is a non-negotiable.
- ahartmetz 3y ago
  Do not forget the massive "tablets are the future of computing" hype because Apple released a thing. Touchscreens were super cool by association. It was all pretty stupid. I say that as someone who creates mostly software for touchscreens... using keyboard and mouse because they are much better input devices. You just need the space and the budget for them.
ceejayoz 3y ago
> Then again, it also boggles my mind how car makers in the US continue to use flashing red lights as the turn signal instead of yellow lights. You can barely see the red light in sunlight and it's harder to tell the red light from brake lights. I'm also starting to see really thin - single narrow LED strip - turn signals that are barely visible next to the much larger headlight nearby.
tpmoney 3y ago
> It boggles my mind just how car makers thought it was safer/easier to have touch in a car while one is driving. Does anyone actually think that though? Or was it considered “good enough” in light of its other benefits like reducing costs, reducing BOM, eliminating part design work, reducing wiring complexity, adding flexibility and customizability, (potentially) increased reliability, making it easier to jam the multitudes of controls and options a modern car has into a more usable and understandable interface, etc. Don’t get me wrong, when I bought a new car, one of the selling points was the manufacturer was one of the few to still offer physical control and navigation of the touch screens (in fact the touch functionality is completely disabled at any speed faster than 5 mph). But I don’t think “safer and easier to use while driving” has ever been the driver for touch interfaces in cars.
- aurareturn 3y ago
  Yes yes I get the cheaper/update factor of touch controls. And I don't mind a touch screen for complicated functionality. I mainly gripe about losing physical buttons for main functions such as temperature control, radio/music control, lights, windshield wipers, etc.
pwg 3y ago
> It boggles my mind just how car makers thought it was safer/easier to have touch in a car while one is driving. It is likely that neither safety nor ease of use were part of the automaker's "thought process". It is much more likely that a first misguided "designer" created the first touch panel control and somehow sold it to "management" as being "futuristic" and/or "ahead of the competition". And once the first car model arrived with one, the rest, like firefox to chrome, felt the need to play the imitation game for fear of being seen as not as "trendy" or "futuristic" as that other guy. I.e., purely the "fashion trend" aspect. Then, as they proliferated, the reduced BOM costs from removing every other previous mechanical control was reverse justified as the reason for continuing to add them to ever more car models.
- userbinator 3y ago
  Safety was part of the thought process --- just enough to get by whatever regulations are currently in effect.
- lelanthran 3y ago
  Well, yes, that's the main reason - it's cheaper. There are other reasons of course - planned obsolesence is a big one. Why would they want cars to work after the primary owner is done with it? With software-everything they can lock the car to the first 3 or 4 owners, and then remotely kill it. It doesn't even have to be actively disabled, just stop providing the replacement head unit as a part because "we don't have that software anymore".
- drc500free 3y ago
  My understanding is that the real driver is in being able to decouple the design of the controls from the rest of the interior design. I read somewhere that being able to design those in parallel with fewer dependencies makes a significant different in getting the car into production on time.
  - ryukoposting 3y ago
    Yep. Putting as much of your UX as possible in one place makes product development a LOT more efficient. It doesn't always make the product better, though.
branko_d 3y ago
> Then again, it also boggles my mind how car makers in the US continue to use flashing red lights as the turn signal instead of yellow lights. Technology Connections channel had a video about that a while back: https://youtu.be/O1lZ9n2bxWA?si=xKRgMFK1DFBrB3i0 https://youtu.be/O1lZ9n2bxWA?si=xKRgMFK1DFBrB3i0
- userbinator 3y ago
  Flashing red = car is pointed away from you Flashing yellow = car is pointed towards you It's the same reason why headlights are white and taillights are not (unless reversing, in which case the tail becomes the head temporarily, and thus white reversing lights.)
  - knorker 3y ago
    That's what tail lights are for.
- aurareturn 3y ago
  It boggles my mind. It really does. I refuse to buy a car that uses red turn signals.
- donatj 3y ago
  I know Technology Connections complains about it all the time, but I don’t feel like he’s even made a case, he just asserts over and over “and we ALL agree it’s awful” as if he asserts it strongly enough it will become true. Why is it a problem? How is a red blinker actually measurably worse than an amber one? I have never had any sort of issue interpreting a blinking red taillight as turning? With red, you can more easily tell the direction of travel and the aesthetics of a single color are far nicer. I frankly don’t see the problem. Commenter a couple levels up says you can’t see red blinkers in the sunlight? I don’t think that’s true on any measurable level, amber is a far closer match in hue to sunlight than red.
  - dchest 3y ago
    "A 2008 US study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration suggests vehicles with amber rear signals rather than red ones are up to 28% less likely to be involved in certain kinds of collisions,[81] a followup 2009 NHTSA study determined there to be a significant overall safety benefit to amber rather than red rear turn signals,[82] US studies in the early 1990s demonstrated improvements in the speed and accuracy of drivers' reactions to the stop lights of vehicles ahead when the turn signals were amber rather than red,[76][83][84][85][86]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_lighting#Turn_signal_colour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_lighting#Turn_signa...
Aloisius 3y ago
> You can barely see the red light in sunlight and it's harder to tell the red light from brake lights I can't say that I've ever had trouble seeing the red turn signals in the sun. Being able to see them in the sun from a few hundred feet away is legally required in most, if not all, states. Do you have trouble seeing brake lights too?
2143 3y ago
> Then again, it also boggles my mind how car makers in the US continue to use flashing red lights as the turn signal instead of yellow lights. This is probably a US government regulation thing. Because those same cars sold elsewhere in the world does have flashing yellow lights as indicators.
- kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
  It's an allowance not a requirement. Some models that used to have amber indicators have been switched over to red for the cost savings.
PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago
are you me? I did the exact same thing in roughly the same timeframe. Went to a toyota dealership, when I realized all the vehicles were touch I asked if I could get one without and they told me they don't do that anymore. I walked out and just continued driving the corolla I had (still have it to this day). When I needed a minivan I purchased an older honda odyssey and fixed it up.
- serpix 3y ago
  Hyundai and Kia has buttons.
  - blendo 3y ago
    Mazda CX-30 has buttons. As do Subaru BRZ/Toyota 86/Toyota GR86.

bolasanibk 3y ago

I would the main driver was economics. It would be easier and cheaper to manufacture one big screen in the middle compared to a bunch of physical controls with wiring. Also makes it easier to change things later in the design if you do not have a bunch of physical controls to move.

aurareturn 3y ago
I get the cheaper and the ability to update thing. But if any car makers had done any proper UX testing, they'd quickly find out that physical buttons in a car is a non-negotiable.
ahartmetz 3y ago
Do not forget the massive "tablets are the future of computing" hype because Apple released a thing. Touchscreens were super cool by association. It was all pretty stupid. I say that as someone who creates mostly software for touchscreens... using keyboard and mouse because they are much better input devices. You just need the space and the budget for them.

ceejayoz 3y ago

> Then again, it also boggles my mind how car makers in the US continue to use flashing red lights as the turn signal instead of yellow lights. You can barely see the red light in sunlight and it's harder to tell the red light from brake lights. I'm also starting to see really thin - single narrow LED strip - turn signals that are barely visible next to the much larger headlight nearby.

tpmoney 3y ago

> It boggles my mind just how car makers thought it was safer/easier to have touch in a car while one is driving. Does anyone actually think that though? Or was it considered “good enough” in light of its other benefits like reducing costs, reducing BOM, eliminating part design work, reducing wiring complexity, adding flexibility and customizability, (potentially) increased reliability, making it easier to jam the multitudes of controls and options a modern car has into a more usable and understandable interface, etc. Don’t get me wrong, when I bought a new car, one of the selling points was the manufacturer was one of the few to still offer physical control and navigation of the touch screens (in fact the touch functionality is completely disabled at any speed faster than 5 mph). But I don’t think “safer and easier to use while driving” has ever been the driver for touch interfaces in cars.

aurareturn 3y ago
Yes yes I get the cheaper/update factor of touch controls. And I don't mind a touch screen for complicated functionality. I mainly gripe about losing physical buttons for main functions such as temperature control, radio/music control, lights, windshield wipers, etc.

pwg 3y ago

> It boggles my mind just how car makers thought it was safer/easier to have touch in a car while one is driving. It is likely that neither safety nor ease of use were part of the automaker's "thought process". It is much more likely that a first misguided "designer" created the first touch panel control and somehow sold it to "management" as being "futuristic" and/or "ahead of the competition". And once the first car model arrived with one, the rest, like firefox to chrome, felt the need to play the imitation game for fear of being seen as not as "trendy" or "futuristic" as that other guy. I.e., purely the "fashion trend" aspect. Then, as they proliferated, the reduced BOM costs from removing every other previous mechanical control was reverse justified as the reason for continuing to add them to ever more car models.

userbinator 3y ago
Safety was part of the thought process --- just enough to get by whatever regulations are currently in effect.
lelanthran 3y ago
Well, yes, that's the main reason - it's cheaper. There are other reasons of course - planned obsolesence is a big one. Why would they want cars to work after the primary owner is done with it? With software-everything they can lock the car to the first 3 or 4 owners, and then remotely kill it. It doesn't even have to be actively disabled, just stop providing the replacement head unit as a part because "we don't have that software anymore".
drc500free 3y ago
My understanding is that the real driver is in being able to decouple the design of the controls from the rest of the interior design. I read somewhere that being able to design those in parallel with fewer dependencies makes a significant different in getting the car into production on time.
- ryukoposting 3y ago
  Yep. Putting as much of your UX as possible in one place makes product development a LOT more efficient. It doesn't always make the product better, though.

branko_d 3y ago

> Then again, it also boggles my mind how car makers in the US continue to use flashing red lights as the turn signal instead of yellow lights. Technology Connections channel had a video about that a while back: https://youtu.be/O1lZ9n2bxWA?si=xKRgMFK1DFBrB3i0 https://youtu.be/O1lZ9n2bxWA?si=xKRgMFK1DFBrB3i0

userbinator 3y ago
Flashing red = car is pointed away from you Flashing yellow = car is pointed towards you It's the same reason why headlights are white and taillights are not (unless reversing, in which case the tail becomes the head temporarily, and thus white reversing lights.)
- knorker 3y ago
  That's what tail lights are for.
aurareturn 3y ago
It boggles my mind. It really does. I refuse to buy a car that uses red turn signals.
donatj 3y ago
I know Technology Connections complains about it all the time, but I don’t feel like he’s even made a case, he just asserts over and over “and we ALL agree it’s awful” as if he asserts it strongly enough it will become true. Why is it a problem? How is a red blinker actually measurably worse than an amber one? I have never had any sort of issue interpreting a blinking red taillight as turning? With red, you can more easily tell the direction of travel and the aesthetics of a single color are far nicer. I frankly don’t see the problem. Commenter a couple levels up says you can’t see red blinkers in the sunlight? I don’t think that’s true on any measurable level, amber is a far closer match in hue to sunlight than red.
- dchest 3y ago
  "A 2008 US study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration suggests vehicles with amber rear signals rather than red ones are up to 28% less likely to be involved in certain kinds of collisions,[81] a followup 2009 NHTSA study determined there to be a significant overall safety benefit to amber rather than red rear turn signals,[82] US studies in the early 1990s demonstrated improvements in the speed and accuracy of drivers' reactions to the stop lights of vehicles ahead when the turn signals were amber rather than red,[76][83][84][85][86]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_lighting#Turn_signal_colour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automotive_lighting#Turn_signa...

Aloisius 3y ago

> You can barely see the red light in sunlight and it's harder to tell the red light from brake lights I can't say that I've ever had trouble seeing the red turn signals in the sun. Being able to see them in the sun from a few hundred feet away is legally required in most, if not all, states. Do you have trouble seeing brake lights too?

2143 3y ago

> Then again, it also boggles my mind how car makers in the US continue to use flashing red lights as the turn signal instead of yellow lights. This is probably a US government regulation thing. Because those same cars sold elsewhere in the world does have flashing yellow lights as indicators.

kevin_thibedeau 3y ago
It's an allowance not a requirement. Some models that used to have amber indicators have been switched over to red for the cost savings.

PH95VuimJjqBqy 3y ago

are you me? I did the exact same thing in roughly the same timeframe. Went to a toyota dealership, when I realized all the vehicles were touch I asked if I could get one without and they told me they don't do that anymore. I walked out and just continued driving the corolla I had (still have it to this day). When I needed a minivan I purchased an older honda odyssey and fixed it up.

serpix 3y ago
Hyundai and Kia has buttons.
- blendo 3y ago
  Mazda CX-30 has buttons. As do Subaru BRZ/Toyota 86/Toyota GR86.