5 ms·

> It's at best marginally easier to hit a random physical button on the center console than to hit a single button on the bottom bar of a Tesla screen You pre

by klausa 3y ago

> It's at best marginally easier to hit a random physical button on the center console than to hit a single button on the bottom bar of a Tesla screen You presumably typed this out on a keyboard of some sort. Which one can you do more confidently and reliably without looking: — hitting the "u" key on a physical keyboard without looking — hitting the "u" key on a touchscreen keyboard on your most used mobile device?

modeless 3y ago
I can touch type and hit 'u' without looking, sure. But only if my hands start on the home row. This has no relevance for the situation under discussion. I cannot hit the 'u' key on a physical keyboard confidently and reliably without looking if it is mounted on the center console of a car and I am driving with my hands starting on the steering wheel. I always look to position my hand to hit those buttons. Meanwhile, the Tesla bottom bar buttons are far easier to hit than any key on my phone keyboard because they are much larger and mounted in a fixed position relative to me with a built in place to rest and align my hand. These situations are completely incomparable.
- nottorp 3y ago
  > But only if my hands start on the home row. But but... in a car your hands always start on the wheel...
  - modeless 3y ago
    ...which is nowhere near the center console, very much unlike the 'u' key's convenient position millimeters from the home row...
- Omin 3y ago
  There are knobs on the f and j key so you can find the home row without looking. Similarly, physical buttons in a car can be shaped in such a way that they allow for feeling your position.
- otherme123 3y ago
  Be honest: when you reach for a physical button you might glance for 0.5 seconds or even less. Usually you'll try to reach it without looking, and only glance if for some reason you can't do it. You glance, reposition your hand, and operate the knob without looking. When you try to use a touch screen, you look at it all the time. I've just tested: to unlock my phone I have to push a physical button on the right side, swipe up and then make an easy pattern. I can grab the mobile, orient it correctly and push the side button without looking or even thinking. But just to make the up swipe I look at the screen (I can force my self to not do it, with effort). But I'm unable to make the pattern without looking all the time I trace it. It's like the brain don't want or can create muscle memory for touch screens.
- klausa 3y ago
  >I can touch type and hit 'u' without looking, sure. But only if my hands start on the home row. The keys have bumps to let you know when your hands are in the right place. Similar affordances exist in many cars. Even where they don't; the much smaller amount of them makes remembering things like "the third button from the left mutes the audio" and finding it by touch entirely possible. Look, I'm not trying to argue that touchscreens are useless or whatever — if you like your touchscreen, fine, whatever, your problem. But claiming that they're _as easy_ to use without looking as button is just not believable.
hot_cereal 3y ago
thinking about it, I actually like this comparison. You make a good point, in that the physical keyboard is a more accurate tool. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have drawbacks. The advantage of the digital screen is the customizability and adaptability. If I never use the web browser or music on my iPhone, i can just move those apps off the home row. If my keyboard has a numpad, but I don't need it, I'm stuck with a numpad until i buy a new keyboard. In my old Land Cruiser, the pull knob to open the vents is right next to the pull knob to open the choke which is right next to the pull knob to activate the hazard lights which is right next to the pull knob to activate the fan. None of them are lit, they all look the same in the dark. We've come a long way since 1981, but the point is that the improved reliability of a physical button means nothing if the ergonomics of the interface as a whole are bad. And it's a lot easier to improve the ergonomics of the system (or adapt them to the user's needs) if the controls are on a touch screen.

by klausa 3y ago

modeless 3y ago

I can touch type and hit 'u' without looking, sure. But only if my hands start on the home row. This has no relevance for the situation under discussion. I cannot hit the 'u' key on a physical keyboard confidently and reliably without looking if it is mounted on the center console of a car and I am driving with my hands starting on the steering wheel. I always look to position my hand to hit those buttons. Meanwhile, the Tesla bottom bar buttons are far easier to hit than any key on my phone keyboard because they are much larger and mounted in a fixed position relative to me with a built in place to rest and align my hand. These situations are completely incomparable.

nottorp 3y ago
> But only if my hands start on the home row. But but... in a car your hands always start on the wheel...
- modeless 3y ago
  ...which is nowhere near the center console, very much unlike the 'u' key's convenient position millimeters from the home row...
Omin 3y ago
There are knobs on the f and j key so you can find the home row without looking. Similarly, physical buttons in a car can be shaped in such a way that they allow for feeling your position.
otherme123 3y ago
Be honest: when you reach for a physical button you might glance for 0.5 seconds or even less. Usually you'll try to reach it without looking, and only glance if for some reason you can't do it. You glance, reposition your hand, and operate the knob without looking. When you try to use a touch screen, you look at it all the time. I've just tested: to unlock my phone I have to push a physical button on the right side, swipe up and then make an easy pattern. I can grab the mobile, orient it correctly and push the side button without looking or even thinking. But just to make the up swipe I look at the screen (I can force my self to not do it, with effort). But I'm unable to make the pattern without looking all the time I trace it. It's like the brain don't want or can create muscle memory for touch screens.
klausa 3y ago
>I can touch type and hit 'u' without looking, sure. But only if my hands start on the home row. The keys have bumps to let you know when your hands are in the right place. Similar affordances exist in many cars. Even where they don't; the much smaller amount of them makes remembering things like "the third button from the left mutes the audio" and finding it by touch entirely possible. Look, I'm not trying to argue that touchscreens are useless or whatever — if you like your touchscreen, fine, whatever, your problem. But claiming that they're _as easy_ to use without looking as button is just not believable.

hot_cereal 3y ago

thinking about it, I actually like this comparison. You make a good point, in that the physical keyboard is a more accurate tool. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have drawbacks. The advantage of the digital screen is the customizability and adaptability. If I never use the web browser or music on my iPhone, i can just move those apps off the home row. If my keyboard has a numpad, but I don't need it, I'm stuck with a numpad until i buy a new keyboard. In my old Land Cruiser, the pull knob to open the vents is right next to the pull knob to open the choke which is right next to the pull knob to activate the hazard lights which is right next to the pull knob to activate the fan. None of them are lit, they all look the same in the dark. We've come a long way since 1981, but the point is that the improved reliability of a physical button means nothing if the ergonomics of the interface as a whole are bad. And it's a lot easier to improve the ergonomics of the system (or adapt them to the user's needs) if the controls are on a touch screen.