6 ms·

Similar to kiba's comment below, but perhaps a step in between, it would make sense for car designers to look at other similarly complex machines that require t

Similar to kiba's comment below, but perhaps a step in between, it would make sense for car designers to look at other similarly complex machines that require the operator's constant attention to the outside world before innovating blindly. HOTAS (Hands on Throttle and Stick) as a concept has been adopted almost exclusively in fighter aircraft - and extended into Formula 1 and Indy cars as well - for this exact purpose. The modern car dashboard design is beyond stupid, almost criminally so when you start to see 12 inch video screens placed underneath the windscreen in such a way that the driver has to take his attention off the road to use pretty much anything in the car. Tactile feedback isn't going to help much if you are fumbling with controls floating an arms length away between you and the passenger. There is plenty of room on the steering wheel for all of the car's functional controls, especially if you make use of a HUD/windscreen visual menu and multifunction controls. I almost exclusively use my 5 button steering wheel control to manage my entire audio experience while driving right now. I'm not sure how many people will need to be killed before something like that becomes the norm. Of course, seatbelts and airbags both required their fair share of human sacrifice before the car gods decided lowly operators warranted them, so maybe kiba is onto something. :-)

reneherse 14y ago
I very much agree that dashboard design is generally awful. As controls have become more digital and less mechanical, they seem to have come to require more attention. For instance, one general pattern used to be if you wanted warm air you slid a horizontal lever more or less to the right or left. Once you got used to it, you could set it without looking, and with gloves on. Nowadays it's much more likely that you spin a knob or repeatedly press a button to set the temperature, and instead of the setting being indicated by a combination of position and color/text, you likely have only a numeric value, an exclusively visual indicator. Not only does the digital, numeric value (usually in degrees F or C) provide a (possibly) unneeded level of precision, it's a visual-attention sink. The "glass cockpit" of the Tesla I have to believe is even worse in this context. However, given its extreme versatility, I doubt the touchscreen will be going away. If a screen interface can be designed to require less attention, and I believe it can be, it's possible that we can gain all the promised flexibility of glass without it becoming a safety hazard. Thanks for the HOTAS reference, btw. Hadn't heard of that.
- ollysb 14y ago
  The indicator controls are a good example of this. They used to mechanically click into one of 3 positions, indicate left, off and indicate right. This made it very easy to switch them off. Now when you want to manually switch off the indicator it's very easy to to go too far and start indicating in the opposite direction. The only way to know what position they're in is then to look down at the lights on the dashboard. It's seems a huge step backwards in usability.
snowwrestler 14y ago
Unless they're in a dogfight, airplanes do not require constant attention to the outside world. That's why autopilots and drones are technologies that have been available in the aerospace industry for years, but are just now getting good enough to consider in cars. Also consider the amount of training that goes into becoming a fighter pilot, vs. learning to drive a car. Powerful interfaces are complex and require a lot of training to manage properly under stress--which is when it is most important to do it right. That said, modern cars do have a lot of controls on the steering wheel: all the typical blinkers, brights, horn, etc. and now often radio controls, cruise control, telephone Bluetooth controls, even gear shifting paddles. HUD has been tried in cars before, but never caught on. Drivers tended to find it more distracting than helpful. Most of the information for driving does not need to be so..."contextual", the way that, say, a missile targeting system does. Anything that intercedes itself directly between the driver's eyes and the outside world could be dangerous. I do agree with you that the touchscreens in the dash are frickin awful UI design. I think they are like the "store" setting on LCD TVs--their main job is to look cool in the showroom.
- ceejayoz 14y ago
  > Unless they're in a dogfight, airplanes do not require constant attention to the outside world. This sounds like you're not a pilot. Pretty much the first thing flight school teaches you is situational awareness. Constantly visually scanning for nearby traffic is a very, very important skill.
  - snowwrestler 14y ago
    What about IFR? What is the automotive equivalent of IFR?
    - ceejayoz 14y ago
      IFR is essentially the painted lines on the road - it's just a directional radio signal that you can follow to see if you're following the glideslope. An autopilot can follow it, but even in IFR you're supposed to be visually scanning, as you can be in IFR weather while still having a mile or two of visibility around your plane.

reneherse 14y ago

I very much agree that dashboard design is generally awful. As controls have become more digital and less mechanical, they seem to have come to require more attention. For instance, one general pattern used to be if you wanted warm air you slid a horizontal lever more or less to the right or left. Once you got used to it, you could set it without looking, and with gloves on. Nowadays it's much more likely that you spin a knob or repeatedly press a button to set the temperature, and instead of the setting being indicated by a combination of position and color/text, you likely have only a numeric value, an exclusively visual indicator. Not only does the digital, numeric value (usually in degrees F or C) provide a (possibly) unneeded level of precision, it's a visual-attention sink. The "glass cockpit" of the Tesla I have to believe is even worse in this context. However, given its extreme versatility, I doubt the touchscreen will be going away. If a screen interface can be designed to require less attention, and I believe it can be, it's possible that we can gain all the promised flexibility of glass without it becoming a safety hazard. Thanks for the HOTAS reference, btw. Hadn't heard of that.

ollysb 14y ago
The indicator controls are a good example of this. They used to mechanically click into one of 3 positions, indicate left, off and indicate right. This made it very easy to switch them off. Now when you want to manually switch off the indicator it's very easy to to go too far and start indicating in the opposite direction. The only way to know what position they're in is then to look down at the lights on the dashboard. It's seems a huge step backwards in usability.

snowwrestler 14y ago

Unless they're in a dogfight, airplanes do not require constant attention to the outside world. That's why autopilots and drones are technologies that have been available in the aerospace industry for years, but are just now getting good enough to consider in cars. Also consider the amount of training that goes into becoming a fighter pilot, vs. learning to drive a car. Powerful interfaces are complex and require a lot of training to manage properly under stress--which is when it is most important to do it right. That said, modern cars do have a lot of controls on the steering wheel: all the typical blinkers, brights, horn, etc. and now often radio controls, cruise control, telephone Bluetooth controls, even gear shifting paddles. HUD has been tried in cars before, but never caught on. Drivers tended to find it more distracting than helpful. Most of the information for driving does not need to be so..."contextual", the way that, say, a missile targeting system does. Anything that intercedes itself directly between the driver's eyes and the outside world could be dangerous. I do agree with you that the touchscreens in the dash are frickin awful UI design. I think they are like the "store" setting on LCD TVs--their main job is to look cool in the showroom.

ceejayoz 14y ago
> Unless they're in a dogfight, airplanes do not require constant attention to the outside world. This sounds like you're not a pilot. Pretty much the first thing flight school teaches you is situational awareness. Constantly visually scanning for nearby traffic is a very, very important skill.
- snowwrestler 14y ago
  What about IFR? What is the automotive equivalent of IFR?
  - ceejayoz 14y ago
    IFR is essentially the painted lines on the road - it's just a directional radio signal that you can follow to see if you're following the glideslope. An autopilot can follow it, but even in IFR you're supposed to be visually scanning, as you can be in IFR weather while still having a mile or two of visibility around your plane.