4 ms·

A good example of this is the glovebox on the Tesla Model 3. There's no button to open it with. Instead you have to press a button on the steering wheel to acti

A good example of this is the glovebox on the Tesla Model 3. There's no button to open it with. Instead you have to press a button on the steering wheel to activate Google Assistant, then say "open glovebox" in a clear voice so it doesn't misunderstand, then wait a second or two, and then finally the glovebox opens. It bothers us to no end.

saurik 2y ago
I mean, the point that a physical button (even if it were backed by software, due to the PIN code lock feature) would be appreciated certainly resonates, but it's at least somewhat better than that ;P... open the menu--which probably defaults to Controls; but, if not, click Controls--and then there's a giant Glovebox button.
- insane_dreamer 2y ago
  So three taps instead of one button. Exactly the problem with many other Tesla's controls, like defogging, for example. (At least they did have the sense to put control buttons on the steering wheel to which they have added some functionality.) Tesla does get a lot of little things right -- auto sensing for seat and steering wheel heating, auto-setting seats to your profile as you enter the car based on your phone, automatically setting/unsetting the emergency break when you park, auto locking the doors when you leave, etc. But its "thou shalt not have physical buttons" dogma is annoying. The other thing I miss is the absence of a HUD right in front of you. Again, feels like dogma rather than good design. Other brands (BMW, Polestar, etc.) succeed in that regard (my favorite being the BMW where it projects the HUD onto the bottom of the windshield right where it doesn't obstruct the view but is extremely convenient. I don't dislike the Tesla but even if Elon wasn't going full fascist, I'd pick another brand next time.
canadaduane 2y ago
Incredible. This sounds like an ideological decision rather than a design decision. > In The Design of Everyday Things, Don Norman discusses how poorly designed doors—often called "Norman doors"--fail to communicate whether they should be pushed or pulled. A well-designed door should naturally indicate how it operates through affordances (such as a push plate vs. a pull handle) and signifiers (like labels or arrows). This concept is part of a broader discussion on human-centered design and usability. At a minimum, a poorly designed door can be opened!

saurik 2y ago

I mean, the point that a physical button (even if it were backed by software, due to the PIN code lock feature) would be appreciated certainly resonates, but it's at least somewhat better than that ;P... open the menu--which probably defaults to Controls; but, if not, click Controls--and then there's a giant Glovebox button.

insane_dreamer 2y ago
So three taps instead of one button. Exactly the problem with many other Tesla's controls, like defogging, for example. (At least they did have the sense to put control buttons on the steering wheel to which they have added some functionality.) Tesla does get a lot of little things right -- auto sensing for seat and steering wheel heating, auto-setting seats to your profile as you enter the car based on your phone, automatically setting/unsetting the emergency break when you park, auto locking the doors when you leave, etc. But its "thou shalt not have physical buttons" dogma is annoying. The other thing I miss is the absence of a HUD right in front of you. Again, feels like dogma rather than good design. Other brands (BMW, Polestar, etc.) succeed in that regard (my favorite being the BMW where it projects the HUD onto the bottom of the windshield right where it doesn't obstruct the view but is extremely convenient. I don't dislike the Tesla but even if Elon wasn't going full fascist, I'd pick another brand next time.

canadaduane 2y ago

Incredible. This sounds like an ideological decision rather than a design decision. > In The Design of Everyday Things, Don Norman discusses how poorly designed doors—often called "Norman doors"--fail to communicate whether they should be pushed or pulled. A well-designed door should naturally indicate how it operates through affordances (such as a push plate vs. a pull handle) and signifiers (like labels or arrows). This concept is part of a broader discussion on human-centered design and usability. At a minimum, a poorly designed door can be opened!