32 ms·

I wonder how many people have literally been injured or died due to this pursuit for better "design". And it applies not only to touch screen (which is a total

by yalok 2y ago

I wonder how many people have literally been injured or died due to this pursuit for better "design". And it applies not only to touch screen (which is a total madness), but to real buttons as well - those buttons need not only to be physical, but have different form/some tactile differentiation. What's happening with touch screens is total mess due to car designers trying to circumvent regulations (e.g., can't have that screen in front of a driver, or projected over the windshield) - so they are forced to move it to a side, which makes operating it while driving more dangerous. But even button's design is falling prey of it, with buttons hidden way below the top of the dashboard, made of the same size, etc. It takes forever to scan & find the right button (e.g. internal air) while driving. And I don't see it as just some recent trend (although there's much more of it). Even 10-12 years ago, this way already a problem. One example of stupidity: Toyota Sienna 2013 has brightness control for its media screen (which also shows back up camera) via a touch screen button. Turning brightness at night works ok - but then turning it back on during day light is impossible - nothing is visible on that dimmed screen!! Latest Toyota Sienna has all of the climate control buttons (8?) in 1 row, very low, of the same size, barely visible signs on them - recipe for disaster... I wish these designers and execs would have their kids life depend on it - I wonder if that'd change their thinking...

fibonachos 2y ago
My wife’s 2015 Honda has a similar setup for the climate controls. One morning the windshield fogged up after a few minutes of driving when the cabin was warming up on a cold day. Not being my daily driver, I had to look low on the dash to find the defogger button, while driving in the rain. Nothing bad happened, but I remember feeling a little helpless in the moment. That nothing went wrong was really just pure luck.
- closewith 2y ago
  You could always have pulled over.
  - cafeinux 2y ago
    You still have to see where you're going to pull over, and it's not always possible.
    - closewith 2y ago
      You can always slow to a stop with your hazards on. I rail against touch and ambiguous controls in safety critical applications more than most, but continuing to drive when you can't see properly is akin to get-there-itis.
      - nosianu 2y ago
        > You can always slow to a stop with your hazards on. With low visibility slowing down in the middle of the road is not save either though, given that those behind you don't expect it, and that few people keep sufficient distance. Same with standing on the side in such conditions. In the described situation I think the best option is to be able and use the right buttons quickly, sticking to the original subject of the discussion. The option that would let you safely keep going with the flow is the best one I would say, under the given conditions. Even if a million scenarios and alternatives can be thought of, what's the point of derailing a discussion focused on a particular subject? We only have a few hundred comments of room here, I think there is more value in keeping the focus.
        tifik 2y ago
        The discussion isnt derailed, it branched off. The point is to bring up an adjacent point. And while the ideal scenario is of course that no problem arises, and second being that the problem is swiftly and efficiently resolved.. given those scenarios do not occur, and you have to decide between "keep going without seeing the road" and "putting hazards on and slowly coming to a complete stop", the latter definitely seems more reasonable in every way. Of course specific scenarios where stopping will be less safe can be thought up, but statistically speaking, I dont see how an uncontrolled multi-ton moving object would be more safe that a stationary one.
        2y ago
SilasX 2y ago
>I wonder how many people have literally been injured or died due to this pursuit for better "design". One famous example is Anton Yelchin, who played Chekov in the new Star Trek movies. The new Jeep shifter design made it less obvious whether you put it in neutral or park, and so it rolled toward him when he got out and pinned him to death. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36572649 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36572649
- genewitch 2y ago
  He was also in a movie with Patrick Stewart. This is awful news to me. I've driven a wagoneer that had the spinning knob for the shifter, and yeah, I wasn't a fan.
  - germinalphrase 2y ago
    Green Room (2015). Yelchin was a talented guy and (would have) had a solid career. Patrick Stewart is also cast well against type in that flick.
peeters 2y ago
> to this pursuit for better "design" Quotes appropriate, because I don't believe this is about safety, usability, or even aesthetics. It's about reducing the number of parts on the vehicle, i.e. lowering cost. It's car manufacturers deliberately making driving less safe to save a few bucks.
- yalok 2y ago
  No quotes, just my observation - that the buttons are more optimized for the good look (symmetrical, sleek) vs usable. Building a plastic molding form with some shape/tactile difference shouldn't be significantly more expensive. Re Touch screen, I agree - that's pure cost cutting. But that's just crazy. I'm surprised regulators are not preventing it.
  - hulitu 2y ago
    > I'm surprised regulators are not preventing it. Regulators are, from a long time, paid by car manufacturers.
- globular-toast 2y ago
  Thank you. I think lots of people assume touch controls are for design, or to be cool, or maybe just "modern". It's just cheaper, though. That's why you see them on all generic Chinese made electronics (even stuff that could have no electronic component at all, like a fan).
zelphirkalt 2y ago
Sounds to me like Material design/theme in software UIs. Very flat, sometimes cannot see what is a button and very little feedback, compared to those Windows 98 style buttons, or default browser buttons.

by yalok 2y ago

fibonachos 2y ago

My wife’s 2015 Honda has a similar setup for the climate controls. One morning the windshield fogged up after a few minutes of driving when the cabin was warming up on a cold day. Not being my daily driver, I had to look low on the dash to find the defogger button, while driving in the rain. Nothing bad happened, but I remember feeling a little helpless in the moment. That nothing went wrong was really just pure luck.

closewith 2y ago
You could always have pulled over.
- cafeinux 2y ago
  You still have to see where you're going to pull over, and it's not always possible.
  - closewith 2y ago
    You can always slow to a stop with your hazards on. I rail against touch and ambiguous controls in safety critical applications more than most, but continuing to drive when you can't see properly is akin to get-there-itis.
    - nosianu 2y ago
      > You can always slow to a stop with your hazards on. With low visibility slowing down in the middle of the road is not save either though, given that those behind you don't expect it, and that few people keep sufficient distance. Same with standing on the side in such conditions. In the described situation I think the best option is to be able and use the right buttons quickly, sticking to the original subject of the discussion. The option that would let you safely keep going with the flow is the best one I would say, under the given conditions. Even if a million scenarios and alternatives can be thought of, what's the point of derailing a discussion focused on a particular subject? We only have a few hundred comments of room here, I think there is more value in keeping the focus.
      - tifik 2y ago
        The discussion isnt derailed, it branched off. The point is to bring up an adjacent point. And while the ideal scenario is of course that no problem arises, and second being that the problem is swiftly and efficiently resolved.. given those scenarios do not occur, and you have to decide between "keep going without seeing the road" and "putting hazards on and slowly coming to a complete stop", the latter definitely seems more reasonable in every way. Of course specific scenarios where stopping will be less safe can be thought up, but statistically speaking, I dont see how an uncontrolled multi-ton moving object would be more safe that a stationary one.
      - 2y ago

SilasX 2y ago

>I wonder how many people have literally been injured or died due to this pursuit for better "design". One famous example is Anton Yelchin, who played Chekov in the new Star Trek movies. The new Jeep shifter design made it less obvious whether you put it in neutral or park, and so it rolled toward him when he got out and pinned him to death. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36572649 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36572649

genewitch 2y ago
He was also in a movie with Patrick Stewart. This is awful news to me. I've driven a wagoneer that had the spinning knob for the shifter, and yeah, I wasn't a fan.
- germinalphrase 2y ago
  Green Room (2015). Yelchin was a talented guy and (would have) had a solid career. Patrick Stewart is also cast well against type in that flick.

peeters 2y ago

> to this pursuit for better "design" Quotes appropriate, because I don't believe this is about safety, usability, or even aesthetics. It's about reducing the number of parts on the vehicle, i.e. lowering cost. It's car manufacturers deliberately making driving less safe to save a few bucks.

yalok 2y ago
No quotes, just my observation - that the buttons are more optimized for the good look (symmetrical, sleek) vs usable. Building a plastic molding form with some shape/tactile difference shouldn't be significantly more expensive. Re Touch screen, I agree - that's pure cost cutting. But that's just crazy. I'm surprised regulators are not preventing it.
- hulitu 2y ago
  > I'm surprised regulators are not preventing it. Regulators are, from a long time, paid by car manufacturers.
globular-toast 2y ago
Thank you. I think lots of people assume touch controls are for design, or to be cool, or maybe just "modern". It's just cheaper, though. That's why you see them on all generic Chinese made electronics (even stuff that could have no electronic component at all, like a fan).

zelphirkalt 2y ago

Sounds to me like Material design/theme in software UIs. Very flat, sometimes cannot see what is a button and very little feedback, compared to those Windows 98 style buttons, or default browser buttons.