7 ms·

I'd love to know what the justification for replacing them in the first place was. I can't think of any device, appliance, etc. I own whose UX is _better_ for n

I'd love to know what the justification for replacing them in the first place was. I can't think of any device, appliance, etc. I own whose UX is _better_ for not having physical, dedicated buttons or switches and instead having a touch interface or buttons which require a complex series of presses or chords. It's almost like there was _no_ UX research to back any of these "features" up and people just went ahead and made these changes because they could, it was fun and they look cool. To give a very concrete and potentially hazardous example: I have an induction range which has no physical controls but has a touch interface which requires various combinations of tapping, holding and sliding fingers. To say nothing of the fact that this is useless for people who have significant visual impairments, how am I supposed to turn it off if there's an electrical fire because a pot boils over or something? Is the expectation that I reach into boiling water that potentially has current running through it and hope to tap my fingers in the right place? Am I supposed to try to yank the power? Or is the expectation that I just walk outside and call the fire department?

okokwhatever 10mo ago
Money
- xoxxala 10mo ago
  That's almost always the answer for big corporations run by MBAs.
- tshaddox 10mo ago
  Ultimately, yeah. But specifically I think it's a combination of saving money directly on the bill of materials and assembly, and saving money on design flexibility (heck, you can probably do the entire infotainment design process at the last minute and flash it onto the cars after the entire assembly).
Neikius 10mo ago
I must assume the justification was "it is cool". especially considering they also placed capacitive touch "buttons" on the steering wheel. Those are the worst of both worlds in every case imaginable.
- jerlam 10mo ago
  Manufacturers sometimes change things that already work, just to separate the "old technology" and the new. When people want a completely new car, they expect things to be different and new, even if they are worse. I believe Toyota did this frequently in their Prius models, where things were different from mainline Toyota just because, like the center-mounted speedometer and the joystick shifter.
VLM 10mo ago
The car has to be scrapped when the UI hardware fails. You can live a LONG time without a working ... radio tuning knob, if the other 99.9% of the controls work. Or if the right passenger door lock button fails, really who cares. But when the central control of the entire car fails, its scrap. Very profitable for the manufacturer.
- natebc 10mo ago
  Occurs to me that this is likely one of the reasons car manufacturer warranties have really gone into the crapper.
hasperdi 10mo ago
Like what the sibling comment said: money. It's cheaper to produce one type of screen module and deploying that one type across car models that different kinds of switches. Also it was some kind of USP; to public perception of touch screens equal luxury during iPhone boom. Even though the software implementations were left to be desired ie. nothing was buttery smooth
ajross 10mo ago
FWIW: induction ranges have sealed tops. There are no paths to get a high voltage from the AC input to the range top, no matter what boils over, and if you break things such that there is a short the relevant GFCI failsafes will shut it off long before you work up the courage to try to touch the controls. Safety is in fact the big selling point of the device. The surface doesn't get above food temperature. If you boil a pot over, move the pot and just wipe it up with a rag, just like you would spilled tea or whatever. That's not to say there aren't human interface issues with relying on capacitive sensors[1], but safety surely isn't one of them. [1] Actually "boiling over" is in fact the shortcoming: what happens is that your sauce spills over the controls and causes the sensors to glitch, which the device detects as a failure and shuts down before you can wipe it. Then you have to reset all the temperatures.
- mothballed 10mo ago
  GFCI for a 220V / 50 amp stove didn't enter the code until like 2020. My county hasn't even adopted that. It's unlikely any random person you encounter lives in a place with a GFCI controlled stove. Also the breaker itself is like $130+, plus slightly higher chance to nuisance trip, so fat chance any builder is putting that in voluntarily.
  - nostrademons 10mo ago
    Most people install induction stoves as part of a larger kitchen or home reno. If you're switching over from gas you probably didn't have a 50amp 220V circuit anywhere near the stove. But kitchen renos have to bring the kitchen up to code, so if you're bringing in an electrician anyway to redo all the wiring, might as well put in a circuit for the induction stove, and code requires that it be on a GFCI. The folks who just want a drop-in replacement are probably not getting induction - they're the ones who complain about the necessary electrical upgrades being too expensive.
    - deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]
    - 10mo ago
jrochkind1 10mo ago
Pretty much all (American?) cars have gotten rid of most physical buttons, it's not just VW. I assume it's cost.
- AlexandrB 10mo ago
  I assume this as well. I hope we get a trend of customers/reviewers looking at a touchscreen-heavy cars and saying "you guys really cheaped out on the interior, eh?".
paol 10mo ago
> I'd love to know what the justification for replacing them in the first place was. There were two converging factors: number one is that there was a time where it was considered a sign of sophistication / progress. Definitely a case of form over function, but remember this was the era when everything Tesla did was cool and everyone was chasing them. The second factor is cost. Physical buttons are expensive to design, certify and manufacture (most people don't have a notion of how high the durability bar is for everything that goes into a car interior). Once you have to have a touchscreen anyway you can (theoretically) remove almost all physical controls.
RickS 10mo ago
It's cost savings. I'm a UX designer, a friend of mine works at an electric vehicle startup. I asked and it was unambiguous. The kinds of buttons that go into a vehicle aren't like the raw components we buy on amazon for hobby projects. They go through much more rigorous testing to be resilient to hours of use, extreme temperatures, etc, and are commensurately more expensive. Those mediocre touchscreens are cheaper than the BOM for all those fancy buttons and dials, which might each have their own control board or group bus, etc. I'm not sure whether this is also true for your induction range. Certainly on generic table lamps and such, the touch-activated buttons are the hobby slop we'd buy from amazon. Anyway, I've never really heard anyone offer performance, likeability, or usability as a reason for touchscreens in cars. Glad to see the industry get rid of them, at the decadeslong speed you'd expect from a dinosaur industry with a regulatory forcefield.
- herbturbo 10mo ago
  It’s also a lot easier on the production line if you don’t need a new set of control knobs and blanks for each vehicle that comes by based on how it’s been spec’d. But that’s the issue. Grey suits in boardrooms with no passion for driving making decisions based on cost and homogenizing manufacturing amongst the car lines. For example someone at VWAG thought it was a good idea to replace the 911 key with a button, and dials with a screen. Why? Cost and stupid tech fantasies fueled by EV manufacturers and Apples next-gen CarPlay nonsense.
neogodless 10mo ago
I think in context, Tesla was having quite the success story in the 2017-2022 time period, and their big screen and frequent software updates was getting a lot of attention. A lot of the stories around then were: * Tesla infotainment is fast, responsive, good software * Other OEMs struggle to compete in this space * Other OEMs have software updates that require dealer visits So the OEMs tried to emulate having a big screen UI and shoving more functionality into software, so they can update it. Not to say Tesla gets all the credit, or that OEMs didn't start leaning on screens more and more before then. As screens got cheaper, customers demanded bigger screens, and OEMs felt like getting rid of buttons and shoving the functionality in the screen UI was the best way to appease their customers.
- spikej 10mo ago
  "CUSTOMERS demanded bigger screens" That's a bold statement...
  - lacksconfidence 10mo ago
    Many of them do. My aunt bought a new car last year and was bragging about how big the screen was. She seemed confused that i thought a big screen was a downgrade.
    - xattt 10mo ago
      Why would you not want a thing in your car that you’d want in your home? *slaps hood* This baby’s got four toilets! /s
  - sidewndr46 10mo ago
    In the states I've lived installing a big screen like that in your car is against the law. Unless the manufacturer specified it as original equipment. So yes, a bigger screen is a selling point
  - plqbfbv 10mo ago
    I know I'd be one of them. A big and higher definition screen provides a ton more context from the navigation's map with wider sidebars that can contain more information, while also providing more contrast and better legibility. Usual Android auto screen sizes and resolutions feel to me like the difference between looking at a 32" monitor and an early 4.5" LED mobile screen. Too small for context, low definition, and not enough space to display additional useful information (so you don't have to touch the display every 5 seconds).
rsynnott 10mo ago
Cost; touch interfaces are cheaper. Though also I would wonder if bad market research was a problem. I bet if, 10 years ago, you showed someone a traditional VW interface, or a touchscreen thing, they'd go "oh, cool, touchscreens". They might feel differently if they actually _used_ the thing, but if you skip that bit of the research... It's fairly common that companies make changes based on what customers _say_ they want, because customers are not necessarily good at realising what they _actually_ want until they experience it.
- snovv_crash 10mo ago
  No, 10 years ago everyone was complaining that their BlackBerry was faster to type on than an iPhone (or maybe that was 12 years ). I don't think touchscreens being a pain to use is a new revelation.
  - rsynnott 10mo ago
    That’s nearly 20 years ago. Approximately no-one had a blackberry 10 years ago.
    - eichin 10mo ago
      To align this more precisely - 2015 was the year of the Blackberry Priv (I used one for a couple of years) and, being an Android phone, felt like kind of a last gasp for Blackberry.
      - razakel 10mo ago
        They've still got QNX.
      - Izkata 10mo ago
        The KEYone was 2017 (I had this up until 2023 or so) and the KEY2 was 2018.
- AlotOfReading 10mo ago
  It's not just that touch interfaces are cheaper. It's that you can decouple the interface design and feature set from the manufacturing schedule and shorten the overall development.
_ea1k 10mo ago
> I'd love to know what the justification for replacing them in the first place was. It isn't hard to see, tbh. Think about the controls in a Tesla from a few years ago. They had physical controls for drive selection, turn signals, cruise control/TACC, cruise control distances, volume, next and previous track, seat controls, and manual overrides for the automatic wipers. The things that were used a little less were on the touch screen, with automation attempting to mitigate the downsides of this. This largely consisted of climate, manual overrides for the automatic headlights, and things like suspension settings. So, what has VW made better here? Well, they have physical controls for turn signals, drive selection, volume, next and previous track, etc. They appear to use the touch screen for much of the climate control and entertainment settings, including appearing to retain the much maligned touch settings for seat heaters. I'm not convinced that this is better. By contrast, my Nissan has driving settings like lane centering and seat heater controls on physical buttons... right next to my left knee where they are nearly inaccessible while driving. TBH, the whole debate around this needs to be recentered around actual ergonomics and less around touch vs physical.
- tensor 10mo ago
  Yeah, I think Tesla from a few years ago was the sweet spot. A small number of multifunction physical buttons for all the things you need while driving. I've driven a number of cars over the years with a mess of physical buttons like VW is introducing, and the result is that I've never actually used them because it's too complicated to locate the right button while driving. So usually I either just don't use the features in those cars, or end up having to stop to figure how to adjust some basic ass thing.
- amluto 10mo ago
  > touch screen … climate The climate controls should be physical buttons. Touchscreen climate controls tend to be giant messes requiring multiple interactions and often (hi, Tesla!) have controls in unpredictable locations. And fine-tuning the climate while driving is not exactly unusual. Of course, physical buttons can be awful too. I’ve been in a Mercedes SUV where the A/C state is controlled by some bizarre split physical buttons and 100% of front passengers surveyed are entirely unable to confidently figure out what they do even after reading the test and contemplating for a while.
barbazoo 10mo ago
> I'd love to know what the justification for replacing them in the first place was. Schadenfreude maybe after watching people interact with their UI. I regularly drive in an ID4 and it's hilarious how terrible the whole experience is from a user UX point of view.
bluedino 10mo ago
Dealerships love selling extended warranties. "If that screen breaks, you'll have to pay $1800 to replace it!"
painted-now 10mo ago
100% speculation, but: to me it feels like a cost cutting measure needed for Tesla to survive. Elon and his reality distortion field made it look like a touch screen (and no controls) are superior - and all the car companies started mimicking it out of fear to miss out on something
pests 10mo ago
My Whirlpool cabinet-mounted oven has a touch screen dead center right above the door. Better not open that door for any reason, or steam will condense on it and turn it off / automatically change settings. It technically disables the touchscreen when the door opens (another huge PITA, how many times have I tried to turn it off or do other things with the door open) but that doesn't help when the screen is still steamed up after being closed. The number of times I've got gone back to check something and it was ruined sitting 200deg lower than it should have been is more than I can count.
- WalterBright 10mo ago
  My oven has a knob on it for temperature. That's it. It's been working just fine for 30 years. Oh, and a switch for the light.
- scottbez1 10mo ago
  Similar for cooktops - I’ve seen IR-reflectance-based touch controls go haywire due to dimmable overhead lights, and heard of frustration with capacitive controls going haywire from liquid splatters. There are some very real benefits to touch interfaces in cooking (primarily ease of cleaning a solid flat surface, and manufacturers don’t need to worry about moisture ingress), but it’s pretty hard to make one that actually consistently works in a way that won’t accidentally burn your house down when your cat walks across the cooktop in the middle of the night. I’m personally going to stick to knobs and buttons in the meantime.
  - amluto 10mo ago
    > it’s pretty hard to make one that actually consistently works in a way that won’t accidentally burn your house down when your cat walks across the cooktop in the middle of the night. Regardless of how the controls work, you can make a cooktop that, functionally, will not set your cat on fire: use an induction stove. Unless your cat ends up in a pan or your cat is ferromagnetic, the stove won’t heat it :)
WalterBright 10mo ago
Apple doesn't document how their iphone touch interface works. I have to use google to tell me how to do things. I don't want to have to use google while driving to figure out what the interface is.
- dzhiurgis 10mo ago
  [flagged]
  - WalterBright 10mo ago
    I've been designing user interfaces my whole professional life. A "majority" isn't good enough. Especially when operating a machine going 60 mph. Consider the key fob to my car. It has two buttons on it with icons - lock and unlock. You'd think that's what it does. Not so. It has all kinds of behaviors based on how you press the buttons! Thinks like setting of a siren (which won't turn off until you put the key in the ignition), opening all the doors or only one of them, opening the windows, putting the car in "sentry" mode (whatever that is), etc. I also got to wondering why the battery in it never died, like it would do in other key fobs. It turns out it recharges when inserted into the ignition lock! (I actually kinda liked that feature!)
    - dzhiurgis 10mo ago
      So you say the interfaces perfectly fit everyone's use cases? We both know that cannot be true.
      - WalterBright 10mo ago
        A majority would be 51%. Everyone would be 100%.
    - howdyhowdy123 9mo ago
      Jeez, what car is this?
deleted 10mo ago
[deleted]
apexalpha 10mo ago
>I can't think of any device, appliance, etc. I own whose UX is _better_ for not having physical, dedicated buttons or switches and instead having a touch interface or buttons which require a complex series of presses or chords. Phone.
- marssaxman 10mo ago
  It may be better in an overall-compromise sort of way, but a touchscreen is not better for typing. I still miss the BlackBerry, and basically just stopped bothering to do any real text entry on a phone after keyboards went away.
  - MetaWhirledPeas 10mo ago
    People who buy things disagree, in aggregate.
    - anonymars 10mo ago
      You could make the same fallacious argument about cars when they all took buttons away and there was scant choice
      - MetaWhirledPeas 10mo ago
        Although cars have way more touch screens than before, they are not yet ubiquitous. With phones they have pretty much all converged on a single form factor with the only variant being size.
    - marssaxman 10mo ago
      They have no meaningful choice. To the degree that this does represent consumer preference, however, what it tells us is simply that touchscreen phones are preferred overall: it does not follow that touchscreen keyboards, specifically, are preferred for text-entry tasks.
      - 10mo ago
fkdk 10mo ago
Maybe not the answer you are looking for, but rumor has it that engineers at VW were well aware of points like those you raise. However the CEO at that time, Herbert Diess, outspoken admirer of Musk/Tesla, pushed for touch interfaces anyways.
MetaWhirledPeas 10mo ago
> I'd love to know what the justification for replacing them in the first place was. I can't think of any device, appliance, etc. I own whose UX is _better_ for not having physical, dedicated buttons or switches and instead having a touch interface or buttons which require a complex series of presses or chords. I can't speak for other manufacturers, but having lived with a Tesla I can say these are some justifications, beyond cost: - Standardization. With some exceptions where hardware is different, once you've driven one Tesla you can drive any Tesla. I love physical buttons too, but I don't love finding the drive mode buttons in a different place every time I rent a car, or trying to figure out how this one does the windshield wipers, or headlights, or radio tuning, or parking brake, or whatever. - Simplification. Along with the mandate to reduce physical controls, Tesla also pushed toward making everything automatic. I never have to think about my headlights (and they dim in a circle around any detected vehicle in front of me), and I don't have to think much about drive modes either. It does a good job of automatically picking the correct direction when you tap the brake, and has a good mechanism for auto-switching between forward and reverse as you manipulate the brake and wheel. - OTA updates. When something isn't working out for people they can make adjustments. They can also add new features (AI assistant, more automation) without mounting new buttons. There are some silly choices, like the glove box (which is tiny and not very useful anyway) requiring a voice command or the touchscreen. And some people don't like the touchscreen vents (I do, surprise surprise). But most of it makes good sense.
tencentshill 10mo ago
The only customer that matters to them are new car buyers, who are easily swayed by salesman and shiny objects.
wffurr 10mo ago
I specifically bought the model of induction stove I have (LG Studio) due to physical knobs for the burners.
- ethagnawl 10mo ago
  This sounds great. Unfortunately, the options for 24" induction ranges were extremely limited when I was in the market 3-4 years ago and I had to settle for a Blomberg.
  - jake_wls 10mo ago
    [flagged]
herbturbo 10mo ago
First they put screens in for navigation because people were using dash mounted ones. Guess it felt logical to move the entertainment and info in there too (infotainment) and then came the EVs and the goofy tech era of cars. Late 2010s was peak automotive - most modern cars are like tacky appliances inside now.
yibg 10mo ago
Touch controls are frustrating in general. But in this case, I don't think there is a safety issue from electric fire because of a spill. For generic turning it off (as in stop producing heat, not break the electrical circuit), isn't that just removing the pot on an induction stove?
sib 10mo ago
Mobile phones.

okokwhatever 10mo ago

Money

xoxxala 10mo ago
That's almost always the answer for big corporations run by MBAs.
tshaddox 10mo ago
Ultimately, yeah. But specifically I think it's a combination of saving money directly on the bill of materials and assembly, and saving money on design flexibility (heck, you can probably do the entire infotainment design process at the last minute and flash it onto the cars after the entire assembly).

Neikius 10mo ago

I must assume the justification was "it is cool". especially considering they also placed capacitive touch "buttons" on the steering wheel. Those are the worst of both worlds in every case imaginable.

jerlam 10mo ago
Manufacturers sometimes change things that already work, just to separate the "old technology" and the new. When people want a completely new car, they expect things to be different and new, even if they are worse. I believe Toyota did this frequently in their Prius models, where things were different from mainline Toyota just because, like the center-mounted speedometer and the joystick shifter.

VLM 10mo ago

The car has to be scrapped when the UI hardware fails. You can live a LONG time without a working ... radio tuning knob, if the other 99.9% of the controls work. Or if the right passenger door lock button fails, really who cares. But when the central control of the entire car fails, its scrap. Very profitable for the manufacturer.

natebc 10mo ago
Occurs to me that this is likely one of the reasons car manufacturer warranties have really gone into the crapper.

hasperdi 10mo ago

Like what the sibling comment said: money. It's cheaper to produce one type of screen module and deploying that one type across car models that different kinds of switches. Also it was some kind of USP; to public perception of touch screens equal luxury during iPhone boom. Even though the software implementations were left to be desired ie. nothing was buttery smooth

ajross 10mo ago

FWIW: induction ranges have sealed tops. There are no paths to get a high voltage from the AC input to the range top, no matter what boils over, and if you break things such that there is a short the relevant GFCI failsafes will shut it off long before you work up the courage to try to touch the controls. Safety is in fact the big selling point of the device. The surface doesn't get above food temperature. If you boil a pot over, move the pot and just wipe it up with a rag, just like you would spilled tea or whatever. That's not to say there aren't human interface issues with relying on capacitive sensors[1], but safety surely isn't one of them. [1] Actually "boiling over" is in fact the shortcoming: what happens is that your sauce spills over the controls and causes the sensors to glitch, which the device detects as a failure and shuts down before you can wipe it. Then you have to reset all the temperatures.

mothballed 10mo ago
GFCI for a 220V / 50 amp stove didn't enter the code until like 2020. My county hasn't even adopted that. It's unlikely any random person you encounter lives in a place with a GFCI controlled stove. Also the breaker itself is like $130+, plus slightly higher chance to nuisance trip, so fat chance any builder is putting that in voluntarily.
- nostrademons 10mo ago
  Most people install induction stoves as part of a larger kitchen or home reno. If you're switching over from gas you probably didn't have a 50amp 220V circuit anywhere near the stove. But kitchen renos have to bring the kitchen up to code, so if you're bringing in an electrician anyway to redo all the wiring, might as well put in a circuit for the induction stove, and code requires that it be on a GFCI. The folks who just want a drop-in replacement are probably not getting induction - they're the ones who complain about the necessary electrical upgrades being too expensive.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  - 10mo ago

jrochkind1 10mo ago

Pretty much all (American?) cars have gotten rid of most physical buttons, it's not just VW. I assume it's cost.

AlexandrB 10mo ago
I assume this as well. I hope we get a trend of customers/reviewers looking at a touchscreen-heavy cars and saying "you guys really cheaped out on the interior, eh?".

paol 10mo ago

> I'd love to know what the justification for replacing them in the first place was. There were two converging factors: number one is that there was a time where it was considered a sign of sophistication / progress. Definitely a case of form over function, but remember this was the era when everything Tesla did was cool and everyone was chasing them. The second factor is cost. Physical buttons are expensive to design, certify and manufacture (most people don't have a notion of how high the durability bar is for everything that goes into a car interior). Once you have to have a touchscreen anyway you can (theoretically) remove almost all physical controls.

RickS 10mo ago

It's cost savings. I'm a UX designer, a friend of mine works at an electric vehicle startup. I asked and it was unambiguous. The kinds of buttons that go into a vehicle aren't like the raw components we buy on amazon for hobby projects. They go through much more rigorous testing to be resilient to hours of use, extreme temperatures, etc, and are commensurately more expensive. Those mediocre touchscreens are cheaper than the BOM for all those fancy buttons and dials, which might each have their own control board or group bus, etc. I'm not sure whether this is also true for your induction range. Certainly on generic table lamps and such, the touch-activated buttons are the hobby slop we'd buy from amazon. Anyway, I've never really heard anyone offer performance, likeability, or usability as a reason for touchscreens in cars. Glad to see the industry get rid of them, at the decadeslong speed you'd expect from a dinosaur industry with a regulatory forcefield.

herbturbo 10mo ago
It’s also a lot easier on the production line if you don’t need a new set of control knobs and blanks for each vehicle that comes by based on how it’s been spec’d. But that’s the issue. Grey suits in boardrooms with no passion for driving making decisions based on cost and homogenizing manufacturing amongst the car lines. For example someone at VWAG thought it was a good idea to replace the 911 key with a button, and dials with a screen. Why? Cost and stupid tech fantasies fueled by EV manufacturers and Apples next-gen CarPlay nonsense.

neogodless 10mo ago

I think in context, Tesla was having quite the success story in the 2017-2022 time period, and their big screen and frequent software updates was getting a lot of attention. A lot of the stories around then were: * Tesla infotainment is fast, responsive, good software * Other OEMs struggle to compete in this space * Other OEMs have software updates that require dealer visits So the OEMs tried to emulate having a big screen UI and shoving more functionality into software, so they can update it. Not to say Tesla gets all the credit, or that OEMs didn't start leaning on screens more and more before then. As screens got cheaper, customers demanded bigger screens, and OEMs felt like getting rid of buttons and shoving the functionality in the screen UI was the best way to appease their customers.

spikej 10mo ago
"CUSTOMERS demanded bigger screens" That's a bold statement...
- lacksconfidence 10mo ago
  Many of them do. My aunt bought a new car last year and was bragging about how big the screen was. She seemed confused that i thought a big screen was a downgrade.
  - xattt 10mo ago
    Why would you not want a thing in your car that you’d want in your home? *slaps hood* This baby’s got four toilets! /s
- sidewndr46 10mo ago
  In the states I've lived installing a big screen like that in your car is against the law. Unless the manufacturer specified it as original equipment. So yes, a bigger screen is a selling point
- plqbfbv 10mo ago
  I know I'd be one of them. A big and higher definition screen provides a ton more context from the navigation's map with wider sidebars that can contain more information, while also providing more contrast and better legibility. Usual Android auto screen sizes and resolutions feel to me like the difference between looking at a 32" monitor and an early 4.5" LED mobile screen. Too small for context, low definition, and not enough space to display additional useful information (so you don't have to touch the display every 5 seconds).

rsynnott 10mo ago

Cost; touch interfaces are cheaper. Though also I would wonder if bad market research was a problem. I bet if, 10 years ago, you showed someone a traditional VW interface, or a touchscreen thing, they'd go "oh, cool, touchscreens". They might feel differently if they actually _used_ the thing, but if you skip that bit of the research... It's fairly common that companies make changes based on what customers _say_ they want, because customers are not necessarily good at realising what they _actually_ want until they experience it.

snovv_crash 10mo ago
No, 10 years ago everyone was complaining that their BlackBerry was faster to type on than an iPhone (or maybe that was 12 years ). I don't think touchscreens being a pain to use is a new revelation.
- rsynnott 10mo ago
  That’s nearly 20 years ago. Approximately no-one had a blackberry 10 years ago.
  - eichin 10mo ago
    To align this more precisely - 2015 was the year of the Blackberry Priv (I used one for a couple of years) and, being an Android phone, felt like kind of a last gasp for Blackberry.
    - razakel 10mo ago
      They've still got QNX.
    - Izkata 10mo ago
      The KEYone was 2017 (I had this up until 2023 or so) and the KEY2 was 2018.
AlotOfReading 10mo ago
It's not just that touch interfaces are cheaper. It's that you can decouple the interface design and feature set from the manufacturing schedule and shorten the overall development.

_ea1k 10mo ago

> I'd love to know what the justification for replacing them in the first place was. It isn't hard to see, tbh. Think about the controls in a Tesla from a few years ago. They had physical controls for drive selection, turn signals, cruise control/TACC, cruise control distances, volume, next and previous track, seat controls, and manual overrides for the automatic wipers. The things that were used a little less were on the touch screen, with automation attempting to mitigate the downsides of this. This largely consisted of climate, manual overrides for the automatic headlights, and things like suspension settings. So, what has VW made better here? Well, they have physical controls for turn signals, drive selection, volume, next and previous track, etc. They appear to use the touch screen for much of the climate control and entertainment settings, including appearing to retain the much maligned touch settings for seat heaters. I'm not convinced that this is better. By contrast, my Nissan has driving settings like lane centering and seat heater controls on physical buttons... right next to my left knee where they are nearly inaccessible while driving. TBH, the whole debate around this needs to be recentered around actual ergonomics and less around touch vs physical.

tensor 10mo ago
Yeah, I think Tesla from a few years ago was the sweet spot. A small number of multifunction physical buttons for all the things you need while driving. I've driven a number of cars over the years with a mess of physical buttons like VW is introducing, and the result is that I've never actually used them because it's too complicated to locate the right button while driving. So usually I either just don't use the features in those cars, or end up having to stop to figure how to adjust some basic ass thing.
amluto 10mo ago
> touch screen … climate The climate controls should be physical buttons. Touchscreen climate controls tend to be giant messes requiring multiple interactions and often (hi, Tesla!) have controls in unpredictable locations. And fine-tuning the climate while driving is not exactly unusual. Of course, physical buttons can be awful too. I’ve been in a Mercedes SUV where the A/C state is controlled by some bizarre split physical buttons and 100% of front passengers surveyed are entirely unable to confidently figure out what they do even after reading the test and contemplating for a while.

barbazoo 10mo ago

> I'd love to know what the justification for replacing them in the first place was. Schadenfreude maybe after watching people interact with their UI. I regularly drive in an ID4 and it's hilarious how terrible the whole experience is from a user UX point of view.

bluedino 10mo ago

Dealerships love selling extended warranties. "If that screen breaks, you'll have to pay $1800 to replace it!"

painted-now 10mo ago

100% speculation, but: to me it feels like a cost cutting measure needed for Tesla to survive. Elon and his reality distortion field made it look like a touch screen (and no controls) are superior - and all the car companies started mimicking it out of fear to miss out on something

pests 10mo ago

My Whirlpool cabinet-mounted oven has a touch screen dead center right above the door. Better not open that door for any reason, or steam will condense on it and turn it off / automatically change settings. It technically disables the touchscreen when the door opens (another huge PITA, how many times have I tried to turn it off or do other things with the door open) but that doesn't help when the screen is still steamed up after being closed. The number of times I've got gone back to check something and it was ruined sitting 200deg lower than it should have been is more than I can count.

WalterBright 10mo ago
My oven has a knob on it for temperature. That's it. It's been working just fine for 30 years. Oh, and a switch for the light.
scottbez1 10mo ago
Similar for cooktops - I’ve seen IR-reflectance-based touch controls go haywire due to dimmable overhead lights, and heard of frustration with capacitive controls going haywire from liquid splatters. There are some very real benefits to touch interfaces in cooking (primarily ease of cleaning a solid flat surface, and manufacturers don’t need to worry about moisture ingress), but it’s pretty hard to make one that actually consistently works in a way that won’t accidentally burn your house down when your cat walks across the cooktop in the middle of the night. I’m personally going to stick to knobs and buttons in the meantime.
- amluto 10mo ago
  > it’s pretty hard to make one that actually consistently works in a way that won’t accidentally burn your house down when your cat walks across the cooktop in the middle of the night. Regardless of how the controls work, you can make a cooktop that, functionally, will not set your cat on fire: use an induction stove. Unless your cat ends up in a pan or your cat is ferromagnetic, the stove won’t heat it :)

WalterBright 10mo ago

Apple doesn't document how their iphone touch interface works. I have to use google to tell me how to do things. I don't want to have to use google while driving to figure out what the interface is.

dzhiurgis 10mo ago
[flagged]
- WalterBright 10mo ago
  I've been designing user interfaces my whole professional life. A "majority" isn't good enough. Especially when operating a machine going 60 mph. Consider the key fob to my car. It has two buttons on it with icons - lock and unlock. You'd think that's what it does. Not so. It has all kinds of behaviors based on how you press the buttons! Thinks like setting of a siren (which won't turn off until you put the key in the ignition), opening all the doors or only one of them, opening the windows, putting the car in "sentry" mode (whatever that is), etc. I also got to wondering why the battery in it never died, like it would do in other key fobs. It turns out it recharges when inserted into the ignition lock! (I actually kinda liked that feature!)
  - dzhiurgis 10mo ago
    So you say the interfaces perfectly fit everyone's use cases? We both know that cannot be true.
    - WalterBright 10mo ago
      A majority would be 51%. Everyone would be 100%.
  - howdyhowdy123 9mo ago
    Jeez, what car is this?

deleted 10mo ago

[deleted]

apexalpha 10mo ago

>I can't think of any device, appliance, etc. I own whose UX is _better_ for not having physical, dedicated buttons or switches and instead having a touch interface or buttons which require a complex series of presses or chords. Phone.

marssaxman 10mo ago
It may be better in an overall-compromise sort of way, but a touchscreen is not better for typing. I still miss the BlackBerry, and basically just stopped bothering to do any real text entry on a phone after keyboards went away.
- MetaWhirledPeas 10mo ago
  People who buy things disagree, in aggregate.
  - anonymars 10mo ago
    You could make the same fallacious argument about cars when they all took buttons away and there was scant choice
    - MetaWhirledPeas 10mo ago
      Although cars have way more touch screens than before, they are not yet ubiquitous. With phones they have pretty much all converged on a single form factor with the only variant being size.
  - marssaxman 10mo ago
    They have no meaningful choice. To the degree that this does represent consumer preference, however, what it tells us is simply that touchscreen phones are preferred overall: it does not follow that touchscreen keyboards, specifically, are preferred for text-entry tasks.
    - 10mo ago

fkdk 10mo ago

Maybe not the answer you are looking for, but rumor has it that engineers at VW were well aware of points like those you raise. However the CEO at that time, Herbert Diess, outspoken admirer of Musk/Tesla, pushed for touch interfaces anyways.

MetaWhirledPeas 10mo ago

> I'd love to know what the justification for replacing them in the first place was. I can't think of any device, appliance, etc. I own whose UX is _better_ for not having physical, dedicated buttons or switches and instead having a touch interface or buttons which require a complex series of presses or chords. I can't speak for other manufacturers, but having lived with a Tesla I can say these are some justifications, beyond cost: - Standardization. With some exceptions where hardware is different, once you've driven one Tesla you can drive any Tesla. I love physical buttons too, but I don't love finding the drive mode buttons in a different place every time I rent a car, or trying to figure out how this one does the windshield wipers, or headlights, or radio tuning, or parking brake, or whatever. - Simplification. Along with the mandate to reduce physical controls, Tesla also pushed toward making everything automatic. I never have to think about my headlights (and they dim in a circle around any detected vehicle in front of me), and I don't have to think much about drive modes either. It does a good job of automatically picking the correct direction when you tap the brake, and has a good mechanism for auto-switching between forward and reverse as you manipulate the brake and wheel. - OTA updates. When something isn't working out for people they can make adjustments. They can also add new features (AI assistant, more automation) without mounting new buttons. There are some silly choices, like the glove box (which is tiny and not very useful anyway) requiring a voice command or the touchscreen. And some people don't like the touchscreen vents (I do, surprise surprise). But most of it makes good sense.

tencentshill 10mo ago

The only customer that matters to them are new car buyers, who are easily swayed by salesman and shiny objects.

wffurr 10mo ago

I specifically bought the model of induction stove I have (LG Studio) due to physical knobs for the burners.

ethagnawl 10mo ago
This sounds great. Unfortunately, the options for 24" induction ranges were extremely limited when I was in the market 3-4 years ago and I had to settle for a Blomberg.
- jake_wls 10mo ago
  [flagged]

herbturbo 10mo ago

First they put screens in for navigation because people were using dash mounted ones. Guess it felt logical to move the entertainment and info in there too (infotainment) and then came the EVs and the goofy tech era of cars. Late 2010s was peak automotive - most modern cars are like tacky appliances inside now.

yibg 10mo ago

Touch controls are frustrating in general. But in this case, I don't think there is a safety issue from electric fire because of a spill. For generic turning it off (as in stop producing heat, not break the electrical circuit), isn't that just removing the pot on an induction stove?

sib 10mo ago

Mobile phones.