Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Hidden Cost of Touchscreens

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 166 posts

Re: The Hidden Cost of Touchscreens

#131

Post by KozmoNau7 »

gburdell3 wrote: post #116
scrooched_moose wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can I ask which brand you went with? I'm currently looking and have already tossed out several models I otherwise really wanted.

Car people would kill me for saying this, but look at Kia and Hyundai. I drive a 2015 Forte and I think its touchscreen system makes a lot of sense. It has physical volume and seek knobs, buttons to change audio sources or show the map, and physical climate controls. Their steering wheel control layout is also one of the best I've seen.

I'm a "car person", and I would say that Kia and Hyundai are really damn good cars, these days.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Touchscreens

#132

Post by eli »

KozmoNau7 wrote: post #129
brixon wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would a Stylus work on these screens? Granted that is probably more dangerous while driving than a finger.

A stylus for capacitative touchscreens still needs skin contact in order to work. I know there are gloves with conductive fibres woven in, to make them work with touchscreens. Probably not -30C rated, though.

You can get a capacitive stylus for a few bucks. It's nothing special and doesn't need skin contact.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Touchscreens

#133

Post by beat »

This makes me think of another field where bad UI decisions took years to undo... synthesizers! The rise of digital synthesizers in the late 1980s led to an elimination of knobs and sliders, in favor of buttons and menus. This made it very difficult to design your own sounds for them, as sound manipulation was no longer physically intuitive, and working with interacting parameters could mean a lot of menu-digging rather than just turning two knobs at once to find the sweet spot.

But it was cheaper. And there's where touch screens really come to the fore. They're less expensive than the bespoke hardware interfaces that cars otherwise use.

In cars, though, it's not enough to be hard to use. It's dangerous to use the unfamiliar touchscreens while driving.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Touchscreens

#134

Post by rwbcxrz »

charleyma wrote: post #3

Would also potentially add "voice control" to this list. It's amazing to me that by trying to be "innovative/modern", most car user interface designs have become increasingly user unfriendly. Case in point, the other day I spent 15 minutes trying to figure out how to connect my phone to a car via bluetooth (I'm still used to there just being a button for pairing). Ended up having to search online for the instruction…

My 2016 Jeep Wrangler has Chrysler's garbage voice control. When I say "settings," half the time it hears "español" and changes everything to Spanish, and also switches the digital speedometer from mph to km/h. The confirmation prompt doesn't understand "NO" even when I scream at it.

Once that happens, the only way I've been able to switch it back to English is via the steering wheel controls, but you can only get to that menu when the vehicle is in park.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Touchscreens

#135

Post by namdnay »

joezydeco wrote: post #111
namibj wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any somewhat affordable cars that skimp on the "bling" to archive this sort of efficiency?

I'm happy with my 3rd generation Mazda3. http://images.nadaguides.com/ChromeImageGallery/Expanded/Whi... The IVI display is out of the way but accessible (there's a jogdial on the center console to control it while driving). HVAC controls are manual and very easy to use without looking.

The problem is how to reconcile manual controls (which are great) with Carplay/AndroidAuto (which is even greater). The only control I have over Carplay without using the touchscreen is next/previous song and volume :(

Re: The Hidden Cost of Touchscreens

#136

Post by sitkack »

The pinnacle of climate control is the 1988-1991 Toyota Corolla. The controls are obvious, they literally point to what they are doing, while providing tactile control and feedback. Everything increases in intensity as it moves to the right. The detents that a switch pass through allow the user to have full control while keeping their eyes on the road. All controls are independent (fan, AC, heat, recirculation). In the Volvo and VW there is literally no way to have the fan and not set the desired temperature, which will automatically control the AC or heater depending on the outside temp.

They then made the same regressions as the rest of the industry and moved to a display with modal buttons.

https://imgur.com/a/nt0DwwP

Re: The Hidden Cost of Touchscreens

#137

Post by dredmorbius »

MrGilbert wrote: post #27
phlo wrote: post #26

This makes you appreciate the attention to detail, and the countless painfully learnt lessons, that goes into user interface design for airplanes. Compare a Cessna 400's cockpit [1] to a switch cluster in a recent Mini [2]. The car still has physical switches, which is better than a touchscreen. It's also styled to resemble an airplane cockpit. But all the switches look the same, and some of them have two positions w…

There is a subtile difference in terms of consequences between blindly picking the wrong button on a car vs plane, though...

There are far more people in cars.

There are far more people around cars.

The people in, and around, cars, have far less training to specific instrumentation and controls than those in, and around, aircraft.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Touchscreens

#138

Post by heimidal »

bobwaycott wrote: post #108
scrooched_moose wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can I ask which brand you went with? I'm currently looking and have already tossed out several models I otherwise really wanted.

I recommend taking a look at Audi. No touchscreens. Smart functionality. Tactile buttons for everything. I love my 2018 A5 Sportback.

+1 to this. Even CarPlay is controlled via knob instead of touchscreen, which makes it less distracting, IMO.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Touchscreens

#139

Post by wilsonnb2 »

beat wrote: post #133

This makes me think of another field where bad UI decisions took years to undo... synthesizers! The rise of digital synthesizers in the late 1980s led to an elimination of knobs and sliders, in favor of buttons and menus. This made it very difficult to design your own sounds for them, as sound manipulation was no longer physically intuitive, and working with interacting parameters could mean a lot of menu-digging rat…

There has been a resurgence in analog and analog-style synths since the 80's but overall I think synth UX has gotten even worse with the rise of software synths.

Turning a virtual knob with a mouse pointer is a terrible UX. Mapping parameters to a midi keyboard is also pretty bad, with the exception of hardware like the Native Instruments S MK2 midi keyboards or the Maschine that are specifically built for controlling certain software.

Re: The Hidden Cost of Touchscreens

#140

Post by crooked-v »

namdnay wrote: post #33
phlo wrote: post #26

This makes you appreciate the attention to detail, and the countless painfully learnt lessons, that goes into user interface design for airplanes. Compare a Cessna 400's cockpit [1] to a switch cluster in a recent Mini [2]. The car still has physical switches, which is better than a touchscreen. It's also styled to resemble an airplane cockpit. But all the switches look the same, and some of them have two positions w…

I don't think that's a lack of attention to detail from Mini. Just a decision made with the knowledge that people don't buy premium cars based on rational decisions. If they did, I'm not sure Mini (or BMW for that matter) would exist... I don't think this is the case for airplanes.

My purchase of a Mini was mostly motivated by

1. wanting a physically small car (I'm bad at parking)

2. ...that wasn't anemic at highway speeds

3. ...and could (uncomfortably) fit a couple of friends if necessary, or some flat-pack furniture boxes

4. ...all without being either bland or ugly as sin.

Post reply on HN