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

Automakers are starting to admit that drivers hate touchscreens

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 1001 posts

Re: Automakers are starting to admit that drivers hate touchscreens

#331

Post by frosted-flakes »

wand3r wrote: post #183
DecoPerson wrote: post #153

Spinny-dial-based input, with the dial located just behind the shifter (just in front of where the cupholders usually are), is the best input method developed for cars so far. The forces the UI to be a flat list in terms of navigation (rather than a 2d-space-filling UX mess). And being a flat 1d list, it encourages the list be short, which means more submenus, which is good! If menus are consistent, you can mostly co…

i think this is subjective, i drove my moms car with this setup (mazda suv) to NY last weekend. I would NEVER buy a car like this. Touch screen for apple carplay is in my opinion the obvious best setup and the most intuitive interface. You can use your phone or the touch screen on the dashboard. Using a dial to navigate on the screen felt like 2003 UX on some hybrid palm pilot/blackberry. Extremely dangerous for me a…

That's because Apple Carplay wasn't really designed with a linear input method in mind. It should be list-based, not grid-based. Like old Nokia phones, which often only had up-down buttons paired with two action buttons—no left-right.

Give each menu item it's own tone and you could probably navigate it blind after a little bit of practice. Importantly, in this type of system, each menu list should be short—6-7 items max—so that it is easily navigable and memorizable.

Re: Automakers are starting to admit that drivers hate touchscreens

#332

Post by [deleted] »

sircastor wrote: post #229
andrewmcwatters wrote: post #189

I wouldn't mind touchscreens as long as these imbecile developers would strictly limit UI response time to under 16ms. In no world where you're barrelling 3,000+ lbs of mass at tens of miles an hour should you be distracted by some moronic app or subsystem failing to respond in time because it was written by under-experienced software "engineers." Any software running as a part of a motor vehicle should be federally…

> because it was written by under-experienced software "engineers." I used to be an infotainment software engineer for an Auto maker. There’s this idea in the software industry that because the software behaves poorly on your car’s system, it must’ve been written poorly by someone who didn’t know what they were doing. In my experience it was almost always a matter of the hardware being stretched way past its limits.…

[deleted]

Re: Automakers are starting to admit that drivers hate touchscreens

#333

Post by AlotOfReading »

the_overseer wrote: post #312
prng2021 wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's great to get your perspective on this. Aside from the GPS/navigation features, aren't car infotainment systems extremely basic? We've been controlling heating, cooling, audio source, and audio volume since the dawn of time. How are technical requirements related to these basic functions changing such that their UIs haven't been absolutely perfected by now? Is the entire infotainment code being rewritten all the…

Yes. The infotainment code is rewritten every time. By different devs. Because that is how automotive industry works. This time BMW wants infotainment and a third party wins the contract (because it's the cheapest usually). For the next BMW car another company wins the contract. Everything is rebuilt from scratch. The components that make up the infotainment a lot of times are actually developed by different companie…

I'm currently going through a quote cycle and one of my requirements for the component is a sub 8min boot, which the tier 1/2s are pushing back on as unreasonable. The insanity is real.

Re: Automakers are starting to admit that drivers hate touchscreens

#335

Post by mr_november »

rsync wrote: post #265
ambicapter wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I assume somebody's kid got ran over by a parent backing up into them and they then channeled their guilt and grief into lobbying for such a law.

"After His Son’s Tragic Death, This Doctor Fought to Put Backup Cameras In Every Car"[1] "He had gone under the vehicle, I had gone right over his head and killed him. I jumped out of the car, tried to do CPR.” Gulbransen can still taste his blood in his mouth, remembers the way Cameron bled from his nose, his ears. “I knew at that moment he was dead.”" [1] https://www.kidsandcars.org/2018/05/14/after-his-sons-tragic…

Completely unnecessary and upsetting quote. If you must, just link it with some background instead of quoting a sensationalized headline.

Re: Automakers are starting to admit that drivers hate touchscreens

#336

Post by IIAOPSW »

sircastor wrote: post #229
andrewmcwatters wrote: post #189

I wouldn't mind touchscreens as long as these imbecile developers would strictly limit UI response time to under 16ms. In no world where you're barrelling 3,000+ lbs of mass at tens of miles an hour should you be distracted by some moronic app or subsystem failing to respond in time because it was written by under-experienced software "engineers." Any software running as a part of a motor vehicle should be federally…

> because it was written by under-experienced software "engineers." I used to be an infotainment software engineer for an Auto maker. There’s this idea in the software industry that because the software behaves poorly on your car’s system, it must’ve been written poorly by someone who didn’t know what they were doing. In my experience it was almost always a matter of the hardware being stretched way past its limits.…

> they’re just being asked to turn lead into gold and often get silver.

TBF thats literally leaded gasoline

Re: Automakers are starting to admit that drivers hate touchscreens

#337

Post by pySSK »

the_overseer wrote: post #319
ISO-morphism wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe that the engineers are competent at developing software, and think that a lot of the quality issues are due to engineers abdicating authority over the software to managers and never saying "No, adding in that feature at this point in the timeline is going to make this a steaming pile of shit and I refuse to do it and still call myself a software engineer." I get that we have families to feed, but I've seen…

The industry works as follows: the OEM (Daimler, Toyota etc.) says they want a software spec implemented. Other companies (Tier 1 suppliers) bid to win the contract. The cheapest usually wins. If you have a company and refuse to take the crazy deadlines and low quality and low pay then don't worry, there is another Tier 1 supplier across the street who will do it for you. OEMs know that you need them more than they n…

And on top off that, some product manager at Mercedes might say they absolutely need let's say Atmos in the next release and ask the Tier 1 to implement it. The Tier 1 usually uses multiple Tier 2s. The Tier 2s say they need more memory, but that's not practical at all because that hardware was fully validated years ago and you just don't make incremental changes to automotive hardware, and there won't be a hardware refresh for another 4 years. It is in none of the tiers' interests to say they can't do it and lose out on a multi-year contract so they do the best possible job within the constraints.

Re: Automakers are starting to admit that drivers hate touchscreens

#338

Post by Eisenstein »

ultrarunner wrote: post #133
rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a product and even financial standpoint, the trade-off doesn’t make sense. All the litigation that could occur due to accidents caused by a less safe design plus the reputational damage that an inexcellent product could cause to the brand sounds so expensive to me.

It seems carmakers have situated themselves fairly comfortably regarding liability. If a car hits someone in "the road" the victim immediately becomes a "jay walker" and it's their fault. Otherwise the driver made a mistake. Otherwise the DOT is at fault. It's nearly impossible to blame automakers for the damage their products do. A good example of this might be the lack of intuitive feedback regarding headlights. Mo…

It's great that you mention jay walkers because this wasn't a thing before cars. When cars first started appearing on the road there was a huge backlash because kids played in the street and people cross the street and they got hit by cars and people got pissed off. Car clubs started popularizing the term 'jay walker' and shaming people for it in order to reduce the backlash against cars and drivers for hitting people that were using the street. After a while it became normalized that people in the street are at fault and drivers are not.

Re: Automakers are starting to admit that drivers hate touchscreens

#339

Post by branko_d »

yellowapple wrote: post #124
civilized wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Profiting off of a less safe product that kills people could be seen as an egregious moral deficiency.

Corporations, being paperclip-maximizing automata, don't have morals in the first place, so no deficiency is possible.

But... but... corporation are people! Aren’t they? Mitt Romney, have you lied to me??

Re: Automakers are starting to admit that drivers hate touchscreens

#340

Post by awill88 »

Does anyone else feel the timing is somewhat suspicious? I don’t know a single conversation I’ve had with anyone literally bitchin about how much they despise not having a button. PITA sure, but feels oddly close to all this supply chain stuff.. I’m probably nuts here..
Post reply on HN