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

571–580 of 1001 posts

Re: Automakers are starting to admit that drivers hate touchscreens

#571

Post by satellite2 »

zamnos wrote: post #560
TheFragenTaken wrote: post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that these cars pass safety certification, makes me question certifiers. It's illegal to look at your phone while driving, for good reason, but it's legal to fiddle with a damn computer screen, because it's part of the car. I predict it's a matter of time before we'll see a correlation between number of crashes, and cars with touchscreens.

Do auto insurance rates on touch screen cars show this to be the case? Cars with touch screens have been around long enough that they should have data, and consequently be charging more for insurance on those cars if they are is that is indeed the case.

They are. But car with touchscreen are more powerful which is always linked to higher fees. So hard to say which feature causes what.

Re: Automakers are starting to admit that drivers hate touchscreens

#572

Post by rkangel »

GuB-42 wrote: post #544
IceWreck wrote: post #421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not have haptic feedback like in phones

Because haptics "like in phones" suck. They are nothing but vibration motors. There have been a lot of research of patents for more interesting interaction, but what we have now is arguable worse than what we had in a Nokia 3310 (because of the lower mass of the motors). The feedback is like if the entire screen was a single button. Haptic tech I have seen are ways to vary the drag coefficient across the screen, tiny…

The haptics in the trackpads for the Steam Deck are pretty good. They manage to communicate textures and boundaries on the trackpad. They're not magical, but they are a bit step above anything I've used anywhere else.

Re: Automakers are starting to admit that drivers hate touchscreens

#573

Post by tp34 »

bradgessler wrote: post #413
jjav wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So what? You've got physical buttons? Big whoop. That physical button that takes 500ms to respond is still as dangerous. No, that's wrong. Problem with touchscreens is that (1) you need to look at them and (2) there is no tactile feedback of whether you pressed it or not and (3) you need to hover your arm in a moving car at just the right spot. Physical buttons cleanly resolve all of these major problems. If the ac…

> Physical buttons cleanly resolve all of these major problems > Given that with a physical button you didn't have to take your eyes off the road and given the tactile feedback you know for sure you activated/pressed/moved the control I never understand the "you don't have to look at buttons" argument—my car has lots of physical buttons and to push them, I briefly have to look at the console, find the button, and pre…

Do you need to look at your computer mouse to "click" the button(s)?

Assuming you possess this basic competence, I find myself wondering how you managed to purchase a vehicle with such absurd ergonomics.

You have a strange, poorly designed vehicle

This "big dashboard full of buttons." Please provide a picture. Is this a custom design?

"For me, when things get dangerous, its [sic] when pressing the button (physical or touch) doesn't do what its [sic] suppose [sic] to do."

What actions are you referring to? Changing the audio volume? The interior fan speed?

You may want to consider researching your vehicle purchases more rigorously.

Re: Automakers are starting to admit that drivers hate touchscreens

#574

Post by natch »

piperswe wrote: post #255
natch wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A long list of non essential features. But pedals and steering and doors and windows still work fine in your scenario (which btw I’ve never heard of happening but of course it’s maybe possible). Not sure about wipers, haven’t tried the wiper button while rebooting, hmm now I’m really curious…

Back when I owned a Tesla, I had the infotainment system crash at least once. Luckily I was on a neighborhood road, so I could just go slow in lieu of the speedometer.

Wow, you really were lucky, whew.

Re: Automakers are starting to admit that drivers hate touchscreens

#575

Post by Archelaos »

TheFragenTaken wrote: post #533
jjav wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So what? You've got physical buttons? Big whoop. That physical button that takes 500ms to respond is still as dangerous. No, that's wrong. Problem with touchscreens is that (1) you need to look at them and (2) there is no tactile feedback of whether you pressed it or not and (3) you need to hover your arm in a moving car at just the right spot. Physical buttons cleanly resolve all of these major problems. If the ac…

The fact that these cars pass safety certification, makes me question certifiers. It's illegal to look at your phone while driving, for good reason, but it's legal to fiddle with a damn computer screen, because it's part of the car. I predict it's a matter of time before we'll see a correlation between number of crashes, and cars with touchscreens.

> but it's legal to fiddle with a damn computer screen, because it's part of the car.

In Germany it is only legal to operate a touch screen while driving for essential functions with only a brief glance. For example, a judgement was handed down against a Tesla driver who tried to switch up the interval of the windscreen wiper via touchscreen and ran off the road in the process.

Source: https://www.burhoff.de/asp_weitere_beschluesse/inhalte/5723.... (in German)

Re: Automakers are starting to admit that drivers hate touchscreens

#576

Post by mytailorisrich »

TheFragenTaken wrote: post #533
jjav wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So what? You've got physical buttons? Big whoop. That physical button that takes 500ms to respond is still as dangerous. No, that's wrong. Problem with touchscreens is that (1) you need to look at them and (2) there is no tactile feedback of whether you pressed it or not and (3) you need to hover your arm in a moving car at just the right spot. Physical buttons cleanly resolve all of these major problems. If the ac…

The fact that these cars pass safety certification, makes me question certifiers. It's illegal to look at your phone while driving, for good reason, but it's legal to fiddle with a damn computer screen, because it's part of the car. I predict it's a matter of time before we'll see a correlation between number of crashes, and cars with touchscreens.

This obviously depends on the jurisdiction. Here in the UK:

There is a specific ban on using phones while driving.

There is an obligation to drive with "due care and attention" so taking your eyes and attention off the road to spend time fiddling with a computer screen can be an offence as well.

Re: Automakers are starting to admit that drivers hate touchscreens

#577

Post by VBprogrammer »

Our car has a decent sized touch screen and I think it's great. I can browse Spotify rather whatever CD I left in the car 3 years ago, I can use Google maps rather than the rubbish build in navigation, I can set the clock to BST without getting the manual out etc.

However, none of the cars primary controls are on the touch screen. Air-conditioned, volume, gear selector, menus for range and fuel consumption all have physical buttons.

Re: Automakers are starting to admit that drivers hate touchscreens

#578

Post by thatjoeoverthr »

jjav wrote: post #371
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…

> So what? You've got physical buttons? Big whoop. That physical button that takes 500ms to respond is still as dangerous. No, that's wrong. Problem with touchscreens is that (1) you need to look at them and (2) there is no tactile feedback of whether you pressed it or not and (3) you need to hover your arm in a moving car at just the right spot. Physical buttons cleanly resolve all of these major problems. If the ac…

Strong disagree about response time. There is a huge difference between a quick glance and tap, and having to watch an interface and figure out if it registered the touch or not. An unresponsive screen demands significant extra attention because you have to monitor it.

Re: Automakers are starting to admit that drivers hate touchscreens

#579

Post by omgomgomgomg »

Drove a bmw 2 series last week, you have to move forward ypur whole upper body to touch the screen, theres no way to reach the screen without getting into a very unsafe position.

Am 6ft.

Bmw used to do ergonomics and ui very well, what a disappointment.

Re: Automakers are starting to admit that drivers hate touchscreens

#580

Post by usrusr »

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…

Working on a product vs working on a project. The latter means that the usefulness of the thing produced is a non-goal because the customer is not a user.
Post reply on HN