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

Car touchscreens are cheap, not good

ben.stolovitz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 147 posts

Re: Car touchscreens are cheap, not good

#111

Post by dghlsakjg »

mcphage wrote: post #105
advisedwang wrote: post #45

I have heard (but have no insider knowledge) that it's not just the cost of parts, but what parts do to the development lifecycle. With physical parts, the development process is highly sequential. Pick the look, design how it fits, engineer what parts are used, manufacture tooling etc etc in a waterfall. If a revision needs to be made, the whole process needs to be re-started adding a huge amount of delays. With a t…

I feel like you could solve that with some constraints defined early in the process—the controls must fit in dimensions XxYxZ, and have K-input wires, and draw at most 5V of power, or whatever. Then the control designer can go off and design whatever they want within those constraints, and the car designer can go off and design the interior of the car knowing what the head unit will require.

That's what the term "parts bin parts" refers to in the industry. If you get familiar with any car brand you can normally tell what brand of car a particular switch came from because they all use the same parts. Corvettes will share a LOT of parts with Suburbans, eg.

You still have the issue of having to build the panels that the switches get installed into, so if you can replace a bunch of switches with a touchscreen interface, you can get on with designing the interior before you even know how may switches need to be installed.

Re: Car touchscreens are cheap, not good

#112

Post by wvenable »

max8539 wrote: post #90
anon7000 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mazda’s rotary knob also has safety issues. Let’s say I want to zoom the Google Maps in or out in CarPlay) at some point in my navigation. With the knob, you have a few issues: 1. iOS made the focus border on UI elements very faint. So it’s hard to tell where the knob is at rotating through all the UI elements. 2. Because zoom is kind of a sub feature, you have to rotate through like 10 buttons to get to the right th…

With a knob, you always could stop what you are doing and look back at the road and then continue. With a touch screen, you need to find a button and touch it without looking at the road, or you need to do it from the start again.

I have this knob and I don't understand your point. With the knob or the touch screen, you need to look at the screen to see what you're doing. The knob merely controls a cursor.

I find the knob considerably more distracting. First you have translate the motion of the knob to the cursor moving on the screen. Secondly, you have to cycle through all the options so you have to spend even more time looking at the screen. It's significantly faster and less distracting to just reach out and tap the button you want.

Other physical buttons are great but the knob is a terrible UI.

Re: Car touchscreens are cheap, not good

#113

Post by wvenable »

Fwirt wrote: post #75
aftbit wrote: post #37

They're getting better though. The first gen touchscreens were tiny and unreliable. The one in my 2024 Ioniq 5 is pretty decent. I am really glad I still have physical AC controls though, even if they're capacitive. Touchscreens are modal. If I want to control the climate, I first have to press the Climate capacitive button or scroll through the screen to find climate. That takes my hands off the wheel and my eyes of…

Touch screens don't have to be modal, that's a UI choice. The 2020 Bolt we just got leaves the climate controls on screen at all times, even when CarPlay is open. I was also pleasantly surprised by the number of buttons it has, including both a volume knob and a temperature knob. That being said, the touchscreen software is abysmal and laggy. CarPlay works great, but any time I have to navigate the car's built-in sof…

> The 2020 Bolt we just got leaves the climate controls on screen at all times

At that point though they might as well be physical buttons! It's all the disadvantages of a touch screen and none of the advantages.

Re: Car touchscreens are cheap, not good

#114

Post by wvenable »

advisedwang wrote: post #45

I have heard (but have no insider knowledge) that it's not just the cost of parts, but what parts do to the development lifecycle. With physical parts, the development process is highly sequential. Pick the look, design how it fits, engineer what parts are used, manufacture tooling etc etc in a waterfall. If a revision needs to be made, the whole process needs to be re-started adding a huge amount of delays. With a t…

It's a good argument except the basic controls needed for a car haven't changed in decades: We all need the same climate controls, media controls, etc.

For deep car settings, those have been screen controls for over a decade now and that makes sense.

Re: Car touchscreens are cheap, not good

#115

Post by Fwirt »

wvenable wrote: post #113
Fwirt wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Touch screens don't have to be modal, that's a UI choice. The 2020 Bolt we just got leaves the climate controls on screen at all times, even when CarPlay is open. I was also pleasantly surprised by the number of buttons it has, including both a volume knob and a temperature knob. That being said, the touchscreen software is abysmal and laggy. CarPlay works great, but any time I have to navigate the car's built-in sof…

> The 2020 Bolt we just got leaves the climate controls on screen at all times At that point though they might as well be physical buttons! It's all the disadvantages of a touch screen and none of the advantages.

Actually it's an odd split. The temperature and fan adjustment are physical buttons, but the A/C, recirculation, and heated seat controls are on the screen. I'm thinking this is for two reasons: If a lower trim level lacks heated seats then they just exclude them from the firmware, and the AC and recirc controls require lighted indicators, which is probably a lot more expensive than just a button, so those were much cheaper to integrate into the display. That being said, I've heard digitizer failures can be an issue on this model so I dread that happening.

It also irritates me that there are 3 of those blank button placeholders on the dash and I wish they were actual buttons that were just mapped to A/C and recirc...

Re: Car touchscreens are cheap, not good

#116

Post by advisedwang »

wvenable wrote: post #114
advisedwang wrote: post #45

I have heard (but have no insider knowledge) that it's not just the cost of parts, but what parts do to the development lifecycle. With physical parts, the development process is highly sequential. Pick the look, design how it fits, engineer what parts are used, manufacture tooling etc etc in a waterfall. If a revision needs to be made, the whole process needs to be re-started adding a huge amount of delays. With a t…

It's a good argument except the basic controls needed for a car haven't changed in decades: We all need the same climate controls, media controls, etc. For deep car settings, those have been screen controls for over a decade now and that makes sense.

Automakers are constantly doing functionality-neutral tweaks. There's fashion in how cars looks, and they want every year's model to feel new. Climate control is constant, but one generation has a knob, the next has a slider, the next adds an extra zone, the next changes fan speed from two buttons to a single "up-down" button and so on.

Re: Car touchscreens are cheap, not good

#117

Post by wvenable »

advisedwang wrote: post #116
wvenable wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a good argument except the basic controls needed for a car haven't changed in decades: We all need the same climate controls, media controls, etc. For deep car settings, those have been screen controls for over a decade now and that makes sense.

Automakers are constantly doing functionality-neutral tweaks. There's fashion in how cars looks, and they want every year's model to feel new. Climate control is constant, but one generation has a knob, the next has a slider, the next adds an extra zone, the next changes fan speed from two buttons to a single "up-down" button and so on.

Of course, cars are always evolving, that's why a new model comes out every single year. Ironically, the screen elements of cars always become the most dated part. I don't feel there is nearly as much fashion in the touch screen as the physical elements.

Tesla is the exception that proves the rule; its fashion was its unique minimalist touch screen style compared to other vehicles. Car companies copying that design are making it passé.

Re: Car touchscreens are cheap, not good

#118

Post by scottyah »

jazzyjackson wrote: post #99
scottyah wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could not imagine having to go back to buttons for anything I actually want to control. Once you get used to a well-designed touchscreen, buttons are just so clunky and unintuitive for most functions. Dials are probably my most favorite physical control, but other than volume there's not much it's useful for in a well-designed, modern car anymore. It was great for radio stations, but is terrible for Spotify. Settin…

I cannot relate to this at all. Controlling the AC with three knobs is not a challenge. Did you grow up using an iPad perhaps?

Not exactly, I got my first iPad in college. It's not so much that it's a challenge as it's totally unnecessary effort. I'm sure when the controls came out they were great, then they turned into some weird sprawl that was just designed to look complicated so the car looked like it had lots of features. Now, minimalism reigns king in tech and the one screen is the newest, (imo best) form factor, along with the steering wheel controls, etc.

Re: Car touchscreens are cheap, not good

#119

Post by scottyah »

Miraste wrote: post #77
scottyah wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just like the article mentioned, you can't just say that touchscreens are dangerous without bringing up how many buttons do not make it better UX. There are plenty of touchscreen designs that are way better than buttons. The only metric that matters is how fast you can get attention back on the road.

There are zero touchscreen designs that are better than (physical, tactile) buttons. You can hit buttons without taking your eyes off the road. You cannot do this with a touchscreen. There's no way to design or engineer around it, it's simply the wrong tool for the job.

You cannot push physical buttons on a dashboard without taking your eyes off the road, it's a myth. Fiddling with radio controls is the most cited reason for accidents before cell phones.

Re: Car touchscreens are cheap, not good

#120

Post by Miraste »

scottyah wrote: post #119
Miraste wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are zero touchscreen designs that are better than (physical, tactile) buttons. You can hit buttons without taking your eyes off the road. You cannot do this with a touchscreen. There's no way to design or engineer around it, it's simply the wrong tool for the job.

You cannot push physical buttons on a dashboard without taking your eyes off the road, it's a myth. Fiddling with radio controls is the most cited reason for accidents before cell phones.

?

You most certainly can. That doesn't mean people do it 100% of the time.

Post reply on HN