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

131–140 of 147 posts

Re: Car touchscreens are cheap, not good

#131

Post by scottyah »

Miraste wrote: post #130
scottyah wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right- it was a generalization. I think the amount of actual dashboard-button-pressing without looking away is extremely low, probably 1 button. The rest might be usable a quick glance, but so is a touchscreen.

I suppose that's true. I was thinking of my car, which has a lot of buttons on the steering wheel itself. They're easy to use without looking, since you don't have to change your hand position, and I control music entirely with those.

I agree, wheel controls are my favorite!

Re: Car touchscreens are cheap, not good

#132

Post by jjav »

pwg wrote: post #4
citelao wrote: post #2

OP here: I always disliked touchscreens in cars, so I didn't understand why automakers kept shoving them in. I always assumed I was weird in some way, and that most consumers preferred touchscreens or something (Reddit seems to argue this in circles all the time). I planned to keep buying Mazdas, with their lovely buttons and stuff. But when Mazda unveiled their button-lite 2026 CX-5 about a year ago, I started inves…

> so I didn't understand why automakers kept shoving them in. The article explained why. Since 2018 in the US, due to the proliferation of giant trucks being used as passenger vehicles (SUV's) backup cameras have been mandatory safety equipment. A backup camera requires a screen. So the automakers have to install a screen in the dashboard. It is only a few dollars more to install a "touch screen" vs. a "basic display…

> So the automakers have to install a screen in the dashboard.

Perfect example of reasonably good intention backfiring.

So now you have a backup camera, which is useful, but you also have drivers fiddling around with a touchscreen while driving, taking eyes and concentration off the road.

I don't have research numbers, but it feels like the latter causes way more accidents than the backup camera prevents.

My partner has one of these newer cars where everything is a multi-menu operation through the touchscreen and it is very scary. Anything you need to change takes many many seconds of visual attention focusing on the touchscreen, which means not focusing at the road. I'm quite sure this will lead to an accident at some point.

Personally none of my cars have a screen and none ever will. I can adjust everything that can be adjusted purely by feel without ever taking my eyes off the road. Clearly that is safer.

Re: Car touchscreens are cheap, not good

#133

Post by jjav »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #52
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…

> I will _happily_ pay the $100 more to have a more premium and tuned interior I'm guessing the cost difference is greater than this. Which means the end-user price difference would be north of $1k. Would be interesting to see if customers would pay $2 to 5k extra for a mostly-tactile interior. (I think back-up camera requirements make some screen unavoidable.)

Sure, I'd pay 2K or 5K or 10K more for a car with purely physical controls, no screen. It is so much better it is not a question.

Re: Car touchscreens are cheap, not good

#134

Post by jjav »

scottyah wrote: post #61
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…

Do you not have muscle memory for screens too? I find my brain has an easier time visualizing all the touchscreen controls I use semi-often over buttons. Perhaps it's a generational thing.

> Do you not have muscle memory for screens too?

No, that's not a thing because there is no physical sensation to it.

Re: Car touchscreens are cheap, not good

#135

Post by jjav »

sedatk wrote: post #34

More importantly, car touchscreens are dangerous. It’s impossible to operate a touchscreen without moving your attention from the road to the touchscreen itself. That’s why I think it must be a legal requirement for any car with touchscreen controls to operate car functions must have driver assistance features enabled, no exceptions.

> That’s why I think it must be a legal requirement for any car with touchscreen controls to operate car functions must have driver assistance features enabled, no exceptions.

Absolutely! Twiddling with a phone while driving is illegal, for a good reason.

For the same good reason, having to interact with a touch screen while driving should be illegal (from that, it follows that it should be illegal to sell a car which requires using a touch screen).

Re: Car touchscreens are cheap, not good

#136

Post by jjav »

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 cannot push physical buttons on a dashboard without taking your eyes off the road, it's a myth

You can't possibly make this argument in good faith. Obviously it is trivial to interact with physical buttons while blind, so it can always be done without taking eyes off the road.

Re: Car touchscreens are cheap, not good

#137

Post by kleiba2 »

wkjagt wrote: post #82
kleiba2 wrote: post #3

I think there is a real market for modding news cars to have physical buttons again. Whenever this discussion pops up on the internet, there's plenty if people who prefer them (they're called "old folks" ;-)) so why not mod your dashboard to feature a - wait for it - volume button for your music!

I wonder how much can be controlled over some kind of bus. Would be cool to have all sorts of physical buttons and a micro controller to control radio, AC, heated seats etc etc so I can keep looking at the road while changing things.

That's exactly what I had in mind.

Re: Car touchscreens are cheap, not good

#138

Post by soco »

jjav wrote: post #132
pwg wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so I didn't understand why automakers kept shoving them in. The article explained why. Since 2018 in the US, due to the proliferation of giant trucks being used as passenger vehicles (SUV's) backup cameras have been mandatory safety equipment. A backup camera requires a screen. So the automakers have to install a screen in the dashboard. It is only a few dollars more to install a "touch screen" vs. a "basic display…

> So the automakers have to install a screen in the dashboard. Perfect example of reasonably good intention backfiring. So now you have a backup camera, which is useful, but you also have drivers fiddling around with a touchscreen while driving, taking eyes and concentration off the road. I don't have research numbers, but it feels like the latter causes way more accidents than the backup camera prevents. My partner…

> Personally none of my cars have a screen and none ever will. I can adjust everything that can be adjusted purely by feel without ever taking my eyes off the road. Clearly that is safer.

You can also have the best of both worlds. I'm not pretending it's an ideal car, but my Audi has plenty of knobs and buttons and switches for about anything I usually need. You only are forced to use the screen for switching between radio and bluetooth music (maybe there's a button for that too and I don't know it), for setting up the navigation and of course the zillion of car settings. So do I have a screen? Yes. Do I depend on it? Really no. So folks, there IS a way, we just have to push for it.

Re: Car touchscreens are cheap, not good

#139

Post by Timon3 »

scottyah wrote: post #128
Miraste wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You're right- it was a generalization. I think the amount of actual dashboard-button-pressing without looking away is extremely low, probably 1 button. The rest might be usable a quick glance, but so is a touchscreen.

That entirely depends on the layout and shape/size/feeling of each button. If they're sufficiently different I'd guess 3-5 buttons is reasonable.

Re: Car touchscreens are cheap, not good

#140

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN