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

The subtle art of designing physical controls for cars

theturnsignalblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 242 posts

Re: The subtle art of designing physical controls for cars

#201

Post by BurningFrog »

arkh wrote: post #185
hgomersall wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't need any of that. You just need a knob that ranges from make as cold as you can to make as hot as you can and a reasonable fine grain in between. I can find the right set point because I'm literally sat next to the knob and I'm a better control system than anything they can come up with.

And I'm a lazy fucker: I want to set a temperature range and then not bother until I sell the car. Under the range? Heat it. Over? Freeze it. But a range, not a single point. So if the temperature is between min and max, the AC stays off.

This is, by far, my main AC complaint. Since it's almost always not the exact requested temperature, the AC noise is always on.

Re: The subtle art of designing physical controls for cars

#202

Post by nottorp »

hgomersall wrote: post #200
arkh wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And I'm a lazy fucker: I want to set a temperature range and then not bother until I sell the car. Under the range? Heat it. Over? Freeze it. But a range, not a single point. So if the temperature is between min and max, the AC stays off.

I posit you're unusual in your opinion. I mostly observe people use the climate control knob like a heater knob. If it's cold, the set temperature gets cranked up; if hot it gets cranked down.

I don't like thermal shocks when getting in/out of the car so I stick it to a low-ish temperature in winter and something high-ish but still bearable in summer.

I really don't like getting out of a car cooled to 18 C when outside it's 30+.

However this just proves "smart" automatic a/c is useless because, newsflash, different people have different habits.

Re: The subtle art of designing physical controls for cars

#203

Post by nottorp »

amluto wrote: post #186
nottorp wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I test drove a Tesla and besides the stupid tablet controls the smart turn stalks couldn't hold a turn signal when turning left at a crossroads that wasn't at 90 degrees. That's life threatening if you ask me. No, I don't need to know Musk's politics to avoid his cars. Of course, it's well known that BMWs come without a turn stalk so maybe it seems normal if you compare those two brands :)

My biggest objection to modern smart turn signal stalks is that you can’t turn the turn signal off easily. Sometimes the signal is on, I want it off, and there simply is no way to do it reliably. The old latching stalks could be moved to the center position, and the signal would turn off every time.

With the Tesla i couldn't keep it on to turn left at something like 30 to 45 degrees and at the same time maneuver to the lane reserved for taking that left. Which required turning the wheel right a bit.

Since I was test driving, I just moved forward instead.

Re: The subtle art of designing physical controls for cars

#204

Post by jollyjerry »

Appreciate the post and the discussion around it. As a car enthusiast, I enjoyed reading the specific implementations out in the wild today.

What stood out in the article was the attention paid to designing intuitive haptics. What our bodies expect in feedback when we turn a weighted dial. Doing it in software allows controlling multiple things, but I would still prefer a dumb dial per function, placed in close proximity to where the function acts. Seat controls near seats, climate controls near vents. Personalization stuffed into the screen and menus and profiles.

I did not think I would like auto climate controls until I lived with one. Even then, I would fiddle with it because I didn’t like the sudden high initial fan speed until I got used to it.

Re: The subtle art of designing physical controls for cars

#205

Post by mavamaarten »

conductr wrote: post #84
oidar wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. I don't want a "smart" knob. I'm dreading going car shopping sometime this next year. I anticipate having to rule out a large pool of cars to keep my controls navigable without looking.

My wife bought a new car with fully digital display a year ago. For me, I got a 2013 low mileage dumb car. Couldn't find anything new that I liked with my preferred level of UX technology (or lack of). I drive both equally and even a year later, I hate operating anything in her car. Once you get it dialed in, not too bad, but there's constantly edge cases of things you do infrequently and really have to search around…

Oh how I wish I could turn off the anti-glare function of my side mirrors (Audi). For the rear mirror I don't mind it, but it completely fucks my side vision in the dark. Brightness of lights is totally a valid way to guesstimate distance, and if everything is just a dark reflection I totally have no sense of depth anymore.

Re: The subtle art of designing physical controls for cars

#206

Post by hinkley »

crote wrote: post #31
hinkley wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a commercial product that looks like a fancy fancy version of this and I think has a tilt sensor as well. It’s notable not just because it is loved by some media people, both art and video, but also because it’s shown up on the pilot’s chair in several notable sci fi movies/series with an outer space theme. I do want more smart devices with analog inputs and outputs though. I feel like Ambient Technologies we…

Let me guess: 3DConnexion's SpaceMouse?

Yes! Seen it on several bridges.

Re: The subtle art of designing physical controls for cars

#207

Post by hadlock »

dlcarrier wrote: post #23

Designing car controls is easy. You take what engineers have spent 100 yeas fine tuning every element of, for precision and ergonomics, then you give to someone with an industrial design degree who throws it all out the door to make something shiny, and it kills Anton Yelchin, amongst others.

I've been convinced for a long time that much of this is a jobs program for staff ui/ux developers. The UI for AWS hasn't changed appreciably in ten years but they've still managed to redesign it at least three times in that period with no benefit to anyone. It would be nice if major companies would have a LTS UI for paid users and then allow the UX team to disrupt others workflow using an opt in strategy.

Re: The subtle art of designing physical controls for cars

#208

Post by hadlock »

kdmtctl wrote: post #69
insane_dreamer wrote: post #55

My favorite car control system is the BMW iDrive rotary dial. Touch screens are fine for given much more fine-grained access to controls. But they should be limited to controls that you _don't need to set while driving_. It's absurd that it takes 3 taps on a screen -- diverting my attention to the screen -- on my Tesla to turn on defogging (a common event here!) while I can do it with a one touch (now muscle-memorize…

Did you ever tried to use the rotary dial for text input? I gave up immediately. The car has a regular screen regular, no touch. Something is good only when balanced.

Only twice in seven years did voice control not work for me. I can't recall the last time bmw didn't have touchscreen in a car but it predates 2014

Re: The subtle art of designing physical controls for cars

#209

Post by potato3732842 »

carabiner wrote: post #46
xp84 wrote: post #3

I applaud the author for putting thought into how to design digital controls, in contrast to the "just put whatever garbage on a touch screen" strategy most carmakers do today. However, I still question the benefit of this complex, modal control (you have to press a single knob to "cycle between" multiple modes). My ancient, 2016 car features three knobs. This luxury allows me to, without looking, adjust any of three…

Toyota 3 knobs undefeated.

Why is it that when the entire auto industry does something right Toyota gets credit? Fanboyism is a pox upon online automotive discourse.

Every OEM has used the 3-knob design on and off but it was particualrly hot in the 90s and 00s. It isn't a Toyota thing, or even a specifically Japanese thing.

Here's a random 00s Honda:

https://www.samarins.com/reviews/img/cr-v_04_int_large.jpg

Here's the OJ era bronco:

https://media.carsandbids.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=2080,quali...

Here's a GMT800

https://jandjautowrecking.com/cdn/shop/files/57_8fc2bd4a-2cb...

Here's a radom VW

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/7w0AAOSwApleAMyP/s-l1600.webp

Re: The subtle art of designing physical controls for cars

#210

Post by hadlock »

reaperducer wrote: post #40
crote wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cars used to have modular buttons. It was very common to have a couple of blanks in your infotainment cluster. The problem is that it still requires custom per-feature assembly. A single car model needs a dozen different button configs, with a dozen different wiring harnesses. That's a lot more expensive than a simple one-size-fits-all touch screen you install into literally every single car and configure with a soft…

Cars used to have modular buttons. It was very common to have a couple of blanks in your infotainment cluster. My brand-new luxury-brand EV still has blanks. Not all trim levels get the rear fog lights, or a few other things I can't remember. Also, they're used for buttons related to adding the towing package.

Not all markets get all features at top trim levels. A top trim level 5 series in Malaysia is pretty close to the US base model 3 series (plastic trim panels vs wood or textured metal), whereas China sometimes has long wheelbase chassis available, and occasionally you can order power window shades and self closing doors. Even the US doesn't get LWB option here in the states (it's great though, your kid can't kick the back of your seat until they're almost 4)
Post reply on HN