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

Apple CarPlay

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 376 posts

Re: Apple CarPlay

#331

Post by kolinko »

shas3 wrote: post #292
deveac wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yay, more touch screen in cars. More ways to distract, frustrate and confuse users who are operating a big box of steel weighing 3 tons and going at speeds the human brain has never evolved to appropriately deal with. This reduces distraction. You have to remember to take into account human behavior. In the real world, people get into their vehicle and use their phone's map application, as well as text, phone, and m…

A good compromise on distractions and 'more inputs' is voice-based UI. Honestly, car companies and OEMs must be focusing on better voice-based UIs for cars rather than distracting touch screens. The Sync system in Ford cars is a well-intentioned example that doesn't work that well.

That's a very American way of thinking about things.

I assume you're American (or British), because voice-based systems are nearly useless for non-native english speakers.

I'm a fluent english speaker, but due to my non-american accent, and the fact that my language is not one of the top 10 used in the world I still cannot operate Siri (or other voice systems) properly, and the dictation feature is nearly useless to me.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#332

Post by valarauca1 »

mzs wrote: post #236
valarauca1 wrote: post #161

The problem I see while this is great for consumers is IOS isn't a real-time OS. So it won't be able to manage car sensor data. This means it'll be a hard sell to auto-makers in the US since most want only 1 computer in the car (to do infotainment AND sensor control). This is the holy grail currently in infotainment systems. The only automaker moving in this direction currently is Ford by using blackberry's platform…

That's not holy grail at all, only one car manufacturer was pushing for that, and they have essentially given-up.

From what I understand the Microsoft contract is cancelled, the new company stepping in has a real time OS, and they are testing once again to enable single CPU configurations.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#333

Post by alexqgb »

umsm wrote: post #318
ed209 wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2011, 3,331 people were killed in crashes involving a distracted driver. 3,267 in 2010. [1] When you say "This reduces distraction." you mean compared to holding the phone and doing those actions, right? The way I would account for human behavior is to intelligently disable certain functionality as the car is moving. Compared to someone else's life, how important is that text message? Even dictating a text message…

Not true. Driving a car with bluetooth, I now see how wonderful and useful this feature is. I don't have to take my eyes off the road and I don't have to hold anything to my ear. Its very very seamless. If you can't talk while you drive, then you shouldn't have passengers either.

Yes, but you're still distracted, and that's the problem.

The obvious difference between a phone call and a conversation had with someone in the car is that the person in the car is also placing their life at risk. Unlike the person who isn't there, they can (a) see and (b) intervene when you're starting to drive like an idiot.

It's not that a live conversation is any less distracting. It's just that it comes with a built in safety mechanism.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#335

Post by josephschmoe »

Why can't these touch screens work like the Razer Blade mouse pad? i.e. it's a touch screen, but you couldn't tell because it has metal plates/buttons on top of it. Essentially, it's just a programmable mousepad + keys.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#336

Post by gnaffle »

renata wrote: post #260
gnaffle wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Granted, the things that touchscreens replace in avionics are the stuff that you need your eyes on to operate in any case (navigation computer etc). And they often replace input systems that were far, far worse (read http://philip.greenspun.com/flying/garmin-gps for a funny review of the old Garmin avionics). And in the air, you have a little more time to look at the instruments without risking crashing into a meetin…

Having previously worked in avionics I'm a little annoyed that many of the things he complains about are a combination of overstrict FAA rules and the immense cost required for certification for some of the functionality he wants. For instance, you can't warn for terrain unless you're level A certified on almost all airframes - and there's a differences between TAWS A, which lets you warn with "Terrain - Pull Up" and…

That's interesting. Not sure if it's a "jurisdiction" thing, as in if it's a part of the airplane, they go into the certification regime?

For instance, laptop PCs running Windows and iPads are certified for EFB use now (I would assume for approach plates as well), but I'm not sure what the limitations are, or what certification level that is.

Btw, what did you work on in avionics, and what made you move to a different area of work?

Re: Apple CarPlay

#337

Post by taitems »

achairapart wrote: post #334

This website is horrible: image replacement for most of the text. It's 2014. Seriously, Apple?

"It's 2014" and Chrome can't even render a web font that's not hideously jagged on Windows. Even IE renders text better than Chrome these days. Why would the pixel perfect Apple designers leave something as integral as typography up to a browser with rendering problems?

Re: Apple CarPlay

#338

Post by foobarqux »

chaz wrote: post #280
foobarqux wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iDrive is terrible and distracting. Never has changing a radio station been so dangerous.

Yes, which is why they give you hard buttons for presets and up/down scan.

Only after 2012 as far as I can tell. I don't know if that finally makes the system sane but it certainly wasn't previously.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#339

Post by shas3 »

kolinko wrote: post #331
shas3 wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A good compromise on distractions and 'more inputs' is voice-based UI. Honestly, car companies and OEMs must be focusing on better voice-based UIs for cars rather than distracting touch screens. The Sync system in Ford cars is a well-intentioned example that doesn't work that well.

That's a very American way of thinking about things. I assume you're American (or British), because voice-based systems are nearly useless for non-native english speakers. I'm a fluent english speaker, but due to my non-american accent, and the fact that my language is not one of the top 10 used in the world I still cannot operate Siri (or other voice systems) properly, and the dictation feature is nearly useless to…

I'm a heavily accented non-American, non-British (though I can claim English is my native language since it's been my language of instruction since Kindergarten).

Google's voice recognition system, and of late, Siri both work fine for me. Sync, iPhone 'voice control', etc. are next to useless. In certain cases, I've tried to adapt. For example, my immediate family, rather than have their names or what I call them in my other native language, I've named them using common English words. So I can just say "Call Dad", and the speech recognition system works.

When I say that OEMs and auto-makers should work on improving voice recognition systems, I mean the entire processing system: sound acquisition, signal conditioning, and machine-learning based speech recognition.

Re: Apple CarPlay

#340

Post by MichaelGG »

ed209 wrote: post #296
deveac wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Yay, more touch screen in cars. More ways to distract, frustrate and confuse users who are operating a big box of steel weighing 3 tons and going at speeds the human brain has never evolved to appropriately deal with. This reduces distraction. You have to remember to take into account human behavior. In the real world, people get into their vehicle and use their phone's map application, as well as text, phone, and m…

In 2011, 3,331 people were killed in crashes involving a distracted driver. 3,267 in 2010. [1] When you say "This reduces distraction." you mean compared to holding the phone and doing those actions, right? The way I would account for human behavior is to intelligently disable certain functionality as the car is moving. Compared to someone else's life, how important is that text message? Even dictating a text message…

So essentially, phones should just turn themselves off when moving? I find it highly unlikely that such a law would get any traction (implementation seems rather difficult - by the time it's fully deployed, we'd have been better off putting efforts into self-driving cars). Companies have no chance of implementing this optionally: Why would I buy a car/phone I can't use as a passenger? Deaf passengers would be doubly upset, as the presumably-allowed voice-control features wouldn't be accessible to them.
Post reply on HN