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

61–70 of 242 posts

Re: The subtle art of designing physical controls for cars

#61

Post by bityard »

oidar wrote: post #5
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…

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.

Don't forget that almost every car made in the last 5 years reports telemetry (including vehicle speed, accelerometer data, and location) back to the manufacturer who shares that data with third parties, sometimes including insurance companies.

Re: The subtle art of designing physical controls for cars

#62

Post by benoliver999 »

groby_b wrote: post #34
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…

There's also the fact that most thermostats do manage to keep the sensor input constant, but that's surprisingly uncorrelated with how you actually feel . (Often due to the slightly bonkers idea that single sensor, often not in any location the user is, will correctly reflect the actual environment) "Make it warmer/colder" is sufficient input and doesn't pretend a precision it doesn't have.

Rolls Royce do this I think

Re: The subtle art of designing physical controls for cars

#63

Post by carabiner »

contingencies wrote: post #49
carabiner wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Toyota 3 knobs undefeated.

Simplicity: are they exactly the same knob, thus lowering ordering costs, shipping and receiving costs, inventory costs, supply chain costs, design costs, and error potential? Quite likely. This also allows upstream suppliers to double down on volume and work to lower costs at their end. Versus... the designer of a custom complex multi-part powered assembly (manufacturing cost not discussed, cleaning not discussed, v…

Yep same knobs: https://www.amazon.com/559050C010-Control-Compatible-55905-0...

Re: The subtle art of designing physical controls for cars

#64

Post by mmooss »

Lots of research is done on UI for cars and planes, for understandable reasons. I wonder how much is applicable to other less valued devices where there is little research.

I thought of it because someone was talking about their new super-bright, blinking bicycle tail light. I could see someone naively intuiting brighter is better or blinking is better, but I know UI well enough to know that naive intuition has poor accuracy.

I spent a little time looking for empirical information but almost all I could find was cars. (I did find something that said blinking could be a problem because it's hard to visually and mentally track a moving object in the dark - it's in one spot, disappears, and then reappears in another spot. I did come across the standard blink cycle for cars, which includes total cycle length, and the on-period length and off-period length in each cycle.)

Re: The subtle art of designing physical controls for cars

#65

Post by _carbyau_ »

thecrumb wrote: post #52

As I get older the one thing these designer overlook is aging eyesight. My Honda has decent controls but the small display (like on these knobs) is very difficult to see sitting still. At night, while driving - it's impossible. The icons are tiny. Given the size of the current screens in cars - that's a lot of real estate for knobs. Use it.

Given the way things are designed I feel I cannot emphasize your point on aging eyesight enough. Aging eyesight is a thing that affects everyone! [0]

If you are in your twenties and designing things to be seen, invest in your own future as well as a large demographic that usually has more money...

[0] https://www.aoa.org/healthy-eyes/eye-health-for-life/adult-v...

Re: The subtle art of designing physical controls for cars

#66

Post by kdmtctl »

s0rce wrote: post #58
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…

I find the thermostat mode only works on overcast days or at night as the sun contributes so much feeling of warmth when driving (in California) that the heating and cooling thermostat doesn't work well.

As someone mentioned a Lexus in the thread, my memory popped up the fact that most expensive models have thermostat corrected for the sun position and probably current weather.

Re: The subtle art of designing physical controls for cars

#67

Post by Retric »

s0rce wrote: post #58
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…

I find the thermostat mode only works on overcast days or at night as the sun contributes so much feeling of warmth when driving (in California) that the heating and cooling thermostat doesn't work well.

A sun load sensor mostly solves this, they used to be a high end feature but it's becoming more common.

Re: The subtle art of designing physical controls for cars

#68

Post by DigitalSea »

I learned this lesson the hard way with my early 2000s BMW 5 Series (a 2004 model). It had a single joystick-style knob (iDrive, if I remember correctly) controlling a screen that handled everything—climate, settings, and more. The problem? It was an all-in-one system, completely integrated with vehicle functions, which meant you couldn’t swap it out for a newer or better OEM system. You were stuck with aging tech, and once the screen or computer started acting up, there were no simple fixes. No cheap button replacement, no easy upgrades.

Compare that to an old LandCruiser or similar vehicle from the ’80s. Physical controls still work decades later, and worst-case scenario, you replace a button or a switch for pocket change. Meanwhile, modern cars are turning into disposable tech products, destined for obsolescence the moment their proprietary systems fail. It's for this reason when I bought a new car a couple of years ago, I opted for a Toyota LandCruiser, the use of physical buttons (despite coming with touchscreens now) makes a huge difference when you're driving and want to press a button to change music or turn the volume up/down.

Re: The subtle art of designing physical controls for cars

#69

Post by kdmtctl »

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.

Re: The subtle art of designing physical controls for cars

#70

Post by DigitalSea »

dghlsakjg wrote: post #43
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…

My 1997 Lexus has a knob that controls the digital climate control. Except that instead of a spinny position encoder, they used a knob with stops so you have tactile feedback for when the temperature is all the way up or down. This is the kind of detail that I love about a well engineered car.

My 2004 5 series BMW had this (it was called iDrive). A command style knob that could move on an axis of sorts (up and down, left, right). You could also press it in. I absolutely hated it.
Post reply on HN