I'm glad to see this, as I've never liked the trend towards touchscreen interfaces for cars and refuse to buy a car that has one. Here's hoping other manufacturers follow suit. Being able to...
I'm glad to see this, as I've never liked the trend towards touchscreen interfaces for cars and refuse to buy a car that has one. Here's hoping other manufacturers follow suit.
Being able to operate the controls by feel is so much faster and safer than being forced to look over and interpret a dynamic interface that keeps changing out from under you. Physical controls also have the benefit of not requiring you to remove gloves or dealing with interference from water droplets on the screen. That's completely setting aside the potential issues of OTA software updates moving everything around and breaking your muscle memory, or the temptation for manufacturers to use the screen space for advertisements.
I still have concerns about the amount of locked down proprietary software in modern cars (and issues around user ownership/authority and right-to-repair, etc), but at least we can have physical controls that are safer and more reliable to operate.
That doesn't need to be a touchscreen though, just a dumb display. The more useful area I find is with the navigation system. Particularly when it comes to typing in directions, which is a huge...
That doesn't need to be a touchscreen though, just a dumb display.
The more useful area I find is with the navigation system. Particularly when it comes to typing in directions, which is a huge hassle to do with other control systems.
I think what would be good is if the touch-screen is reserved specifically for things that either don't require human interaction or where the interaction is supposed to only be done while stopped. Navigation is one example as well as general system diagnostics, setting up things like bluetooth, configuring the ergonomics, etc. The stuff you are likely to handle while driving should just be very intuitive tactile controls. This includes music, climate control, and critical controls like speed, fuel, tachometer, etc.
I think the rear view camera might be a handy thing when backing up or parking. However, if it is a trade-off for my safety I rather use my back mirror or take my time parking. Do you think...
I think the rear view camera might be a handy thing when backing up or parking. However, if it is a trade-off for my safety I rather use my back mirror or take my time parking.
Do you think parking is more dangerous than switching lanes on the highway for example? I have no idea about that
I agree about learning to drive with as few assists as possible. Same goes for my attitudes about TCS, ABS etc... Great safety devices, but they certainly shouldn't be used as a crutch to enable...
I agree about learning to drive with as few assists as possible. Same goes for my attitudes about TCS, ABS etc... Great safety devices, but they certainly shouldn't be used as a crutch to enable carelessness.
The one thing I do note though, is that visibility inside modern cars is HUGELY impaired compared to the cars I learned to drive in. My old cars all had stick thin A/B/C pillars and plenty of glass, lots of room to see in every direction with ease. The last two cars I've owned I cannot imagine having to drive without a reversing camera. Rear visibility is absolutely atrocious.
It's due to improved safety standards of course, so it's a trade-off I'd say is a good one. I still use my side mirrors frequently of course, but the reversing camera has become an important tool to safely reverse many modern cars.
On topic though, I've really started to hate the touch screen on my current vehicle. Makes the interior look nice and modern with clean lines, but it's a usability nightmare. I much prefer my last vehicle, which had a smaller dumb screen for information display and reversing camera, yet all inputs were with buttons/knobs in their traditional orientation. I also second the safety issues of it; it's hugely distracting to use.
There is no reason you can't have both. Tactile buttons and a screen for displaying rear-view camera/gps info. Masda talks about how they placed the screen at a more comfortable location for...
There is no reason you can't have both. Tactile buttons and a screen for displaying rear-view camera/gps info. Masda talks about how they placed the screen at a more comfortable location for viewing which also put it at an inaccessible spot for a touch screen.
I've never used a camera to park but doesn't it feel weird facing the wrong way. Also no peripheral vision what so ever when looking at the screen, to check blind spots you'd still need to still keep your head on a constant swivel -- no change there. But I will admit it seems very useful for parallel parking, when trying to get that last inch of space. But here the solution is just to go slow, which is generally safer.
I mean I've never hit anything while reversing that could transfer paint. For one most bumpers are plastic, but it's also super rare, only happened to me while not paying attention (it was a...
Your parking neighbor will likely be just as angry no matter how slowly you transfer paint 😁
I mean I've never hit anything while reversing that could transfer paint. For one most bumpers are plastic, but it's also super rare, only happened to me while not paying attention (it was a wooden post), not sure a camera would have changed that aspect.
I think the point is, a mistake while parking is not life threatening, but fiddling with a touch screen for a couple seconds too many and you've got increased risk of a pretty serious accident. So much about the interior design of a car is focused around making it usable without looking, touch screens just don't mesh with that.
Honda used to mount a backup camera screen on the rearview mirror. It is small, but functions perfectly and is exactly where you should be looking while backing up. It is also completely hidden...
Honda used to mount a backup camera screen on the rearview mirror. It is small, but functions perfectly and is exactly where you should be looking while backing up. It is also completely hidden when not backing up.
This is a design problem. The first, and easiest approach to fixing this, is to not have a dynamic interface. There is absolutely no reason that you can't have a static dashboard page, where...
Being able to operate the controls by feel is so much faster and safer than being forced to look over and interpret a dynamic interface that keeps changing out from under you.
This is a design problem. The first, and easiest approach to fixing this, is to not have a dynamic interface. There is absolutely no reason that you can't have a static dashboard page, where controls that are frequently accessed are available in exactly the same spot on the touchscreen. In fact, you could even have it be customizeable to fit what you tend to adjust a lot, and you could even have multiple dashboards.
The second approach is to use good additional design elements to fix this issue. There are touchscreens that exist which have adjustable and differing tactile response, allowing for the ability to feel differences along the surface of the screen, which would assist in centering yourself without vision (much like the small bumps on a keyboard typically on the f and j keys, and the differing size of keys towards the periphery). In addition, the outsides of the screen can have bumps or other marks to help center the hand. It's also feasible to have multiple smaller screens placed right next to each other with small dividers allowing for a sectional feel to the display which can help navigate without the need for touch.
Third, there's no reason that voice command can't be incorporated to help assist with car functionality. This is true for non-touchscreen displays as well, but it's important to point out as it will likely replace or at least augment tactile adjustments in most cars in the near future.
Physical controls also have the benefit of not requiring you to remove gloves or dealing with interference from water droplets on the screen
There are touchscreens that exist that do not have these problems.
That's completely setting aside the potential issues of OTA software updates moving everything around and breaking your muscle memory, or the temptation for manufacturers to use the screen space for advertisements.
Again, I think the issue is mostly design. Updates should not be moving around the position of anything (at least not without asking you if you want to try out a new interface), and the position of everything should be entirely customizeable.
Capitalism is capitalism, so ads are a possibility, but I think there'd be huge backlash if anyone tried to use screen space for ads.
I bought a Mazda because I loved how I could control 100% of the infotainment system without ever reaching for a touchscreen. And that's including Android Auto. I tested several other cars, and...
I bought a Mazda because I loved how I could control 100% of the infotainment system without ever reaching for a touchscreen. And that's including Android Auto.
I tested several other cars, and have driven rentals and friends' cars... the touchscreen systems are universally awful. I can't stand them.
I once test-drove a Tesla, which was my first exposure to these touch-screen car interfaces and it was so weird. It's like you have to look at an iPad to do anything. Nested menus, screen glare,...
I once test-drove a Tesla, which was my first exposure to these touch-screen car interfaces and it was so weird. It's like you have to look at an iPad to do anything. Nested menus, screen glare, zero hapitc feedback... it's so obviously a bad idea. Things you could do in any old car without looking required you to press like 5 specific buttons on the touch panel.
That sounds like more of a design issue than anything else to me. There's no reason that there can't be a screen that resembles a traditional car dashboard interface with simple buttons for the...
That sounds like more of a design issue than anything else to me. There's no reason that there can't be a screen that resembles a traditional car dashboard interface with simple buttons for the most commonly used functions. There's also no reason that there can't also be menu assist through voice command.
There is a reason: Haptic feedback. A flat surface gives you zero. Usually, if there's a knob or physical button, you notice when you hit it, you physically feel when you turn/activate it. With a...
There is a reason: Haptic feedback. A flat surface gives you zero. Usually, if there's a knob or physical button, you notice when you hit it, you physically feel when you turn/activate it. With a touch screen, you always have to look to see if you hit the right spot.
There are touch screens that provide haptic feedback which exists not just as a vibration (although vibration can also be localized and differ in intensity, duration, and frequency). Here's an...
There are touch screens that provide haptic feedback which exists not just as a vibration (although vibration can also be localized and differ in intensity, duration, and frequency).
Interesting. I can see this making the use more simple during driving. Did you ever use one like that, is it possible to navigate the screen without looking like you can with conventional buttons?
Interesting. I can see this making the use more simple during driving. Did you ever use one like that, is it possible to navigate the screen without looking like you can with conventional buttons?
I've played with some of these technologies at conferences before. It's certainly not as obvious as an extra inch of plastic such as raised nobs, but it's definitely leagues easier to navigate...
I've played with some of these technologies at conferences before. It's certainly not as obvious as an extra inch of plastic such as raised nobs, but it's definitely leagues easier to navigate than traditional haptic (vibration only) feedback and I had no issue navigating without the need of sight.
Honestly, even just targeted and well designed vibrational feedback is enough to navigate without the use of vision. With localized motors its possible to even create virtual sections by having very light vibration when your finger is hovering in a specific area. Without localized motors, unique vibrational patterns for specific locations can help to navigate sightlessly.
I agree. In the article they also state that they want to make the input more direct and intuitive for the new system that's coming. Controls will be closer and this should reduce unwanted...
I agree. In the article they also state that they want to make the input more direct and intuitive for the new system that's coming. Controls will be closer and this should reduce unwanted rotation force on the steering wheel when using the screen.
I do really dislike the missing haptic feedback on the touchscreens.
Kind of raises the question though; why? If you're going to put a traditional car dashboard interface on a screen, why not just... put a traditional car dashboard interface there? In my car,...
There's no reason that there can't be a screen that resembles a traditional car dashboard interface with simple buttons for the most commonly used functions.
Kind of raises the question though; why? If you're going to put a traditional car dashboard interface on a screen, why not just... put a traditional car dashboard interface there? In my car, there's still a screen, but the majority of the navigation is handled via traditional buttons and knobs. I set the temperature by turning a knob, listen to a saved radio station by pushing a button, and turn the entertainment system on and off by pushing a knob in.
Navigation is still displayed on the screen, but I don't have to look at a menu or even where my finger is to know what I'm doing, because I can just feel the knobs and buttons. I wish more cars operated this way.
I think you get at the root of the issue - there's a cost benefit analysis to digitizing it. You can customize it more and do more when it's digital, but it costs more to do so. At some point this...
I think you get at the root of the issue - there's a cost benefit analysis to digitizing it. You can customize it more and do more when it's digital, but it costs more to do so. At some point this kind of technology will be so common and so cheap that there is enough of a reason to do so, but right now a purely digital dashboard is mostly a luxury thing.
I actually thought that this is one of the use-cases that makes the most sense for touch screens – self-driving vehicles. Maybe not Teslas in their current form, but once the cars become nearly...
I actually thought that this is one of the use-cases that makes the most sense for touch screens – self-driving vehicles. Maybe not Teslas in their current form, but once the cars become nearly completely autonomous (which Teslas seem to be approaching with their full autopilot feature along with other companies I think); touch screens make a lot of sense. However, I suppose car manufacturers have jumped the gun a bit on that at the moment.
Not directly related, but this was an interesting article I read last month about Tesla wanting to have such a large touch-screen and the difficulties that have come from using one that really...
Not directly related, but this was an interesting article I read last month about Tesla wanting to have such a large touch-screen and the difficulties that have come from using one that really isn't intended to be in a car: Tesla's Screen Saga Shows Why "Automotive Grade" Matters
You mean, like in the olden days? "Everything old is new again." But this is a good change. Being forced to concentrate on a touchscreen while you change anything in a car is dangerous. I've...
Mazda is looking to add more simple, tactile controls into the cars.
You mean, like in the olden days? "Everything old is new again."
But this is a good change. Being forced to concentrate on a touchscreen while you change anything in a car is dangerous. I've driven a car with a touchscreen, and not only are the menus confusing, but it's distracting and time-consuming to do anything via the screen.
A quick tilt of the volume knob to the right or left goes forward or back single tracks—or holding it left or right fast-forwards it. A tap of the button mutes the system, and holding it down quickly turns off the screen and everything if it’s currently a distraction.
No! A single button/knob should serve a single purpose. One knob for volume/muting, and another button for navigating.
Nice advertisement for Mazda. Another well crafted bit of marketing. A bit surprised to see it on Tildes, with a headline and matching article trying hard to convince people that Mazda is terribly...
Nice advertisement for Mazda. Another well crafted bit of marketing.
A bit surprised to see it on Tildes, with a headline and matching article trying hard to convince people that Mazda is terribly concerned about your safety so much so that it had to introduce the wonderful NEW & IMPROVED feature that you just gotta try out by buying their NEW model.
Schilling for the house now?
Whatever your objections may be, I posted the article because it brings up the topic of touch screens versus physical controls in cars, which is something I know a lot of people are interested in...
Whatever your objections may be, I posted the article because it brings up the topic of touch screens versus physical controls in cars, which is something I know a lot of people are interested in discussing. Just trying to get interesting discussions started here on Tildes.
I'm glad to see this, as I've never liked the trend towards touchscreen interfaces for cars and refuse to buy a car that has one. Here's hoping other manufacturers follow suit.
Being able to operate the controls by feel is so much faster and safer than being forced to look over and interpret a dynamic interface that keeps changing out from under you. Physical controls also have the benefit of not requiring you to remove gloves or dealing with interference from water droplets on the screen. That's completely setting aside the potential issues of OTA software updates moving everything around and breaking your muscle memory, or the temptation for manufacturers to use the screen space for advertisements.
I still have concerns about the amount of locked down proprietary software in modern cars (and issues around user ownership/authority and right-to-repair, etc), but at least we can have physical controls that are safer and more reliable to operate.
That doesn't need to be a touchscreen though, just a dumb display.
The more useful area I find is with the navigation system. Particularly when it comes to typing in directions, which is a huge hassle to do with other control systems.
I think what would be good is if the touch-screen is reserved specifically for things that either don't require human interaction or where the interaction is supposed to only be done while stopped. Navigation is one example as well as general system diagnostics, setting up things like bluetooth, configuring the ergonomics, etc. The stuff you are likely to handle while driving should just be very intuitive tactile controls. This includes music, climate control, and critical controls like speed, fuel, tachometer, etc.
I think the rear view camera might be a handy thing when backing up or parking. However, if it is a trade-off for my safety I rather use my back mirror or take my time parking.
Do you think parking is more dangerous than switching lanes on the highway for example? I have no idea about that
I agree about learning to drive with as few assists as possible. Same goes for my attitudes about TCS, ABS etc... Great safety devices, but they certainly shouldn't be used as a crutch to enable carelessness.
The one thing I do note though, is that visibility inside modern cars is HUGELY impaired compared to the cars I learned to drive in. My old cars all had stick thin A/B/C pillars and plenty of glass, lots of room to see in every direction with ease. The last two cars I've owned I cannot imagine having to drive without a reversing camera. Rear visibility is absolutely atrocious.
It's due to improved safety standards of course, so it's a trade-off I'd say is a good one. I still use my side mirrors frequently of course, but the reversing camera has become an important tool to safely reverse many modern cars.
On topic though, I've really started to hate the touch screen on my current vehicle. Makes the interior look nice and modern with clean lines, but it's a usability nightmare. I much prefer my last vehicle, which had a smaller dumb screen for information display and reversing camera, yet all inputs were with buttons/knobs in their traditional orientation. I also second the safety issues of it; it's hugely distracting to use.
There is no reason you can't have both. Tactile buttons and a screen for displaying rear-view camera/gps info. Masda talks about how they placed the screen at a more comfortable location for viewing which also put it at an inaccessible spot for a touch screen.
I've never used a camera to park but doesn't it feel weird facing the wrong way. Also no peripheral vision what so ever when looking at the screen, to check blind spots you'd still need to still keep your head on a constant swivel -- no change there. But I will admit it seems very useful for parallel parking, when trying to get that last inch of space. But here the solution is just to go slow, which is generally safer.
I mean I've never hit anything while reversing that could transfer paint. For one most bumpers are plastic, but it's also super rare, only happened to me while not paying attention (it was a wooden post), not sure a camera would have changed that aspect.
I think the point is, a mistake while parking is not life threatening, but fiddling with a touch screen for a couple seconds too many and you've got increased risk of a pretty serious accident. So much about the interior design of a car is focused around making it usable without looking, touch screens just don't mesh with that.
don't some vehicles have that on the rear-view mirror?
Honda used to mount a backup camera screen on the rearview mirror. It is small, but functions perfectly and is exactly where you should be looking while backing up. It is also completely hidden when not backing up.
This is a design problem. The first, and easiest approach to fixing this, is to not have a dynamic interface. There is absolutely no reason that you can't have a static dashboard page, where controls that are frequently accessed are available in exactly the same spot on the touchscreen. In fact, you could even have it be customizeable to fit what you tend to adjust a lot, and you could even have multiple dashboards.
The second approach is to use good additional design elements to fix this issue. There are touchscreens that exist which have adjustable and differing tactile response, allowing for the ability to feel differences along the surface of the screen, which would assist in centering yourself without vision (much like the small bumps on a keyboard typically on the f and j keys, and the differing size of keys towards the periphery). In addition, the outsides of the screen can have bumps or other marks to help center the hand. It's also feasible to have multiple smaller screens placed right next to each other with small dividers allowing for a sectional feel to the display which can help navigate without the need for touch.
Third, there's no reason that voice command can't be incorporated to help assist with car functionality. This is true for non-touchscreen displays as well, but it's important to point out as it will likely replace or at least augment tactile adjustments in most cars in the near future.
There are touchscreens that exist that do not have these problems.
Again, I think the issue is mostly design. Updates should not be moving around the position of anything (at least not without asking you if you want to try out a new interface), and the position of everything should be entirely customizeable.
Capitalism is capitalism, so ads are a possibility, but I think there'd be huge backlash if anyone tried to use screen space for ads.
I bought a Mazda because I loved how I could control 100% of the infotainment system without ever reaching for a touchscreen. And that's including Android Auto.
I tested several other cars, and have driven rentals and friends' cars... the touchscreen systems are universally awful. I can't stand them.
I once test-drove a Tesla, which was my first exposure to these touch-screen car interfaces and it was so weird. It's like you have to look at an iPad to do anything. Nested menus, screen glare, zero hapitc feedback... it's so obviously a bad idea. Things you could do in any old car without looking required you to press like 5 specific buttons on the touch panel.
That sounds like more of a design issue than anything else to me. There's no reason that there can't be a screen that resembles a traditional car dashboard interface with simple buttons for the most commonly used functions. There's also no reason that there can't also be menu assist through voice command.
There is a reason: Haptic feedback. A flat surface gives you zero. Usually, if there's a knob or physical button, you notice when you hit it, you physically feel when you turn/activate it. With a touch screen, you always have to look to see if you hit the right spot.
There are touch screens that provide haptic feedback which exists not just as a vibration (although vibration can also be localized and differ in intensity, duration, and frequency).
Here's an older tom's hardware article on some of the technology that can be used to improve traditional haptic feedback.
Interesting. I can see this making the use more simple during driving. Did you ever use one like that, is it possible to navigate the screen without looking like you can with conventional buttons?
I've played with some of these technologies at conferences before. It's certainly not as obvious as an extra inch of plastic such as raised nobs, but it's definitely leagues easier to navigate than traditional haptic (vibration only) feedback and I had no issue navigating without the need of sight.
Honestly, even just targeted and well designed vibrational feedback is enough to navigate without the use of vision. With localized motors its possible to even create virtual sections by having very light vibration when your finger is hovering in a specific area. Without localized motors, unique vibrational patterns for specific locations can help to navigate sightlessly.
I agree. In the article they also state that they want to make the input more direct and intuitive for the new system that's coming. Controls will be closer and this should reduce unwanted rotation force on the steering wheel when using the screen.
I do really dislike the missing haptic feedback on the touchscreens.
Kind of raises the question though; why? If you're going to put a traditional car dashboard interface on a screen, why not just... put a traditional car dashboard interface there? In my car, there's still a screen, but the majority of the navigation is handled via traditional buttons and knobs. I set the temperature by turning a knob, listen to a saved radio station by pushing a button, and turn the entertainment system on and off by pushing a knob in.
Navigation is still displayed on the screen, but I don't have to look at a menu or even where my finger is to know what I'm doing, because I can just feel the knobs and buttons. I wish more cars operated this way.
I think you get at the root of the issue - there's a cost benefit analysis to digitizing it. You can customize it more and do more when it's digital, but it costs more to do so. At some point this kind of technology will be so common and so cheap that there is enough of a reason to do so, but right now a purely digital dashboard is mostly a luxury thing.
I actually thought that this is one of the use-cases that makes the most sense for touch screens – self-driving vehicles. Maybe not Teslas in their current form, but once the cars become nearly completely autonomous (which Teslas seem to be approaching with their full autopilot feature along with other companies I think); touch screens make a lot of sense. However, I suppose car manufacturers have jumped the gun a bit on that at the moment.
Not directly related, but this was an interesting article I read last month about Tesla wanting to have such a large touch-screen and the difficulties that have come from using one that really isn't intended to be in a car: Tesla's Screen Saga Shows Why "Automotive Grade" Matters
You mean, like in the olden days? "Everything old is new again."
But this is a good change. Being forced to concentrate on a touchscreen while you change anything in a car is dangerous. I've driven a car with a touchscreen, and not only are the menus confusing, but it's distracting and time-consuming to do anything via the screen.
No! A single button/knob should serve a single purpose. One knob for volume/muting, and another button for navigating.
Nice advertisement for Mazda. Another well crafted bit of marketing.
A bit surprised to see it on Tildes, with a headline and matching article trying hard to convince people that Mazda is terribly concerned about your safety so much so that it had to introduce the wonderful NEW & IMPROVED feature that you just gotta try out by buying their NEW model.
Schilling for the house now?
Whatever your objections may be, I posted the article because it brings up the topic of touch screens versus physical controls in cars, which is something I know a lot of people are interested in discussing. Just trying to get interesting discussions started here on Tildes.