6 ms·

> As a User Experience Professional, I was never able to grasp the true user's need for touch screens in cars The flexibility to benefit from rapid product ite

> As a User Experience Professional, I was never able to grasp the true user's need for touch screens in cars The flexibility to benefit from rapid product iteration. If you think of cars as mostly software products that receive updates over the air, a flexible interface makes a lot more sense (even though I agree that it makes for a pretty bad user interface).

JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
If we extend this idea, why not do it for airplanes? It seems like a bad idea to be changing the layout of mission-critical systems. I'm sure it'd wreak havoc if the cockpit of a 787 was all touch screens, with UI changes pushed at the whim of developers. I drive a car with analog controls. The buttons for controlling the radio, hazard lights, the A/C, etc are all static. I wouldn't want it to change. It gets the job done; it doesn't need iteration, and messing with it would reduce safety. I don't have to look at the controls, because the buttons are of various shapes/sizes that I know. Tactile feedback is value in keeping eyes on the road.
- Isinlor 7y ago
  How about spacecraft with touchscreens: https://www.spacex.com/crew-dragon https://www.spacex.com/crew-dragon ? Compare to the cockpit of Space Shuttle: https://i.redd.it/9mj5bcbnzsx21.jpg https://i.redd.it/9mj5bcbnzsx21.jpg
  - Phillipharryt 7y ago
    I hope you're arguing in favour of the space shuttle there. It has no contextual buttons. I'll always argue that contextual controls do not belong in critical systems. Every button on that shuttle will do the same thing every time you press it. A touch screen looks nice but isn't safe. Mission control is telling you to press X button, but X button isn't actually on your display right now?? That's a big problem.
    - Aser 7y ago
      The crew dragon is designed to be completely autonomous. 99% of the time, the astronaut is just a passenger, so there is less requirement for physical controls. In terms of mission control telling you to press X button, it is almost certain that mission control would have a simulation of the cockpit running that would show them exactly what the astronaut is seeing on their display. So they will always be able to direct the astronaut correctly. I definitely think a touch screen in this situation can be safer, because it can display information in a way that makes it quicker for the astronaut to understand the situation. It in theory requires less training because there is less requirement to remember the position and function of every single switch.
      - Phillipharryt 7y ago
        Space missions need to account for the times when things really hit the fan, that's when design really matters. If shit goes haywire why should I assume my touchscreen is now displaying the same thing as mission controls? If it's not then instructions go out the window. If shit goes haywire in the shuttle, mission control can safely assume they're looking at the EXACT control scheme the pilot is, and can read out controls accordingly. I get that automation is intended, but for emergencies a touch screen really doesn't cut it.
    - bumby 7y ago
      >Every button on that shuttle will do the same thing every time you press it. I agree with you in spirit, but would disagree with this particular point. Apollo had an erroneous "Abort" signal because a particular switch didn't do what it was supposed to, because it had some interesting failure modes in zero-gravity. I think is dangerous to assume that one design is flawless over the other; both touch-screens and mechanical systems have their own unique failure modes. Maybe one is more reliable than the other, which I think is currently the case here.
      - Phillipharryt 7y ago
        Ok perhaps I could change that to "every working button on the shuttle will do the same thing every time I press it". Your mention of zero gravity has brought up another consideration for me. Assuming it's a capacitive touchscreen you need to ensure no conductive material ever floats into contact with it by mistake. Switches and buttons have covers and rails to prevent accidental pressing but how do you manage that with touchscreens? Apple manages it on your phone because a false negative is ok in that case, I don't think you can allow that on a spacecraft. How is a floating glove finger differentiated from a glove actually attached to hand?
  - ballooney 7y ago
    I know from people inside SpaceX that they have covers for the essential switch panels which they put on when Musk is around, because he objects to them for confused silly reasons (like tesla cross-marketing). The astronauts and capsule engineers know better, of course, so this is the compromise.
  - xvector 7y ago
    Elon Musk's fascination with touchscreens is absurd and dangerous. Even in the future world where everything is autonomous, knobs and buttons will always be needed for mission-critical interactions, whether it be driving in dangerous conditions or having to perform emergency maneuvers on your "autonomous" aircraft.
    - throw0101a 7y ago
      > on your "autonomous" aircraft. It seems that the FAA (and Garmin) does not agree with you: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8o0Nk8E0S4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8o0Nk8E0S4 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnuRFAAKdfg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnuRFAAKdfg I like Dynon's systems a bit more, as they have a few physical buttons to allow one to go to certain top-level / important parts of the menu system in a jiffy: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjADTgwCtUU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjADTgwCtUU
  - bumby 7y ago
    Just because there is a design moving forward does not mean there is not a considerable amount of discussion/dissent/disagreement on the approach.
- dzhiurgis 7y ago
  You drive car with pedals and steering wheel. Everything else that is ternary (music, climate, nav) is on touch screen. So yes, you can have cabin light and temperature controls on touchscreen on an airplane.
  - sudhirj 7y ago
    Think I have seen flight attendants use a touch screen on the intercom and the cabin lights / infotainment. I’d assume everything on the cockpit is life of death for ~300 people, so different rules apply. Imagine what a sick joke it would be if the recent Boeing crashes were caused by pilots fiddling with a touchscreen while the plane went into a dive. It’s difficult enough to work all the controls accessible without tabbing or scrolling.
  - Firadeoclus 7y ago
    > So yes, you can have cabin light and temperature controls on touchscreen on an airplane. Which means, annoyingly, that you can be locked out of those controls during crew announcements.
  - ptaipale 7y ago
    Climate is not ternary, it's definitely important for driving in cold climates. To the point that if you can't see ahead, you need to stop on the expressway in order to adjust the airflow to windscreen, so that you don't collide into the other guy who has stopped to adjust the airflow in his car.
    - ec109685 7y ago
      Climate can be controlled by steering wheel too.
      - ptaipale 7y ago
        Of course. The point is that you need to have those dedicated controls with ergonomics that support driving, not touch screen.
- zubspace 7y ago
  An A380 is already full of screens where touch input could be introduced. All major airplane manufacturers are definitely experimenting with touch screens in the cockpit [1]. I guess not for flight critical systems for different reasons, because of missing tactile feedback and limited usage during turbulent flights [2]. But maybe that's just a question of time... [1] https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-aims-for-airliner-cockpit-touchscreen-first-449481/ https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-aims-for-a... [2] https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/22729/why-are-traditional-knobs-not-replaced-by-touchscreens-in-cockpits https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/22729/why-are-t...
- Aser 7y ago
  Have you seen the F-35 cockpit? It's just one giant touchscreen.
  - lostjohnny 7y ago
    It has a large screen, but it's definitely not "just a giant touchscreen" Some things are controlled by the helmet movements. https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e6311865f9688fdb18cb6932caf1762f https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e6311865f9688fdb18cb69...
    - galangalalgol 7y ago
      And, sensibly, stuff you would use while dogfighting or landing are switches and buttons. That, and things that have to always work like the radio and artificial horizon.
- TylerE 7y ago
  They are. https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/cInTheAir-cAvionics-cMFDs-p1.html https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/cInTheAir-cAvionics-cMFDs-p1...
- sircastor 7y ago
  This has far more to do with customer expectations than it does with safety. It would be much harder to sell a car with a different kind of steering mechanism than a wheel. The wheel is a leftover design element. Just because it's what we have doesn't mean it's good.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
> having a flexible interface makes a lot more sense For business, not the user. And honestly I expect the answer is simpler: this enables them to subcontract out the UI part and run it in parallel with the development of the rest of the car, because the UI can no longer affect anything else in the car design.
- afarrell 7y ago
  Which allows them to have the UI for controlling the car be done by a team without strong communication links with the team designing the rest of the car's UX. Is that a genuine benefit, or one that shows up more early in planning and who's downsides show up late?
  - TeMPOraL 7y ago
    It's a benefit to the business. There are way more variables of interest to consumers in a car than just UI; few if any will take a crappy touch UI as a dealbreaker (especially if everyone does crappy touch UIs). So it's a pure win for business - the downsides never reach them, they only materialize on the user end, large enough to frustrate people and maybe even cause accidents, but small enough to not cause a purchasing decision change the next time one is in a market for a car. (I need a term for those cases. Psychological externality?)
    - brokenmachine 7y ago
      Vested disinterest?
  - smdyc1 7y ago
    That sounds awfully like Boeing's 737-MAX MCAS debacle.
Angostura 7y ago
Because who know when the volume control might get iterated out of existence
ReptileMan 7y ago
I prefer to think of cars as cars. A dock for a smartphone takes care of entertainment and for everything else discrete knobs switches and levers. Preferably clicking with a loud click.
marapuru 7y ago
I agree on the flexibility part. Interesting thought. Although that doesn't necessarily mean it has to be a touch screen. There are many non-functional buttons in my car right now, which might be wired but just don't perform an action. The car manufacturer could make it more easy to reprogram these. You can see it a bit as a Playstation controller (or whatever platform you like), it has multiple programmable buttons. A car could basically have the same. A touch screen is not required.
- quakenul 7y ago
  It gets tricky as soon as you need labels and/or more complicated visual feedback attached to "dumb" buttons. The touchscreen is "lazy" in that it can defer thinking hard about your problem space and I can see why that alone would feel scary in a car. On the other hand, there is only so much foresight you can have when you are innovating. Developing a Tesla might simply not be feasible without the flexibility a touchscreen gives you.

JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago

If we extend this idea, why not do it for airplanes? It seems like a bad idea to be changing the layout of mission-critical systems. I'm sure it'd wreak havoc if the cockpit of a 787 was all touch screens, with UI changes pushed at the whim of developers. I drive a car with analog controls. The buttons for controlling the radio, hazard lights, the A/C, etc are all static. I wouldn't want it to change. It gets the job done; it doesn't need iteration, and messing with it would reduce safety. I don't have to look at the controls, because the buttons are of various shapes/sizes that I know. Tactile feedback is value in keeping eyes on the road.

Isinlor 7y ago
How about spacecraft with touchscreens: https://www.spacex.com/crew-dragon https://www.spacex.com/crew-dragon ? Compare to the cockpit of Space Shuttle: https://i.redd.it/9mj5bcbnzsx21.jpg https://i.redd.it/9mj5bcbnzsx21.jpg
- Phillipharryt 7y ago
  I hope you're arguing in favour of the space shuttle there. It has no contextual buttons. I'll always argue that contextual controls do not belong in critical systems. Every button on that shuttle will do the same thing every time you press it. A touch screen looks nice but isn't safe. Mission control is telling you to press X button, but X button isn't actually on your display right now?? That's a big problem.
  - Aser 7y ago
    The crew dragon is designed to be completely autonomous. 99% of the time, the astronaut is just a passenger, so there is less requirement for physical controls. In terms of mission control telling you to press X button, it is almost certain that mission control would have a simulation of the cockpit running that would show them exactly what the astronaut is seeing on their display. So they will always be able to direct the astronaut correctly. I definitely think a touch screen in this situation can be safer, because it can display information in a way that makes it quicker for the astronaut to understand the situation. It in theory requires less training because there is less requirement to remember the position and function of every single switch.
    - Phillipharryt 7y ago
      Space missions need to account for the times when things really hit the fan, that's when design really matters. If shit goes haywire why should I assume my touchscreen is now displaying the same thing as mission controls? If it's not then instructions go out the window. If shit goes haywire in the shuttle, mission control can safely assume they're looking at the EXACT control scheme the pilot is, and can read out controls accordingly. I get that automation is intended, but for emergencies a touch screen really doesn't cut it.
  - bumby 7y ago
    >Every button on that shuttle will do the same thing every time you press it. I agree with you in spirit, but would disagree with this particular point. Apollo had an erroneous "Abort" signal because a particular switch didn't do what it was supposed to, because it had some interesting failure modes in zero-gravity. I think is dangerous to assume that one design is flawless over the other; both touch-screens and mechanical systems have their own unique failure modes. Maybe one is more reliable than the other, which I think is currently the case here.
    - Phillipharryt 7y ago
      Ok perhaps I could change that to "every working button on the shuttle will do the same thing every time I press it". Your mention of zero gravity has brought up another consideration for me. Assuming it's a capacitive touchscreen you need to ensure no conductive material ever floats into contact with it by mistake. Switches and buttons have covers and rails to prevent accidental pressing but how do you manage that with touchscreens? Apple manages it on your phone because a false negative is ok in that case, I don't think you can allow that on a spacecraft. How is a floating glove finger differentiated from a glove actually attached to hand?
- ballooney 7y ago
  I know from people inside SpaceX that they have covers for the essential switch panels which they put on when Musk is around, because he objects to them for confused silly reasons (like tesla cross-marketing). The astronauts and capsule engineers know better, of course, so this is the compromise.
- xvector 7y ago
  Elon Musk's fascination with touchscreens is absurd and dangerous. Even in the future world where everything is autonomous, knobs and buttons will always be needed for mission-critical interactions, whether it be driving in dangerous conditions or having to perform emergency maneuvers on your "autonomous" aircraft.
  - throw0101a 7y ago
    > on your "autonomous" aircraft. It seems that the FAA (and Garmin) does not agree with you: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8o0Nk8E0S4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8o0Nk8E0S4 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnuRFAAKdfg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OnuRFAAKdfg I like Dynon's systems a bit more, as they have a few physical buttons to allow one to go to certain top-level / important parts of the menu system in a jiffy: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjADTgwCtUU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjADTgwCtUU
- bumby 7y ago
  Just because there is a design moving forward does not mean there is not a considerable amount of discussion/dissent/disagreement on the approach.
dzhiurgis 7y ago
You drive car with pedals and steering wheel. Everything else that is ternary (music, climate, nav) is on touch screen. So yes, you can have cabin light and temperature controls on touchscreen on an airplane.
- sudhirj 7y ago
  Think I have seen flight attendants use a touch screen on the intercom and the cabin lights / infotainment. I’d assume everything on the cockpit is life of death for ~300 people, so different rules apply. Imagine what a sick joke it would be if the recent Boeing crashes were caused by pilots fiddling with a touchscreen while the plane went into a dive. It’s difficult enough to work all the controls accessible without tabbing or scrolling.
- Firadeoclus 7y ago
  > So yes, you can have cabin light and temperature controls on touchscreen on an airplane. Which means, annoyingly, that you can be locked out of those controls during crew announcements.
- ptaipale 7y ago
  Climate is not ternary, it's definitely important for driving in cold climates. To the point that if you can't see ahead, you need to stop on the expressway in order to adjust the airflow to windscreen, so that you don't collide into the other guy who has stopped to adjust the airflow in his car.
  - ec109685 7y ago
    Climate can be controlled by steering wheel too.
    - ptaipale 7y ago
      Of course. The point is that you need to have those dedicated controls with ergonomics that support driving, not touch screen.
zubspace 7y ago
An A380 is already full of screens where touch input could be introduced. All major airplane manufacturers are definitely experimenting with touch screens in the cockpit [1]. I guess not for flight critical systems for different reasons, because of missing tactile feedback and limited usage during turbulent flights [2]. But maybe that's just a question of time... [1] https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-aims-for-airliner-cockpit-touchscreen-first-449481/ https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airbus-aims-for-a... [2] https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/22729/why-are-traditional-knobs-not-replaced-by-touchscreens-in-cockpits https://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/22729/why-are-t...
Aser 7y ago
Have you seen the F-35 cockpit? It's just one giant touchscreen.
- lostjohnny 7y ago
  It has a large screen, but it's definitely not "just a giant touchscreen" Some things are controlled by the helmet movements. https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e6311865f9688fdb18cb6932caf1762f https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-e6311865f9688fdb18cb69...
  - galangalalgol 7y ago
    And, sensibly, stuff you would use while dogfighting or landing are switches and buttons. That, and things that have to always work like the radio and artificial horizon.
TylerE 7y ago
They are. https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/cInTheAir-cAvionics-cMFDs-p1.html https://buy.garmin.com/en-US/US/cInTheAir-cAvionics-cMFDs-p1...
sircastor 7y ago
This has far more to do with customer expectations than it does with safety. It would be much harder to sell a car with a different kind of steering mechanism than a wheel. The wheel is a leftover design element. Just because it's what we have doesn't mean it's good.

TeMPOraL 7y ago

> having a flexible interface makes a lot more sense For business, not the user. And honestly I expect the answer is simpler: this enables them to subcontract out the UI part and run it in parallel with the development of the rest of the car, because the UI can no longer affect anything else in the car design.

afarrell 7y ago
Which allows them to have the UI for controlling the car be done by a team without strong communication links with the team designing the rest of the car's UX. Is that a genuine benefit, or one that shows up more early in planning and who's downsides show up late?
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  It's a benefit to the business. There are way more variables of interest to consumers in a car than just UI; few if any will take a crappy touch UI as a dealbreaker (especially if everyone does crappy touch UIs). So it's a pure win for business - the downsides never reach them, they only materialize on the user end, large enough to frustrate people and maybe even cause accidents, but small enough to not cause a purchasing decision change the next time one is in a market for a car. (I need a term for those cases. Psychological externality?)
  - brokenmachine 7y ago
    Vested disinterest?
- smdyc1 7y ago
  That sounds awfully like Boeing's 737-MAX MCAS debacle.

Angostura 7y ago

Because who know when the volume control might get iterated out of existence

ReptileMan 7y ago

I prefer to think of cars as cars. A dock for a smartphone takes care of entertainment and for everything else discrete knobs switches and levers. Preferably clicking with a loud click.

marapuru 7y ago

I agree on the flexibility part. Interesting thought. Although that doesn't necessarily mean it has to be a touch screen. There are many non-functional buttons in my car right now, which might be wired but just don't perform an action. The car manufacturer could make it more easy to reprogram these. You can see it a bit as a Playstation controller (or whatever platform you like), it has multiple programmable buttons. A car could basically have the same. A touch screen is not required.

quakenul 7y ago
It gets tricky as soon as you need labels and/or more complicated visual feedback attached to "dumb" buttons. The touchscreen is "lazy" in that it can defer thinking hard about your problem space and I can see why that alone would feel scary in a car. On the other hand, there is only so much foresight you can have when you are innovating. Developing a Tesla might simply not be feasible without the flexibility a touchscreen gives you.