Slashdot Mirror


Driver Study: People Want Fewer Embedded Apps, Just Essentials That Work Easily

Lucas123 writes 'A study released at the Telematics Detroit 2014 conference revealed the obvious: Most people don't want more distracting embedded apps in their cars; they just want essential apps like navigation and music to be intuitive to use and reliable. Part of the study involved a focus group of 46 people who were asked to evaluate infotainment systems from three luxury car makers and four "mass consumer" car makers. The drivers were asked to do three things: Navigate home, find a pizza shop and find a radio station. Only 40% were able to complete all three tasks. Not surprisingly, the highest rated infotainment system was Tesla because its icons were "large" and it was easy to figure out.'

148 comments

  1. Need to be able to use without looking at it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For any in car control - I need to be able to use it without looking at it.

    Too many things fail at this.

    1. Re:Need to be able to use without looking at it by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In theory, sure. In practice, we're not all perfect super drivers who pay proper attention to the road at all times, and very short glances at a control panel in realtively safe moments isn't an extraordinary risk.

    2. Re:Need to be able to use without looking at it by rsborg · · Score: 2

      For any in car control - I need to be able to use it without looking at it.

      Too many things fail at this.

      This is the single reason that I think Google (and later Apple) have developed always-listening voice interfaces "Hey Google/Siri" with no button clicks is about as look and even touch free as you can get. Of course, if voice control were more mature yet, it'd probably be the preferred interface over fingers (see: Star Trek).

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    3. Re:Need to be able to use without looking at it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >and very short glances at a control panel in realtively safe moments isn't an extraordinary risk.

      Maybe not for you, but idiots that will not be able to do so safely won't understand that fact, because they're idiots. Adding distractions in cars puts us all at risk.

    4. Re:Need to be able to use without looking at it by chihowa · · Score: 1

      Looking at the console to find the appropriate knob or button is completely different from having to tap through seven different screens of icons to perform a simple task. The goal should be to make regular tasks easy to perform in a normal context. When the context is driving, the design should encourage the driver to keep looking at the road.

      In theory, sure. In practice, we're not all perfect super drivers who pay proper attention to the road at all times, and very short glances at a control panel in realtively safe moments isn't an extraordinary risk.

      From my time on the road, it seems that you're making some serious assumptions about the risks taken by many drivers out there.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    5. Re:Need to be able to use without looking at it by beefoot · · Score: 2

      For people like myself with accent:


      me: ok google, please lower the temperature
      google: yes sir, your car is shifted down to 2nd gear
      me: no don't do that. I'm driving at 140kmph
      google: yes sir, sit tight. the car will accelerate to 140mph
      me: not mile per hour
      google: sorry sir i don't understand
      me: I gave up. stop listening to me
      google: yes sir, I will stop the car now. Please ensure the seat belt is on. You're travelling at 140mph.
      me: (me on the way to heaven) thank you google

    6. Re:Need to be able to use without looking at it by i+kan+reed · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that everyone does that, just that it doesn't represent the biggest source of distraction based risk.

    7. Re:Need to be able to use without looking at it by peragrin · · Score: 1

      So what your saying is the the GUI designers for the systems need to work instead of just slapping some labels on touch buttons in random order.

      The touch control systems fail in not being easy to use. Also Most people look at the dials when adjusting them. Just to make certain they stopped at the correct location.

      So looking away for a second or two isn't a big deal. navigating a menu for 6 layers deep to do something simple is. I can't wait for apple to show car companies how to do touch screen interfaces. Or at least google.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    8. Re:Need to be able to use without looking at it by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      BMW had that. They even had a navigation system that only talked to you and nobody liked it. Every single person wanted a moving map display.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    9. Re:Need to be able to use without looking at it by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      In theory, sure. In practice, we're not all perfect super drivers who pay proper attention to the road at all times, and very short glances at a control panel in realtively safe moments isn't an extraordinary risk.

      No, but after owning a car for a while it should be possible to change the radio station or temperature without looking at the display. This is pretty damn hard to do with touch screens. Physical dials an buttons simply make more sense for most controls like this in a car.

    10. Re:Need to be able to use without looking at it by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I already have Android in my dashboard. a simple double din CHINA car stereo running Android 4.2 is 80X better than any of the crap that FORD or GM has ever came up with.

      WAYZE is the best navigation app in the world for User interface, I can even report a cop location with very little attention taken from the road.

      I installed one of the older "CAR MODE" launchers and it's even better. I can customize it to hell and back in my driveway and then enjoy ease of use and even voice control to the point that I can say ,"ok google, text my boss that I will be late due to traffic"

      BOOM! the text message is off and I did not have to do anything but hold down the home button.

      Whatever GM,FORD,Toyota,Honda,BMW,Mercedes, or whoever car company tries to come up with will be a complete worthles turd compared to a dirt cheap $500 Ebay china stereo with regular old android on it.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    11. Re:Need to be able to use without looking at it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a bit of exaggeration in this - surely the distractions in new cars are distracting but hey you are supposed to have some level of self control and intelligence. Maybe that should be part of driving license test - if an asshole trying to pass the exam cannot keep his hands where they belong also when his/her mobile phone is doing funny noises indicating info-flatulence of some of his/her so called (interweb)friends then this is the major minus points of which you get 1 means you do not pass. Other than that you are not always driving while in a car. An old US tradition is having sex in a car. I recall also having listening music in the car I just drove for extended period of time AFTER I assembled a tent and got myself a cold beer etc. Clearly I could have gotten myself a mobile boom-device but why should I if I have one in my car. A friend of mine is doing car sound system extensions and what he says is that for some the car is the only place where they can listen to their music at the loud level they like without their better halves, kids or neighbours interfering with the joy.

    12. Re:Need to be able to use without looking at it by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      Google Now Launcher is almost perfect. Putting into a "car dock" mode would be even better, where it is always on. Allowing me to change the default "wakeup" from Okay Google to Okay KITT would be over the top cool for me.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    13. Re:Need to be able to use without looking at it by tomhath · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. If you can't use the control it without staring at it when it changes at every touch it shouldn't be in a moving vehicle.

    14. Re:Need to be able to use without looking at it by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      Can you recommend your device? Hard to find informative reviews that aren't shills. ...already have the FreedomPop hotspot waiting to serve this sucker.

    15. Re:Need to be able to use without looking at it by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      but idiots that will not be able to do so safely won't understand that fact, because they're idiots

      There is a substantial body of evidence that passengers are a bigger distraction than electronics. In particular, various studies reported children, teenagers, adults and old people as being sources of distraction.

      Clearly we need to ban people from cars

      its completely obvious once you think of it!

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    16. Re:Need to be able to use without looking at it by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Yeah and if I HAVE to look at it, a touch screen (like the one in my old car) takes a single finger point, where that blasted knob clicker thing (in my new car) takes my attention away from the road for a long time trying to figure out how to click the thing I already looked at and know I want.

      Who's the idiot that thought that would be easier?

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    17. Re:Need to be able to use without looking at it by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1

      I speak the Queen's standard English, and the result is very similar. I assume some specific American accent is required - but I perhaps it might need to be Korean.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    18. Re:Need to be able to use without looking at it by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      There are hundreds of warnings waiting to seize your attention and distract you, one for each nifty wow item that you might crash if it became disabled while driving.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    19. Re:Need to be able to use without looking at it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looking at the console to find the appropriate knob or button is completely different from having to tap through seven different screens of icons to perform a simple task. The goal should be to make regular tasks easy to perform in a normal context. When the context is driving, the design should encourage the driver to keep looking at the road.

      In theory, sure. In practice, we're not all perfect super drivers who pay proper attention to the road at all times, and very short glances at a control panel in realtively safe moments isn't an extraordinary risk.

      From my time on the road, it seems that you're making some serious assumptions about the risks taken by many drivers out there.

      Except that "relatively safe moments" can become unsafe very quickly! And what is the definition of "very short"? At 50km/h (~31mph, = 13.9 m/s) you will travel around 27m in 2sec, by which time you have flattened the child you chased the ball onto the road, or slammed into the car in front who stopped for the same!

    20. Re:Need to be able to use without looking at it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the child who chased the ball

    21. Re:Need to be able to use without looking at it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but I perhaps it might need to be Korean

      English, you fail it!

    22. Re:Need to be able to use without looking at it by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      BMW had that. They even had a navigation system that only talked to you and nobody liked it. Every single person wanted a moving map display.

      I was obviously misssed in that survey as I don't drive a BMW.

      However, I was an early adopter of satnavs and from the first I have gone by the voice and never looked at them (they are face down on a shelf), except when programming before a journey. I regard a satnav as the equivalent of ny 12 yo son giving directions while he reads the map. Then when other people started using satnavs I was horrified to see them being positioned to be read while driving. I thought it must be illegal or would surely soon be banned. It still makes my hair stand on end to think of drivers peering at a satnav map while driving. Using a mobile phone must be far safer, yet that is banned.

    23. Re:Need to be able to use without looking at it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound old.

    24. Re:Need to be able to use without looking at it by jhecht · · Score: 1

      Short glances are one thing, but the new displays require focusing and reading, which takes more time. An old-fashioned dial-meter takes only a glance to roughly estimate speed, fuel, and engine temperature. A large two-digit speed display works because it takes only an instant to read. But that was the only legible display on the 2014 Prius C I test-drove. The second digital display on the top displayed small characters that were hard to focus on, and switched through a series of four displays to boot. If you were looking for something beyond speed, you had to look away from the road for much too long, and I couldn't even focus on the thing. We bought a 2013 Honda Fit instead -- the displays are readable on a quick glance. That's what it's going to take for the auto makers to learn.

    25. Re:Need to be able to use without looking at it by canadiannomad · · Score: 1

      As always, people are the problem.

      --
      Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
    26. Re:Need to be able to use without looking at it by SternisheFan · · Score: 1

      A decade or so ago insurance companies put real time video cameras in people's cars. They saw that the average time spent not looking out the windshield before having an accident was 2 seconds.

    27. Re:Need to be able to use without looking at it by boris111 · · Score: 1

      I speak standard non-regional American dialect and still same results. I'm Ron Burgundy?

    28. Re: Need to be able to use without looking at it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You sound retarded

    29. Re:Need to be able to use without looking at it by mjwx · · Score: 1

      >and very short glances at a control panel in realtively safe moments isn't an extraordinary risk.

      Maybe not for you, but idiots that will not be able to do so safely won't understand that fact, because they're idiots. Adding distractions in cars puts us all at risk.

      This.

      Idiots are too busy fiddling with something or another in a car, then look up and realise they've shoved themselves right up the trumpet of the person in front of them. Then they slam on the brakes causing a huge traffic wave behind them.

      Controls should be intuitive and in a car, easy to use when not looking at them. I expect to be able to adjust the volume or change songs on my car's stereo without looking at them because I expect to be doing this at 110 KPH and at 110 KPH, I need to be focusing on the road and my mirrors, not looking for a button or playing with a touchscreen.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    30. Re:Need to be able to use without looking at it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cheap..... $500.....

      That word, you keep using it.. I do not think it means what you think it means.

  2. What I want by clinko · · Score: 5, Funny

    "The car stereo I wanted 10 years ago"
    "The car stereo I want today":

    http://i.imgur.com/NGcUN.jpg

    1. Re:What I want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you settle for an aux-in port? I want a DIN slot, like cars used to have. Then I can add any car stereo I like, or navigation system with pop-out screen, or even just a place to put my phone, next to that aux-in.

    2. Re:What I want by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Why would a Bluetooth audio system need a jack? :-)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:What I want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was one of the loudest whooshing sounds I've heard.
      Do you design "infotainment" systems?

    4. Re:What I want by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

      This.

      All I'm reading in TFA is "I want something that is exactly my mobile phone".
      Just offer in-dash "car kits" where you just clip the phone in a 2-DIN. (these already exist).
      Fancier cars could offer similar for tablets.

      Nobody needs a $4000 in-car navigation when their $400 phone already does the same thing better.
      Heck, they might even just leave a phone/tablet in permanently and it'd still be cheaper.
      "Cheaper" is probably why this isn't a standard option in cars; $4000 for $400 worth of technology is so much more profitable than BYOD.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    5. Re:What I want by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      Or just one of these $400-$500 puppies: http://www.dx.com/s/android+di...

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    6. Re:What I want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Just offer in-dash "car kits" where you just clip the phone in a 2-DIN.

      Do it right with MirrorLink

    7. Re:What I want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why the big box contraption? just give me a cell phone sized thing. DONE (and cheap)

    8. Re:What I want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why the big box contraption? just give me a cell phone sized thing. DONE (and cheap)

      Because some people like to be able to take a quick glance at the screen and be able to read it on a larger screen than a small cell phone. Crazy idea that some people might like something else than what you want.

    9. Re:What I want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why the big box contraption? just give me a cell phone sized thing. DONE (and cheap)

      Because if you want sound, you need an amp. Your phone doesn't have an amplifier to drive the speakers - thats most of the bulk/weight of a head unit.

    10. Re:What I want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because, in addition to the larger screen, amp, and real buttons, the in dash systems can be wired up to a rear camera and your radio antenna. Plus, the secure mount point is already there, in a convenient place to reach without blocking your view.
      I have a couple of friends with these, and they are pretty nifty.

    11. Re:What I want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I just like flexible standard interfaces. What's wrong with having a place in the car where you can put the electronics that you want, not have cables or anything get in the way, and still have power, audio and more available. I know the aux-in picture is sort of a joke, but at least update it for the times: Nowadays you'd want a USB port with at least 2A (with Bluetooth for the audio, the aux in port isn't useful, but you forgot the power supply, didn't you). In five years maybe you'd want a Lightning port. With a DIN slot, you could provide all of those easily. Cars don't have DIN slots anymore, so you'd have to buy the manufacturer version of the adapter. How is that better?

    12. Re:What I want by mythosaz · · Score: 1

      A lot of cars have unique form-factors, that's for sure, but a good number of the manufactures have holes that accept DIN and double-DIN devices with a sleeve to match your old front.

    13. Re:What I want by gman003 · · Score: 1

      You forgot the USB port for keeping your phone charged.

    14. Re:What I want by rossdee · · Score: 1

      " Your phone doesn't have an amplifier to drive the speakers"

      The amp is in the (bluetooth) speakers, not in the phone.

      Anyway given the background noise, you'd probably want to listen on headphones.

    15. Re:What I want by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      Why would a Bluetooth audio system need a jack?

      Because the Bluetooth stack is a piece of shit - you have evidently not tried using one of these!

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    16. Re:What I want by larryjoe · · Score: 1

      Nobody needs a $4000 in-car navigation when their $400 phone already does the same thing better.

      I actually prefer the built-in system. For example, I have a limited data plan because my non-wifi data needs are low, so using an online map like Google Maps or Waze costs extra on a recurring basis. With a phone, I would have to go through the motions of removing it from my pocket, attaching it to the bracket, and plugging it in, as well as the reverse motions when leaving the car. I would also need a special bracket to hold the phone, and even with this bracket, the screen would shake more than an integrated system. The phone screen is significantly smaller. The phone audio is not integrated into the car speakers, so audio levels have to be adjusted, and navigation directions sometimes compete with music. The built-in system also has a physical joystick and dial with voice feedback (not to mention voice recognition) so that I can control it more easily than the using the phone's touchscreen.

      I do use my phone for navigation sometimes when I drive my older car. But, given a choice, I always prefer the built-in system.

    17. Re:What I want by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It doesn't have to be specifically Bluetooth, I was actually aiming more at the idea that perhaps that panel could use one fewer connector.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    18. Re:What I want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the Bluetooth stack is a piece of shit - you have evidently not tried using one of these!

      No, the Bluetooth stack is several pieces of shit. Each implementation by the major electronics manufacturers is fubar in different ways and so interoperability is a goddamned nightmare.

    19. Re:What I want by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Close

      1) it should be a USB port not an AUX port. (If I'm using a flash drive it should just plug in. If I'm using a phone / ipod / whatever I want it to charge up)

      2) It should have physical play / pause / skip / and volume controls.

      Several years ago I installed one of these:
      http://www.dfwcamper.com/drupa...

      Play/pause, skip are simple. The volume 'knob' is brilliant.

      The display is gorgeous, (album art, track, album, song, etc). These days I just have an old 30GB ipod classic in the glovebox attached to it; that I only ever need to touch every few months to add new music, update playlists etc.

      It has controls to browse and select playlists, albums, songs etc; but the UI for that isn't as good as it could be. Adequate but not 'ideal'.

      Still, its pretty much by far the best in dash deck I've ever used; and I've moved it from car to new car a few times. Its in my wifes car now, as my newest car has a 'too proprietary' dash system to use it easily (fiber optics to the amplifier, low impedence speakers, and the existing radio is on the 'system bus' and the car apparently gets all cranky if you disconnect it... not insurmountable, but $$ and a PITA to get around. So in that car I'm using the 'aux' port -- but I'm seriously missing the ipod charging, and the dash controls for play/pause/skip. So I have to keep the ipod within rach. (At least the old ipods had physical buttons so you can operate them by touch)

    20. Re:What I want by Zynder · · Score: 1

      So you are using the "Just buy Classic Shell and Windows 8 will be awesome" argument. Don't you usually bitch about having to buy something extra that should have came with the original product?

    21. Re:What I want by canadiannomad · · Score: 1

      "The car stereo I wanted 10 years ago"
      "The car stereo I want today":

      http://i.imgur.com/NGcUN.jpg

      The one at the bottom is the one I wanted 10 years ago, and remains the one I want today. Why is that so hard!?!

      --
      Hmm, the humour and sarcasm seem to have been be lost on you.
    22. Re:What I want by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Mirror Link. Mirrors your phone screen on the dashboard with touch control. Uses the car's GPS antenna. No messing about with clips, plug in one cable and stick the phone out of the way. Phone can switch to driving mode automatically. Let's you listen to the radio too. Widely available in aftermarket head units and in some manufacturer standard ones (Toyota, Subaru).

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  3. lots of more things to break by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    more time in the shop....profit!

  4. Response time and voice controls by PseudoCoder · · Score: 1

    The less time we spend touching the screen, the better one can keep their eyes on the road and avoid becoming absorbed with the gadget. That means sensitive touch controls with very little lag, quick look-up times, and voice inputs. Google/Bing integration would keep data entry to a minimum too; if I've already have a place marked on the maps, I wouldn't have to enter it into the system all over again.

    Of course I have no time to watch movies on my screen or visually sort through ads to get what I need.

    --
    "Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder."
    1. Re:Response time and voice controls by Gaygirlie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That means sensitive touch controls with very little lag

      No. That means no touch controls. Touch controls force you to look at where you're placing your fingers and what's happening. Actual physical knobs and buttons can be used even without looking.

    2. Re:Response time and voice controls by afidel · · Score: 1

      And ideally those controls are on the steering wheel so you don't even have to take your hands off the wheel to perform an action.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    3. Re:Response time and voice controls by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      That means sensitive touch controls with very little lag

      No. That means no touch controls. Touch controls force you to look at where you're placing your fingers and what's happening. Actual physical knobs and buttons can be used even without looking.

      As can your voice. My car, which is a low-end compact, still has a microphone in the steering wheel and can connect via bluetooth with my portable device. As a result, I can give it commands, and the car stereo system uses voice responses to those commands. I don't need knobs or screens; I just need to give commands and have them be understood. Right now, that last bit is lacking a bit (me: "find pizza hut near me" device: "Playing song named 'be the heart near me,' or even better, 'calling contact Zahuta Earme.'"

      Lesson learned: when listening to music, plan your music list before you start your drive. When finding your way to a location, look it up before you drive, and use street view to verify the location was at least correct at some point. Then navigate by keeping those instructions in your head and looking out the window at your surroundings. If you can't see the route, you probably shouldn't be attempting to drive it.

    4. Re:Response time and voice controls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That depends on the control. Between number of fingers and direction of swipe, there's a lot you could do with multi-touch that would make eyes-free use of a device easy.
       
        On a modern car stereo, actual knobs and buttons can't be used without looking except for volume, because they bring up menus to access other functionality.

    5. Re:Response time and voice controls by PRMan · · Score: 1

      No. They can't. They just require me to jump through hoops to click the thing I already knew I wanted 10 seconds ago.

      Having had both, I can assure you I am 10x more distracted now with the stupid knob.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    6. Re:Response time and voice controls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Touch controls are never intuitive. It's just a brain dead interface. The only reason it's used on smart phones and tablets is because it's small and cheap. It even tries very hard to emulate buttons and knobs.

    7. Re:Response time and voice controls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Also, "fat fingering" a control takes on a whole new meaning when wearing winter gloves...

  5. I agree by FudRucker · · Score: 1

    GPS indash included in the stereo, and bluetooth so it interfaces with a cellphone

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  6. Mercedes figured this out 6 years ago. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They scrapped all their work on touchscreens and went with a single 3.5-axis control knob for infotainment control. You never have to take your eyes off the road.

    1. Re:Mercedes figured this out 6 years ago. by ColoradoAuthor · · Score: 1

      I'm starting to shop for a car, and I'll be wearing gloves on the test drives. I can live with a capacitive touch screen for navigation, but I'm one of those oddball people who insists on being able to turn on the heat and tune the radio during the winter.

    2. Re:Mercedes figured this out 6 years ago. by omnichad · · Score: 1

      If your heat works, why do you need gloves?

      Or just get gloves with metal-lined threads on the fingertips.

    3. Re:Mercedes figured this out 6 years ago. by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      If your heat works, why do you need gloves?

      You do realize that a car takes a while to heat up when the air is forty below zero, right? And that you don't want to get frostbite from having to take gloves off to touch a screen to turn the heat on before it heats up?

  7. I WANT BUTTONS by maliqua · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Things that i can feel i'm working and not touchscreens!

    BUTTONS KNOBS AND TACTILE FEEDBACK!

    1. Re:I WANT BUTTONS by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      What I've thought would be cool would be a touchscreen that could simulate tactile feedback (maybe through small electric charges, or vibrations). Because for fucks sake, futzing around with a device which uses virtually half of the surface area as input is not conducive to driving in a jittery, bouncing car. (IE mobile phone)

      This thread has made me want to dig out my old Minidisk player to use in my car's aux jack vs my touchscreen MP3 player. :( (navigating directories/tracks was so much simpler, could be done with one hand and didn't require taking my eyes off the road while driving... it also got obnoxiously good battery life.)

    2. Re:I WANT BUTTONS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A minidisc player? Oh god. You're one of THOSE guys. It explains a lot of your ranting posts.

    3. Re:I WANT BUTTONS by maliqua · · Score: 1

      NO! no clever touch screens Buttons!!!

      buuuuuuuuttttttttttttttttooooooooooooonnnnnnnnnssssss!

    4. Re:I WANT BUTTONS by rogoshen1 · · Score: 1

      dude, there's like 3 of us. (minidisk users that is.) and heh, what ranting posts would you be referring to?

    5. Re:I WANT BUTTONS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would be surprised what a large format screen like Tesla's does for your attitude towards wanting buttons. I am a convert. I don't need the buttons I once thought I did. With the Tesla, the most important functions are on the steeringwheel and are buttons that proxy touch screen commands, but for all the other stuff that might be difficult during driving. For all the "car standing still" stuff, the touch screen is much more effective.

    6. Re:I WANT BUTTONS by maliqua · · Score: 1

      It can have a touchscreen for whatever it wants as long as there are actual physical buttons for all the stuff i care about which is radio climate controls

      any features above and beyond that i don't even care if they're included let alone what the interface to them is

    7. Re:I WANT BUTTONS by hurfy · · Score: 1

      Yet, you just said you have the buttons!

      sigh

    8. Re:I WANT BUTTONS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You would be surprised what a large format screen like Tesla's does for your attitude towards wanting buttons. I am a convert. I don't need the buttons I once thought I did.

      Ok.

      With the Tesla, the most important functions are on the steeringwheel and are buttons that proxy touch screen commands,

      Ummmm.....

    9. Re:I WANT BUTTONS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why breasts have nipples!

    10. Re:I WANT BUTTONS by Chelloveck · · Score: 1

      No, a touchscreen with tactile feedback wouldn't be very useful in this application. Ideally you want to operate the controls without taking your eyes off the road. To do that you need controls which don't move around or change function. The volume control, for instance, should always be available and should never change its position on the dashboard. It should never be dual-purposed; ie., a volume control in radio mode but a scroll control for selecting an MP3 from a directory. A dynamic tactile touchscreen doesn't help in that situation.

      My current vehicle doesn't have a touchscreen but does have a "smart" entertainment system. It has physical buttons but (with the sole exception of volume/power, thankfully) their functions are all dependent on what mode the system is in. And there's no way to determine the current mode or the current meanings of the buttons without looking at the display. Even simple things like balance/fade/eq are buried in the modal menu system. Hard as hell to operate when you're driving.

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    11. Re:I WANT BUTTONS by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Tesla have the right balance. As well as the touchscreen there is a second screen behind the wheel with wheel mounted controls. What is displayed on this screen can be customised. You could set it to control audio and navigation, for example. Physical buttons for the things you want, no clutter.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  8. Fuck apps, I want a CAR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How I about I want a reliable, comfortable (192cm tall), eco-friendly (150PS to 6L unleaded 95ROZ), easy to repair, insanely practical (big trunk) limousine.

  9. I want more Drivers that just work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously. I'm ok with better Nav options, as long as the implementation is via heads-up-display.

    The rest is only an unnecessary distraction.

  10. On the other hand... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    The drivers were asked to do three things: Navigate home, find a pizza shop and find a radio station.

    I can do all these things *now* w/o any fancy crap. The radio in my Civic is dead simple to use, and I know where I live and how I got where ever I am now because I drove there. I also know where my local pizza shops are and don't generally go about look for random ones.

    I guess Nav systems may be great for traveling and when one is *really* new in town, but other than that, I'm not convinced.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    1. Re:On the other hand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you drive in England, you use satnav literally all the time. If you need to get from one road to the next, through a small town, there is often only one correct route that can join you there without having to backtrack. It's similar within Central London. There is quite often only one choice (circuitous, too) of routing between two points. You wouldn't generally figure it out from intuition if it wasn't your neighborhood.

    2. Re:On the other hand... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My experience is that people either use the nav system in their head, or they use the one in their car. They have problems doing both at the same time. This means that if you depend on a nav system, you'll always be really new in town, as you'll never learn to associate the instructions with what your eyes actually see out the window.

    3. Re:On the other hand... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      You must either explore your region extensively, or not at all. We regularly drive in ~75 mile radius of our home. To know where everything is would require either that to be a full time activity, or never happen.

    4. Re:On the other hand... by suutar · · Score: 1

      I use my nav system mostly to see which of three or four routes that I know is least bogged by traffic.

    5. Re:On the other hand... by Ksevio · · Score: 1

      So basically you're saying you didn't understand the basic premise or the article.

      I can easily navigate home and find a pizza shop normally too, but when I want a navigation system to get home I'm often somewhere where I DON'T know the best route. I might be able to drive back, but if it's a multi-leg trip or through areas without 2-way streets then it doesn't help. Nav systems for normal driving are most useful for when they can route around traffic, since they know more than I can in that situation. Which of the three routes should I take to get home? A couple clicks on the nav system and I'm on my way.

    6. Re:On the other hand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a troll mood - but what are you, a fucking idiot ? London was perfectly navigable as soon as I moved there from the states while learning which side of the fucking road to drive on.

      Yeah, sure, the first time you drive somewhere you might need ten extra minutes, but plan that, and you'll know after that. Big fucking deal.

    7. Re:On the other hand... by Bite+The+Pillow · · Score: 1

      You seem to be assuming that everyone has the same experience you do, and especially the spatial intelligence that you have. It is a lot simpler to exclude every other person on the planet from your considerations, but it just makes you look like a douchebag.

    8. Re:On the other hand... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

      You seem to be assuming that everyone has the same experience you do, and especially the spatial intelligence that you have.

      They have these papery things called "maps" and people have this thing called "memory".

      It is a lot simpler to exclude every other person on the planet from your considerations, but it just makes you look like a douchebag.

      Or devices like this are the gateway to Idiocracy.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    9. Re:On the other hand... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yep i beg my wife to leave her's behind because she's been driving 2 years in only a small area and i can count the number of places she can get to on her own on the hand i learned firecrackers can be dangerous with.

  11. Doesn't surprise me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I test drove a Cadillac recently and GM's touch screen looks like it was built by people with zero UI experience. Of course, it's just about as bad as every other modern app. Nobody understands flow anymore. And it's not an American thing either. The same problems plagued touch interfaces on imports as well. Oddly, BMW's is much better than it used to be.

    This garbage is so sluggish, too. Adjusting climate controls used to be a matter of turning on a knob. Now, I have to tap on a vague piece of plastic. Nothing happens, so I tap again. Then again. Finally, the fans kick on FULL BLAST... And apparently there are only three speed settings. And seriously, adjusting volume by sliding your finger across a screen? Jesus Christ, whomever thought that shit was a good idea is a fucking MORON... Why have umpteen volume levels if all you can do is wildly skate between 0 and MAXIMUM with barely any control.

    I don't care if I sound like the old man on the porch, shaking his fist. These UIs are completely retarded.

    1. Re:Doesn't surprise me. by macdude22 · · Score: 1

      I love gadgets, my satchel is filled with phones, tablets, games, radios. I love gadgets. The modern propensity toward touch interfaces in vehicles is frightening. We have a 2013 Dodge Journey and I swear to you adjusting the climate controls on that thing is a road hazard. And you are spot on about it being sluggish, the resistive screen is like using an old VTech kids laptop or something. My 2007 focus, 3 knobs, you could figure that thing out blindfolded (I don't advocate driving blind). These in car systems need to be simple, and tactile. Great we make cars with 17 airbags, your gunna need it because just to operate the turn signal you have to take your eyes off the road for 5 seconds. We needed an automobile with a specific set of storage and capacity requirements, the Journey fit the bill (with some caveats). Didn't really matter, any thing else we looked at (Ford, Buick, Mitsubishi, etc...) all had these damn modern UFO based road hazard systems. I thought the Ford Sync one was even worse than the one on this Dodge.

    2. Re:Doesn't surprise me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should have got a Honda Odyssey...

    3. Re:Doesn't surprise me. by hax4bux · · Score: 2

      You sounded old at "cadillac"

    4. Re:Doesn't surprise me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can see it now:

      Tap Home... Tap Apps... Tap "Turn Signal"... Tap "Left"... Answer modal dialogue: "Are you TURNING or MERGING direction LEFT ?" (complete with odd extra space after "left")... If you are changing lanes or merging, naturally you have to keep your finger on word "MERGING" (because the left and right arrow indicators are blocked by the modal)... If you take too long to complete your merge/lane change, it will pop-up a Clippy window with the query "It looks like you are MERGING, would you like assistance?"...

      Meanwhile, you're so frustrated you fail to realize you're now nose down about 50 feet from the rocky shore of Highway 1. Fortunately, the car is smart and it pops up another dialogue: "It looks like you are CRASHING, would you like assistance?"

    5. Re:Doesn't surprise me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      XTS w/ Twin Turbo producing 410HP says otherwise. No further snark will be recognized as haters gonna hate.

    6. Re:Doesn't surprise me. by hax4bux · · Score: 1

      I own two aircraft. Doesn't change my age. What are you compensating for and why do you think a cadillac helps?

    7. Re:Doesn't surprise me. by chihowa · · Score: 1

      This little dialog you've got going on here is stupid and I hate Cadillacs anyway, but the whole comparing-liking-fun-things (fast cars, guns, aircraft, etc) to small penises meme has got to stop. It really says more about your fixation with penises (and penis size) than anything else.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    8. Re:Doesn't surprise me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry to read about your personality disorder. I'm not sure how you can become less of an asshole, though.

    9. Re:Doesn't surprise me. by hey! · · Score: 1

      This is not some new-fangled "gee I don't know how to design a 'computerized' user interface" thing. Poorly thought out and over-elaborate controls are embedded deep within GM design culture, and have been for at least fifty years if not longer.

      As proof I present the heat controls which I remember totally ruining my Mom's otherwise awesome '68 Skylark Sport Coupe for her.

      To call for heat or air conditioning, you frob the thumb wheel until you think the bar graph is indicating the temperature you might want. The problem, as you'll see if you look at the worm gear mechanism inside, is that in order to give enough mechanical advantage to work the cables with a thumbwheel, the wheel has to turn maybe five full revolutions to move through the entire range. On top of that, you manipulate the wheel through the exposed arc that sits above the panel, which means you can move it at most about 45 degrees with a swipe of your thumb, or 8 swipes to get a full 360 revolution, or forty swipes to go from max heat to max AC. All the while you were supposed to be watching the bar graph instead of the road. Many's the time I heard my sainted mother swearing under her breath as she tried to get a little heat or AC out of the damned thing.

      If I recall, one "helpful" feature of the bar graph was that it turned blue when going from heat to AC and orange when going the other way. This is another very GM touch. When I was in college I had a friend who had an Oldsmobile from the same era with a bar graph speedo that turned red when it exceeded 100MPH. You can imagine how safe *that* feature was in the hands of a young male driver.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    10. Re:Doesn't surprise me. by toddestan · · Score: 1

      The Honda Odyssey is gigantic now. Unless you mean a used one from the late 90's.

  12. Need MS Office embeded by cyberspittle · · Score: 3, Funny

    I need Microsoft Office embedded app so I can work on business-critical documents.

  13. Re:This is what happens when you have old white... by cyberspittle · · Score: 1

    I sense a certain amount of hostility.

  14. Touch controls: NO! by Toshito · · Score: 2

    Like the new Lincoln MKZ with TOUCH controls for volume and temperature, on a smooth surface, without any tactile reference. Bravo!

    I even hate the push buttons and rotary controls for the heater, it used to be that you could control everything with 2 slides, one for temp and one to choose where to send the air.

    It was very easy to know, only by touch, where the slides are. With a rotary button, you have to look at it to see where it is pointing. And the push buttons are also much less convenient, if I have to put the control on front defrost quickly (because the windshield is suddenly fogging) with the old controls I only had to slide it all the way to the right.

    Now I have to find the front defrost button wich is the second to the right, flush with all the other buttons.

    Even in some car manuals of the 70's and 80's it was stated that if you want to defog or defrost the car in an emergency you just put all the slides to the right or to the top (depending on the orientation of the controls) without thinking, it will automatically put the heater to front defrost,maximum heat, full fan, outside air (no recirculation).

    It's the same problem with almost every interface today, from electronics (think about how easy and fast it was to change the volume or choose the input on a 70's Receiver, with it's big buttons compared to receivers of today with it's tiny buttons and display you have to look at)

    Don't get me started on volume and mute controls. Why don't laptops get a physical cut off switch as a mute button? When I power up my laptop in a library or at school I have to remember if I put it on mute the last time, and if not I need to wait for the mute button to become responsive but since it's controlled by software and a certain driver, it becomes usable right after Windows decide to play it's login sound. Very annoying. How much would it cost to put a physical switch to cut out the electrical signal to the speakers???

    I think we're moving backward with UI, today look ingenuity and trend is more important than usability.

    Now get off my lawn!

    --
    Try it! Library of Babel
    1. Re:Touch controls: NO! by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      I haven't figured out how I'm supposed to use a touch-screen in my car when it's forty below zero and I'm wearning thick gloves.

    2. Re:Touch controls: NO! by joe_frisch · · Score: 2

      Its not just cars - the F35 fighter plane has touch screen controls!

      If you think manipulating a touch screen on a bumpy road is bad, imagine trying to do it while making 6-G turns in a fighter. In turbulence I sometimes have trouble hanging onto physical knobs on my 50 year old Beechcraft.

      At SLAC we have installed real physical knobs to control the accelerator and they work. Operators can look at displays and have the tactile feedback of moving a control. It speeds up machine tuning.

      Touch screens are a way to save money, but in most cases do not improve the user interface.

      (Damn kids,, don't know how to design a UI like they did in my day....and the music they listen to.....grumble).

    3. Re:Touch controls: NO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck your yard, grandpa! Now you can add "always disrespecting their elders" to your list of whine.

    4. Re:Touch controls: NO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Completely agree.

      I'm happily driving an '07 BMW which has good old buttons and dials for the AC, stereo, etc. (and it's a manual).

      You couldn't pay me enough (well, maybe..) to swap it for a model with touch screen doodads and automatic transmission.. I _like_ being in control of the car :-)

    5. Re:Touch controls: NO! by ZecretZquirrel · · Score: 1

      Question is, when will shoppers seriously evaluate the UI as part of the test drive, when will the auto press do the same, and how much will this affect the buying decision?

    6. Re:Touch controls: NO! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      You know you can disable that log in sound, you know. It's the first thing I do after installation.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Touch controls: NO! by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Might be worth getting a headphone plug and a resistor and viola - instant simulated headphones. No, it shouldn't come to that, but might not be a bad thing to have in the laptop bag.

  15. I just bought a new car... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The UI of the gadgets is what made my final decision when purchasing a car. The Ford Fusion has moved everything from physical buttons/knobs/etc to two god-awful touch screens. I am an extremely tech-savvy individual - that isn't the problem. The driver's screen is usable because it has a few physical navigation buttons (I think up/down/ok) and it's easy to read, but it is a bit limited in what it can do. The main touch screen requires sliding, tapping, and 15 minutes of futzing around just to get your music, climate, and nav all set up for your drive. I ended up purchasing a Mazda 6 which has its share of downfalls, but it has temperature and volume knobs, plus a few other extremely useful physical buttons. It's actually mostly usable while driving (tuning the radio is a pain, though).
    I love the idea of a screen that can display info about your bluetooth device, have a speed dial, your top radio stations, info about songs, etc... But the 90's got the UI right for a car. Leave my dials alone. Touch can't replicate them.

    1. Re:I just bought a new car... by sk999 · · Score: 1

      I recently had a Ford Fusion as a rental. It was a hybrid, which I had never driven before, and it took most of a day of trial and error to figure out which combination of this-and-that you need to do to even start the thing. It had the Microsoft In Sync system, which I never figured it out. In fact, I couldn't even figure out how to turn off the radio - could only turn down the volume. On the plus side, it did perform quite well as a car (that driving thing).

    2. Re:I just bought a new car... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you tried new Ford Decepticon 2017? No steering wheel, no pedals. no windshield, no rear view mirror: just one giant touchscreen! Isn't it AWEsOME!?

  16. specs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is why I always use Waze or Google Maps over a car navigation system. They're so poorly designed that it takes forever to do anything. I think they design features like this into cars just to say they have them in the specs.

  17. Correct! by aseth · · Score: 1

    I have a 2006 Prius and just recently we got a 2014 Prius V... And the '06 has a vastly superior navigation system. The '14 comes with crapware-loaded Entune and some of the worst user-interface decisions I've ever seen in a product.

    I like that it shows me the traffic, but it'd be nice if they licensed Google Maps for the information so it'd be closer to accurate. And it'd also be nice if roads in cities weren't grey-on-grey with grey text. (Why are you showing me that I'm in a city by changing the background to grey anyway? Is the population of the current governmental entity really critical information when driving?)

    It's also somewhat amusing - but also irritating - to see garbage like Bing or MovieTickets.com in the car screen, which work if you connect them to the internet on your smartphone... But if I have my smartphone in the car, wouldn't I check movie times on that, instead of a never-updated slow app whose interface was designed by someone that wears their pants on their head?

  18. Cartoon Cars? by thevirtualcat · · Score: 1

    Many cartoons over the years have made jokes about people adding completely ridiculous things to their cars in the name of convenience. They usually end up in a hilarious, hubris-fueled accidents. Unfortunately, it's turning out to be a lot more prophetic and a lot less hilarious than anyone wants to admit.

  19. Poor Dataset of Infotainment Systems by Amigori · · Score: 2

    If you're going to do a study on automobile infotainment systems, you need a broader set of data: 46 people with 7 types of systems, 2 of which are very uncommon. This dataset sounds like they just asked around their office and of the 46 people that work there, only 7 employees had any sort of infotainment system, 3 being the bosses.

    Want to do this study right? Go rent 10-12 cars with the various systems, park them at Walmart one day and survey, park them at the mall the next day and survey, park them at the fancy downtown shopping district and survey, and then hold a private dinner for the upper-class folks and survey. 4 distinct groups and hundreds or thousands of data points.

    Be sure to include systems that actually are used: Toyota Entune, Ford Sync, GM/Chevrolet Intellilink/MyLink, Honda HondaLink, Dodge/Chrysler Uconnect, Nissan NissanConnect, Mazda, Volkswagen, BMW ConnectedDrive, Mercedes Comand, and Cadillac CUE.

    Come on, how many people actually have a Porsche with an infotainment, or a Tesla? Seriously, Ford sold twice as many Fiesta's in the US last year than Tesla has sold total.

    --
    "The quality of life is determined by its activites."--Aristotle
  20. What's Automotive equvilent to Windows Update? by kmg90 · · Score: 1

    It's not just that embeded apps in cars are garbage "new" but I've yet to see an car that has constant support for the newest innovations and devices (USB ports not compatible with new phones) that give the car owner reason to try to use said features when there is a big chance things that they will try to use with it in a year or two will not function due to the car not being updated to support them.

    How do you provide updates to car? Auto manufactures are already pretty closed chested with the basic computers that are in most cars post 2000.
    I understand cars are heavily regulated but I don't see internet-capable cars happening anytime in the near future as that opens up a bunch safety and security concerns.

  21. What corner case by silas_moeckel · · Score: 1

    Is somebody that is buying a new car and does not own a smart phone? I do not want much in the way of smarts. I want a nice sunlight readable touchscreen, buttons on the steering wheel (more are better), and a HUD. The stereo should turn into an amp and radio tuner (maybe a USB storage interface) for the cellphone. The screen buttons etc should slave themselves to that same cellphone. Nice to haves might be a fixed GPS for better reception, OBD access to get vehicle info. All this can happen today via Bluetooth and wifi (for the screen casting). Expand the qi charging spec to have a magnetic mounting. The point being is cars last a decade or more the electronic systems only a few years before being outdated. Sure put in some default radio and environmental controls just in case, it can probably also function as the bridge from Bluetooth to the can bus or whatever the car uses.

    --
    No sir I dont like it.
  22. too many things to learn by tomhath · · Score: 1

    Moreover, people tend to replace their smartphones every two years or so, and when you get a new phone you may have to completely reconfigure your infotainment system in order to use the new apps.

    My wife an I have two vehicles with completely different controls (Subaru and Chevy). When we take a long trip we rent a car, different make every time. Don't tell me I need to learn all those different Infotainment systems, that won't happen. We have phones that we know and a Garmin GPS (because Google screwed up Maps Navigation on Android last summer). That's all we need.

  23. sad by Charliemopps · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, what we want/need is not what we're willing to pay for. When we're sitting at the dealership for 10hrs strait, wondering how society has devolved into such a state that you can't just walk in and buy a car without being force to wait through the most soul crushing nightmare of a sales pitch ever created... and we get presented with $25k Ford that has a basic radio, and a $25k GM that has a touch screen that does... well we don't know, but it's pretty. Our reptillian brain takes over and we go with out caveman "Me want more!"

    Cars are built to make you buy them. It's just a side effect they have a use after purchase.

    1. Re:sad by tomhath · · Score: 2

      If you sat in a showroom for 10 hours strait (sic) you're doing it wrong. Decide ahead of time what you want and how much you'll pay. Make an offer, if they don't like it - get up and walk away.

    2. Re:sad by mjwx · · Score: 1

      If you sat in a showroom for 10 hours strait (sic) you're doing it wrong. Decide ahead of time what you want and how much you'll pay. Make an offer, if they don't like it - get up and walk away.

      This.

      Show me the car or I'll walk.

      This is one of the many reasons I think buying 2nd hand is better. Every moment the dealer wastes fucking me about is a dollar they lose by keeping the car.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  24. What I need. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe it's just that I'm old-fasioned but I don't see what's wrong with your basic stearing wheel, ignition, gear shift, mirrors, lights, engine, and windows. I've alwasy been irked by the fact that these days a computer connected to the internet controls the car. At *least* provide the option for a true manual override (meaning FULL DISCONNECT and OFFLINE). Of course, I'm sure anyone born after 1990 won't understand the word "offline."

  25. We already have phones... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm perfectly happy using my phone. Just make a cradle for the phone (with charger), add a screen to display what's on my phone, and add controls (both voice and tactile) that allow me to control it. That's all.

  26. And they charge too much. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What sickens me is a GPS that you can get for $150 is $2,000 when OEM because now it's a "navigation system".

    And you have to pay the dealer $$$$ for software updates - if you can get them.

    That's why that required review camera is a bad idea. A shitty camera that you could get for $50 is now going to cost $1,000 because they can - All financed. All because some dingbats couldn't put their phones down to look for their kids.

    There is something really wrong when folks are looking at 97 month car loans.

    WTF is wrong with the World?!

  27. What I want in my car... by sevenisloud · · Score: 1

    What do I want in my car? 4 wheels (plus a spare in the boot), pedals and a gear leaver (that are physically connected to the things they control), an engine, seats, windows that open and maybe a radio. Anything else is just something to fail or distract me from what I'm supposed to be doing (driving). I'm not old enough to be a stick in the mud but I like having a car that is relatively simple and easily maintained.

  28. I don't want any by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a CD player and drive a 94 dodge ram for a reason. Manual windows, 4x4 and that's all I need

  29. Call me next time by hurfy · · Score: 1

    Really. If you want to try that test again. I've never used a GPS. I've barely used a touch screen. My current car radio has awesome buttons that you don't have to look at once you know which set is scan vs step. I've beta tested many complex games and a 50k accounting system while it was live.

    I'll tell you real quick just how annoying it is to use :) Just don't make me keep it....

    1. Re:Call me next time by mjwx · · Score: 1

      My current car radio has awesome buttons that you don't have to look at once you know which set is scan vs step..

      This, I recently bought a 2002 Nissan 200sx (Silvia S15) and replaced the stock CD player with something that knew what a MP3 file was. My number 1 priority was making sure I could change the volume, track and folder without looking at the head unit.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  30. A friend just got by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A brand new Ford - fully loaded and has the Sync function. It's fairly intuitive to me but not so much to my friend. I managed to hook it to my phone and could control settings easiy. My friend not so much.

    I think the coolest feature is when you pop the car into reverse - the central monitor changes to display the rear view with a color coded grid overlayed. It starts green, then yellow, and finally red. When you start edging into yellow the car beeps loudly.

  31. you suck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    0/10, try again.

  32. Not this shit again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have already been told multiple times above that you get touchscreen gloves. And if that isn't good enough for you because you happen to like your 30 year old college ski gloves, then there are MANY manufacturers that sell bare metallic thread or even conductive finger cot like devices. You're bitching to be bitching and pining for the "good old days" which never existed. At this point I'm also adding the Luddite tag because you just won't listen to anyone else who has already solved your problems.

  33. Yeeehaw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's right boy! And a console you can keep yer beer in, and that big ol bed in the back to fuck yer sister in! WOOOOOOOO!

  34. Not surprisingly? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So are we just expected to assume Tesla is the best at everything now?

  35. Why I hate touchscreens by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    Having physical buttons for things means you can do things by feel and not have to take your eyes off the road. I replaced the stereo in my 10 year old Pathfinder with a Kenwood that had a touch screen. I hate it. It's impossible and dangerous to use while driving owing to the location of the radio at the bottom of the stack in the dash.

    My Armada and my Altima both still have the factory radios, which are both knob-and-button. No touchscreens for me, ever again.

  36. I've had my new BMW for 3 months by eyegone · · Score: 1

    And I haven't figured out the magic incantation to associate one of the "bookmark" buttons with a radio station.

    I keep hearing that iDrive has gotten better. I can't imagine how bad it must have been before.

    --
    "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
  37. Free design advice by somebody with UI ed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What we want is tactile feedback-- no, that doesn't mean attaching a vibrator to a touch screen!

    Goal - DRIVE SAFELY. Everything else should be easily operated by a blind person, ADHD, or autistic and all of those with low IQ.

    I have a mechanic brother and he can't even operate the climate controls in the car-- he just jacks it to max heat or max cold and turns up the fan; totally clueless when he should know how it works. A simple slider control for the fan is all that is required; or a knob. (alternate the kind of analog style control for easy identification and placement. fans probably should have a knob since most fans everywhere use knobs.) As far as the temp; let the machine decide. It's all or nothing with it just cycling that to maintain temp (which is why choosing max heat or max cold doesn't change anything.) Using outside temp, a simple alg could handle it; more detailed controls for the freaks who will pay for it (and still probably turn around and max or min it out.)

    Yes, I'm for dumbing things down and treating people like idiots. The majority hasn't proven otherwise; if you give them too many options they just choose the default anyway. Some people can handle it or have legit needs; those can get extras or go somewhere else. Such as a menu interface somewhere in the car that ONLY lets you operate it when the car is NOT moving - once you set your preferences (the minority) will be happy to let the software handle the details.

    I just talked about the climate controls as an example situation. It's horribly simple and yet has a lot of odd ball stuff going on. In my car the two front seats have different temp controls and it does have a couple sensors so the fans change speed for the people based upon the temp preferences. (but the air temp does not change making it kind of silly-- just having a fan control vent would be enough.) I didn't even get into the lights and wipers with poor icons and how ICONS alone are a bad idea.

    We do need a radio signal so devices can disable themselves. I'm so sick of cell phone addicts constantly using their phones on the road. Let them jailbreak it-- then we have something we can fine them for-- not hacking the phone; but proof they disabled the phone from enforcing the law. hey, if you have an emergency and it is REAL then it is worth stopping the car to use the phone.

  38. My experience by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

    I have a new car... 2014 Chevy Volt and I've found the thing pretty darn intuitive. I can do all of those functions from the steering wheel. The only exception would be if I'm at some FM radio station and I want to tune to some other FM radio station I have to use the tune scroll wheel... but I had to do the same thing on my 14 year old car I just sold.

    Setting favorites is as easy as merely pressing and holding the spot on the favorites for 3 seconds... then it's set.

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
  39. obvious@yeah no shit huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, do you want 100 broken pieces of shit that only marketize your info and are completely useless to you or do you want one or two apps, that don't suck your dogs balls, that actually do what they claim to do? You decide.

  40. Collision Avoiding Systems by DrYak · · Score: 1

    very short glances at a control panel in realtively safe moments isn't an extraordinary risk.

    And collision avoidance systems in modern cars (standard for some amnufacturer, about to be mandatory in a couple of years in EU) are definitely a help to make the "short glances away of the road".

    Of course, such systems ARE NOT an excuse to do a lousy jobs and construct very distracting and attention grabbing interfaces.
    BUT it's always reassuring to know that electronics can help making your travel a bit safe.

    --
    "Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
  41. "essential apps like navigation and music" by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

    The problem with "essential apps like navigation and music" being hidden in an overly complex control set is that navigation and music are neither one essential to drive a car. Windshield wipers, heater, defroster, and in some places air conditioning are the next most essential things to control after the throttle, brake, steering, and shifter. Mirrors, seats, steering column angle, and steering column length aren't even necessary to adjust during driving. They can and generally should be adjusted while stopped. Until pretty recently in the history of cars very few had adjustable steering columns.

    Here's to wishing more people would learn to use the damned turn signals, the currently most common version of which Buick introduced in 1940 FFS.