Slashdot Mirror
Study Suggests That HUD Tech May Actually Reduce Driving Safety
Zothecula writes: Having a heads-up display constantly feed you information while cruising down the road may make you feel like a jet pilot ready to avoid any potential danger but recent findings suggest otherwise. Studies done at the University of Toronto show that the HUD multi-tasking method of driving a vehicle is dangerous. "Drivers need to divide their attention to deal with this added visual information," said Department of Psychology professor Ian Spence, who led the research. "Not only will drivers have to concentrate on what’s happening on the road around them as they’ve always done, they’ll also have to attend to whatever warning pops up on the windshield in front of them."
IF you have some kind of info 'popping up', there's your problem there. Show speed. Show specific information. Do not constantly CHANGE that information to make drivers deal with new data.
Similar statements could be made for desktops, where tray icon pop-ups for updates, email and chat notifications distract and interrupt workflows.
Maybe both for desktops and cars, this problem can be solved by detecting whether the user is currently focussed (on the road or a task) or relaxed/idle, and may be interrupted. Mylyn is a very impressive demo of thinking in this direction, I would like to see more of it.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
Death by penis cream ad. Tragic.
Quelle surprise! You ain't targeting bogeys. You're driving down the road. Stay on task and chill.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
Like, seriously?
My wife's 'vette has a hud in it and the first thing I do when I drive the car is turn the hud off. When flying the best advice is to keep your head 'out of the cockpit', in other words scanning the skies around you. New pilots' are always glued to the instruments, mature pilots eyes are focused outside except for quick scans of the instruments.
Studies done at the University of Toronto
Ya, but drivers in Toronto are horrible... well not as bas as Quebec I suppose.
hey! everything gets hacked. just you wait.
You do not need to be driving. You do not need HUDs to tell you that the red sign up ahead is a stop sign. Nor do you need some accident early-warning system - if you WATCHED THE FUCKING ROAD you'd likely see the accident scene before getting to it (some locations/obstructions of scenery may give varying results.)
And wait for your night vision to get completely turned to ass when they start introducing these HUDs in different colors as a fashion statement. Anything other than red - you're much more likely to crash at night because your night vision is being fucked with.
HUDs MAKE ZERO SENSE IN TYPICAL CIVILIAN APPLICATIONS.
Keep that shit in the military where it belongs.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
I'm pretty sure flying a fighter jet is 100x harder than driving a car.
Maybe new driving tests that incorporate the HUD will be required?
it's cool.
They asked the people to report a box showing up? That isn't normal when driving, therefor the test its self might be distracting.
HUD displays should only be used to display info that is normally checked anyway like the speedometer as well as things like the new IR cameras that can detect deer near the side of the road which will be invisible. Having displays pop up some virtual brake lights on a stopped or slowing down car is fine but it has to be done right. It took aviation decades to get the basics for instruments right. The stuff that looks cool on a HUD demo in an office isn't what will work best in cars on a dark foggy road.
Don't throw distracting trivia at the driver. DO use computational methods to highlight things the driver should definitely pay attention to that might not be obvious.
For example: if the view ahead is obstructed, or visibility is limited, a supplementary warning about oncoming objects that are out of sight could be useful.
Study shows that when you misuse HUD, it can distract drivers.
But if you're showing them an alert about something they're clearly not aware of, then are you making them more or less aware of their surroundings?
If they don't have to look down to see the next navigation instruction, are you making them more or less aware of their surroundings?
Bullshit story is bullshit. Welcome to Slashdot!
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
When the dangers of driving while holding a cell phone became clear, many places banned hand-held cellphones while driving but allowed hands-free cell phones. After further research, it seems clear that hand-free cell phones aren't any safer. Even a little distraction can be very dangerous when you need quick reflexes. Minor distractions are particularly dangerous because most of the time you don't need quick reflexes; you're just cruising down the highway -- lulling you into a false sense of security. I'm guessing a HUD causes similar problems.
Who would have thought that distracting drivers with information would make them less safe as drivers?
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
I've owned a car with one of these (stock, not an aftermarket ad-on). I found it invaluable for one thing and one thing only: being able to see the tachometer without having to unfocus from the road, glance down to the dash, then glance back up and refocus.
The road/dash/road round trip is much slower than just having it there in your peripheral vision. Being able to more easily rev match without taking your eyes off the road is a big help. Yes, to some extent you can get good at doing so even without the tach, but it's less accurate that way. Better to have a tach in your peripheral vision.
For anything else though? Meh. I didn't find it too useful.
Am I the only person who, when driving down the road, and I want to grab something / fudge with dials / etc., I keep my eyes on the road while doing this and just feel my way around instead? Well, probably not.
However, I'm apparently the only person who is aware of the fact that, as I'm doing this, I'm paying no attention to the road at all despite my eyes being pointed straight at it.
Next time you're doing this, afterwards, try to remember what you saw on the road as you were feeling your way around. All you'll remember is what you imagined what you were touching looked like. Your eyes may have been pointing at the road, but the visual center of your brain was on a different task.
If you're not looking at the road, you're not looking at the road, whether your eyes are pointed towards the road or not. So a heads-up display doesn't change a thing.
But does the HUD reduce profit margins?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Adding something like a speedometer to the windshield would be beneficial - I wouldn't have to divert my eyes down to adjust speed.
Adding something like adverts for Burger King would not be beneficial - but that's probably what's going to end up happening.
With data that is constantly changing, I can foresee people focusing on the data and not on the road behind the data.. They could "zone out" as if watching TV or a movie... Especially if tired... Having said that, a small display of current temp and velocity and maybe even direction across the bottom of the windscreen could be helpful and not more distracting than looking at your guages as long as it wasn't too bright after the sun goes down.
We have had a century to figure out the "unplugged" car interface, and it is simpler: dials for speed and tachometer, nothing else. Drivers train from an early age to drive with this sort of instrumentation.
The lack of safety with these HUD's is likely a consequence of inexperience both on the part of the HUD designers and the drivers. Once the interfaces themselves iterate a few times, and then drivers get experienced with them, I imagine they'll be much safer.
When you are driving a car, drive. No phones. No displays. No HUDs. No texting. No Facebook.
Just our eyes on the road, hands on the wheel, and feet on the pedals.
Why does this even need to be said? Could it not be more obvious?
Sorry, it just had to be said.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Only display that which needs immediate attention.
Have gnu, will travel.
I reported some facts, added a little interpretation, and finished with one sentence of speculation. Where did I suggest banning anything?
Surprisingly, you reminded me of something relevant. IIRC, there's evidence that talking on a cell phone (hands free or not) is _more_ distracting than talking to a passenger in the car. (I don't have time to look up sources ATM.) It sounds weird, but it's plausible that interacting with something that's actually in the car is less distracting that paying attention to a disembodied voice. Most of the "distractions" you mentioned aren't interactions in the same way. E.g. you don't have a back-and-forth interaction with a license plate or even a radio; you just look or listen.
What the fuck are you popping up at the driver? Put current speed, RPMs, fuel level and maybe oil/water temperature along the bottom of the windshield so they can just see it without taking their eyes off the road and call it good. Maybe the entire problem is just really bad user interface design.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
We have a "Head Down Display"
Since if you travel more than a few k's over the limit, you should expect to be pulled over, ticketed and issued demerit points.
HUDs only make sense if you're truly a supervisor of the vehicle, not the control system.
In aircraft/drones, HUDs are OK cause the aircraft really flies itself, the pilot is there for emergency situations and what I call trimming (small adjustments).
In a car, you control everything--still want to end up in that ditch--pretty easy....sure go ahread....
Once we get real supervisory based cars, yes, HUDs make no sense other than wiz bang. And much like 8" touchscreens & phone integration in cars are whiz bang--are distractions currently.
I flew with a HUD as a Naval Aviator for over 20 years. A fighter HUD provides a lot of information that simply is not available head down, or is more intuitively available head up. You get aircraft attitude, altitude and airspeed all in one place, and in addition you get aircraft flight path, which is not really available head-down.
Other than speed (that doesn't change that fast in a car) all the other crap presented in car HUDs are better off on a head-down display. And in a fighter, stuff like route steering and data-link test messages are presented head-down.
Additionally, an aircraft HUD is focused at infinity (not really, but close enough that there is no visual accommodation required). Virtually everything you are looking at while in an airplane is miles away. Even landing, you are still looking at thousands of feet until the final seconds, so the accommodation matches. A car HUD conversely is projected up in front of objects measured in 10's of feet, and some accommodation is present, meaning you don't have the feel that you are looking at the projection on the real world, it's in front of it (or even behind.
Fighter pilots go through countless hours of training to learn how to deal with a HUD during air combat. During the other 90% of flight time there's nothing for them to hit if they're not paying attention to the sky. Drivers, on the other hand, go through a few hours of just barley paying attention in drivers ed., and/or a few minutes skimming the book just to pass the test before taking to the road. Automobile driving requires constant attention to the road, and with no training what so ever what do you think joe sixpack will be paying attention to because "I thought I was supposed to focus on the HUD, and it would tell me what to do"?
Remember, 50% of the population is below average intelligence, and I'm sure a good 25 to 30 percent of the above average think they can handle texting while driving as well. HUDs for automobiles is a very bad idea, and there's no reason for them.
--- Keep the choice with the user..
Why are we trying to stamp out technology like a hud for driving, but not demanding that any nitwit that thinks they can use their smartphone and drive shot?
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
I have a HUD.
At first, I loved it but found myself distracted by it, and all the other sounds and warnings, the car puts out. The first time I ran out of gas, I nearly had a heart attack as the car put up 3 warning signs and asked if I wanted to be directed to the nearest gas station. :-D
OTOH over time, I've become accustomed to the warning chimes and graphics. The HUD generally displays the same info (lane keeping data, current speed limit, current speed etc). It's positioned within my field of vision but near the bottom so I don't have to pay attention to it. I MUCH prefer glancing at it rather than the dash.
If the car detects a hazard, more information is displayed. This really gets your attention (a good thing) but can take too long to interpret and act on (a very BAD thing) if you've never (or rarely) seen it.
SO... my take is: I wish there was a way to review all the warnings (in the car) whenever I wanted so that if they appeared, I would not have to "recognize" them. A big red CAR in the HUD obviously means you're too close (or closing too fast) to the car in front of you, right? Well, I wasn't sure what the heck it meant when I saw it smeared on my HUD when I was already breaking hard after getting cut off.
Cheers,
Bruce.
In a sense, I have a HUD. Over the years, I've found it invaluable. It's a good, old-fashioned GPS with a sucker-mount. My job involves a lot of driving on unfamiliar two-lane highways in rural Ontario. I keep my GPS mounted just below eye level to the left. It gives me my speed, the shape of the road just ahead, and it will pop up an actual point-of-view picture of some exits and entrances from larger highways. This is available to me without having to take my eyes off the road even for a split second.
It has saved me from at least a couple of accidents (probably minor, but you never know) and allowed me to concentrate on driving rather than trying to spot the appropriate turn-off. These often aren't marked at all, or have a sign the size of a banker's conscience...great for reading as you miss it on the way past.
That said, even just shifting my concentration from the road to the GPS and back did require a little learning. The most important (and safest) thing, though, is that my eyes are never entirely off the road ahead. In addition to keeping me safely on a road that may take some unexpected turns, this has certainly saved the lives of a large number of apparently suicide-prone wildlife and domestic animals. On a purely practical level, anyone who has ever hit something the size of a deer knows it's no laughing matter. Two of those idiotic creatures are alive today thanks to my "HUD". And so am I.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
When I had a car that showed its speed in a more visible location, I kept looking there initially. When I first had a car which told me how much fuel I was using at any moment, I kept glancing there. Then the novelty wore off and I just returned to more standard driving distractions. :)
Besides, this test really was lame. They couldn't even use a PC with a driving simulation or something?
The test measure peoples ability to count dots with and without distractions on a screen. Big surprise, its harder to do a task with distractions.
Obviously if you have extraneous information popping up on your windshield that you would not have distracting you otherwise, it is going to decrease driver performance.
This study really concludes that a poorly designed HUD would decrease driver performance. It is a lot of rigorous work to grasp the intuitively obvious.
It did not test in anyway whether a HUD, or functions in a HUD, would increase or decrease driver performance.
A properly designed HUD, that puts information that you should normally access anyway may allow the driver to keep the road (or the info) in peripheral vision, rather than looking elsewhere. A warning when you are following to closely would be helpful (although there are many drivers whose red warning light would be on at almost all times, these are known as accidents waiting to happen). We already require brake lights on cars (essentially a heads up display that the car in front of you is braking. Incorporating mapping into the HUD would be helpful since many already would be looking to their phone or GPS for the next turn.
Scrolling text messages or advertising across your windshield would be a bad idea, alerting you to non-driving tasks (you have a new social networking message), bad idea. Putting information that you should access anyway into the best position and form to allow you to focus on the road to the maximum extent should help.
These sweeping generalization stories flow like water after EVERY baby step in technology. From long before the paperless office myth, to high level stop lights that were going to eliminate rear end collisions and now HUDs each new technology faces it's microsecond of judgement when the lame stream media decides whether to evangelize or condemn it with little, if any, evidence.
The actual truth is ANYTHING you do to change "normal" for the average person will have a wildly disproportionate impact on immediate studies -- until people get used to it. High level stoplights are the quintessential example. Somewhat well constructed studies showed a holy grail sized impact from this wild new thing no one had ever seen before; within 3 years they were little more than light pollution.
OF COURSE your, not really statistically valid, "random sample" will demonstrate people are staring at the new bauble. This proves less than nothing at all. Most of the time it gives a VERY false impression of long term results. We are addicted to instantaneous results being nowhere near fast enough, but for any hope of a valid study you'd have to leave the mice with their toy for a year before you START the study.
One of the reasons "science" has fallen into disrepute and distrust is because the modern "scientist" is a political creature that doesn't really have any idea what the scientific method is, or means. He also never learned basic statistics. But he is a GRAND MASTER at filling out Grant Requests and producing the results desired by the Grantor.
He painstakingly measured how much information an astronaut/jet pilot could pay attention to at once, and react to within a certain time frame.
Aviation folks have an awesome term for when pilots freeze from information overload. They call it having a helmet fire which to this day cracks me up and is a perfect term for the problem.
I've one question to anyone who can speak on the capabilities of a car HUD. Do they remain "in focus" when the driver is looking into the distance? This is common on aircraft HUDs. Just wondering how it's adapted to cars. Thank you.
OK, I know everyone says this, BUT, I am extremely safety-conscious AND a very good driver. And by "good" I don't mean that by American standards of "barely being able to parallel park", I mean good as in "have several times beaten past national champions in motorsports events" and "excellent ice-racer" etc. I understand threshold braking, understeer, oversteer, weight distribution, weight transfer, tire-grip dynamics, etc. And I honestly have exceptional car-control, and this has been demonstrated over and over again both on-track and off. I have, several times, used my motorsport skills to completely avoid accidents that had the potential of being fatal. I've become increasingly distressed by the level of driving ability in the drivers around me (such that, I now drive on lesser-used side-roads as much as humanly possible). Here are my quick opinions, but hopefully I have demonstrated that they are opinions based on driving experience: 1) People, as a whole, have no idea how much concentration and attention is needed for truly safe driving. A split second lapse really can result in death. 2) There needs to be a UI standard for cars, for safety reasons. Most importantly, ALL built-in controls need to be easily adjustable without taking eyes off the road. (After owning 2 modern cars, both of which required attention to be taken off the road to perform basic functions such as adjusting heater controls, I now own a '76 as my newest vehicle. I can maintain eyes on the road at all times, no matter what I'm adjusting). 3) There need to be visibility regulations as well (many modern cars have a-pillars so huge that they can hide entire CARS at intersections, let alone pedestrians or motorcycles! Again, no problems like this in my older cars, which provide phenomenal visibility by comparison). 4) The only time a HUD should be allowed is when they truly provide attention aids, or when the only alternatives are worse. It's much, much, safer to drive around a new city with a good navigator system directing you turn-by-turn (and mounted in proper line of sight) than to be craning your neck for road-signs, looking at directions on a piece of paper, etc. Best would be a co-driver telling you what to do, but obviously that's no always possible. There certainly are times when having a HUD will be safer than the alternatives, but that HUD has to be designed WITH driver safety in mind as the primary concern. And finally, 5) I would fully support a system (no suggestions as to how it would work...) that prevents drivers from receiving or sending text messages or taking or making phone call using touch (maybe even hands-off, because that's distracting as hell too). 6) If you think that *YOU* can do these tasks but everyone else *CAN'T*, then you are a fool. You do not have magical attention abilities, you are simply deluded.
I had a HUD in my Car for over 9 years. Limited but essential information that allowed me to keep my eye on the road. Never had to look at Dash, Radio or other distractions. As you drive with the HUD it is not the center of attention unless warning about hazard or failure. Limit the Info to necessary and driver safety should improve not decline. In the 9.5 years I had the HUD, no accidents.
See subject & LMAO @ U, boy -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
FACT: "AlmostALLAdsBlocked+" is INFERIOR vs. hosts - hugely so!
AB+ doesn't even DO what it's supposed to fully anymore being BRIBED http://finance.yahoo.com/news/... not to!
AB+ doesn't do a FRACTION of what hosts do for more speed, security, reliability, + anonymity online!
AB+ EATS 128mb of RAM (vs. hosts @ 11 *maybe* tops via my program with CURRENT data, the important kind vs. current threats + ads) http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte...
AB+ adds messagepassing overheads!
AB+ operates in SLOWER usermode (vs. hosts in PnP kernelmode)
AB+ creates huge CPU consumption!
AB+ is also detectable by clarityray (via native browser methods) nullifying it (not hosts).
---
I use what you already have that works & does more with LESS, no less - you by way of comparison? Pile on "MoAr" that doesn't do as nearly as much & what it's supposed to do, massively inefficiently no less (see above)?
Ab+ NO LONGER DOES!
* AFTER ALL THAT?
AB+ = "better", Coren22?? LMAO - NO f'ing way!
If you say it is, you are *TRULY* stupid & I'd reply saying "argue with the numbers" & facts above, from reputable sources & analysis proving my points for me!
APK
P.S.=> Gonna go "cry in your cereal" now, boy?
(You ought to for being STUPID enough to use OR SUGGEST a blatantly INFERIOR solution! See above - it's fact & truth via reputable sources)... apk
See subject: Quote Howard Stark from Capt. America & hosts = that vs. other "so-called 'solutions'" like "AlmostALLAdsBlocked+" (minus is more like it).
"1. No matter how much you post this I will not argue the point with you. You are wrong, and that is all I need to say." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday June 30, 2015 @02:52PM (#50020571)
BWAAAHAHAHA - Fact: There's no arguing w\ what I put up last post of mine you *FINALLY* got the balls up enough to respond to -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p...
(Fact: You CAN'T VALIDLY ARGUE W\ FACTS from REPUTABLE SOURCES THERE after all... lol!)
---
"You do realize that what you are doing could be considered libel against AB+ don't you?" - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday June 30, 2015 @02:52PM (#50020571)
Yea? Fuck them... ok?? Argue w/ facts in that link above I posted, & you can tell THEM that too, ok BOY???
---
"Many of your claims are actually patently false as I have shown you in the past." - by Coren22 (1625475) on Tuesday June 30, 2015 @02:52PM (#50020571)
Where's that dumbass? More "TALK" from you, HOT AIR, but NO SUBSTANCE!
(By way of comparison in myself? TONS of substance from reputable sources is in that link above... you RAN from it, "Forrest"... lol!)
APK
P.S.=> Fact: Coren22 = "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" vs. -> http://slashdot.org/comments.p... - & THAT? Is TRULY, that... apk
See subject, "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" - Can ab+ do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stops C&C communique
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stops C&C communique
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stops C&C communique
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phish
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get you past a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily controlled data
16.) Do all that & block ads more efficiently in cpu + memory usage vs. addons
* ANSWER ="NO" to each on ab+ doing it or as well + hosts = already on every device natively.
APK
P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):
Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).
+
ClarityRay defeats it dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods to do so!
+
Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
Ab+ adds complexity + slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).
What's best?
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
... apk
See subject, "Run, Forrest: RUN!!!" - Can ab+ do 16 things hosts do for speed, security, & reliability:
1.) Protect vs. malicious sites/servers (past ads)
2.) Protect vs. fastflux botnets + stops C&C communique
3.) Protect vs. dynamic dns botnets + stops C&C communique
4.) Protect vs. DGA botnets + stops C&C communique
5.) Protect vs. downed DNS (adds reliability)
6.) Protect vs. DNS redirect poisoned dns
7.) Protect vs. trackers
8.) Protect vs. spam
9.) Protect vs. phish
10.) Protect vs. caps
11.) Get you past a dnsbl
12.) Keep you off dns request logs
13.) Speed up surfing by adblocks & hardcoded fav. sites
14.) Work on anything webbound (ie email programs) multiplatform.
15.) Give you easily controlled data
16.) Do all that & block ads more efficiently in cpu + memory usage vs. addons
* ANSWER ="NO" to each on ab+ doing it or as well + hosts = already on every device natively.
APK
P.S.=> Ab+ does less than hosts & less efficiently - hosts do MORE w/ less + Hosts start w/ the IP stack before REDUNDANT inefficient addons BEGIN to operate (as 1st resolver queried):
Ab+'s 128mb memory inefficiency -> http://cdn.ghacks.net/wp-conte... (hosts consume 3-11mb using my program initially).
+
ClarityRay defeats it dumping addons in use in a browser via native browser methods to do so!
+
Ab+'s paid to not do its job http://finance.yahoo.com/news/...
Ab+ adds complexity + slower mode of operations (usermode = more messagepassing overheads vs. hosts in kernelmode).
What's best?
APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ SR-2 32/64-bit -> http://start64.com/index.php?o...
MalwareBytes' hpHosts Admin (MalwareBytes employee) hosts & recommends it -> http://hosts-file.net/?s=Downl... & MalwareBytes = BEST antivirus http://www.av-test.org/en/news...
&
It's GUARANTEED safe & clean per it being checked by 57 antivirus programs recently in BOTH its 64-bit model https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
+
In its 32-bit model also https://www.virustotal.com/en/...
... apk
It will probably be ok, -if- the designers and coders are required to -use- them from the earliest practical point in the project.
Deliver us from "new" things that were never used by the designers!