>One reason this didn't take hold is that they found that this interface forced a driver to take their eyes off the road to do basic functions like changing the climate settings.
...which still applies today just as well as it did back then.
...which still applies today just as well as it did back then.
The large touchscreen trend in automotive is a unnecessary risk for everyone on the road and needs to be reverted.
[0] R Ramnath, N Kinnear, S Chowdhury, T Hyatt, (2020) 'Interacting with Android Auto and Apple CarPlay when driving', TRL, Transport Research Foundation, UK
https://trl.co.uk/publications/interacting-with-android-auto...
Most people are not terrible at judging risk and generally limit use of touchscreens in moments of elevated risk (e.g. intersections).
If it really is a problem we should be able to see it in real world crash statistics.
This is perhaps something you self-perceive that you can do well so others must also be able. It reminds me of those studies of how sleep deprived people do poorly in cognitive tests but still self-assess as having performed well.
> world crash statistics
Until we start seeing police and investigators actually requesting for manufacturer's infotainment logs, I would question the statistics on this matter.
Arguably very few people would admit to have crashed because of infotainment screens unless there was video footage to prove it.
People are famously bad at assessing disparate risks. The unit micromort is useful for clarifying mortality risk of various behaviours.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort
———————
With respect to crash statistics, obviously we're not going to ask people why they crashed. I would have thought this is so self-evidently flawed as a methodology that it didn't warrant pointing out. It's probably safer to assume that most people will lie about why they crashed.
Fortunately, the statistical question is much simpler than it might seem: are people crashing newer cars more than older cars? Where answering this question becomes complex to answer accurately is when isolating this from both environmental change and vehicle age, because you can't isolate both variables at the same time.
That said, man... I sure miss my Note 4. Plastic back, plastic all over the place. Great phone, removable battery, fast, the works! Cat peed on it. Total loss.
An ex years back had a cat with that kind of attitude. I had this really nice surround receiver that I'd rescued off a curb and recapped, getting a $600+ unit back into service for about twenty bucks in parts and a few hours' work, and while I wasn't really getting the most out of it, it made a splendid headphone and speaker amp for my office. This cat took a liking to sleeping on top of it, for the warmth of the ventilation slots.
No problem - until she got in a mood one evening, looked me dead in the eyes, and proceeded to throw up into the thing. It went bang and sent up a sad little wisp of smoke, and that was all she wrote - cats may not laugh, but they sure as hell smirk.
She was probably pissed because my cat had beat her up again, but it wasn't as if she or anyone else could blame him for that; she'd made his kittenhood a living hell, and he carried the grudge all the way into adulthood and twenty pounds of muscle. She couldn't take it out on him any more, but everyone in that house knew I was his person, so she took it out on me.
Dogs are a bit smarter, I think, most times - some dogs, anyway. But cats in my experience are considerably more subtle.
I do not know about smarter. Our cats can manipulate and intimidate our larger dogs...
But more boundary aware? Dogs for sure.
Still pissed about it. That was a great phone, and I did lose some data I value.
It’s the best modern physical ux I have used.