Hacker News Reader

Comment by ho_schi | Hacker News Reader

https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1121372_why-mazda-is-pur...

Mazda learned it already and prefers HUDs. Tactile interfaces (buttons, wheels, keyboards...) perform generally better when well arranged. Mercedes did a good job about that thirty years ago. Logical layout, one button one task, LEDs within a button representing the status and the buttons arranged in the layout of the seat.

I wonder how a complete industry just assumed that touchscreens are somewhat better just because their widespread in smartphones. Smartphone are small devices, require visual attention, every app is different and distracts the users, touchscreens are cheap and - therefore working on them is slow. Apple and Lenovo tried both the add a "TouchBar" but the tacticle keyboard has proven to be better. Apple tried also a touch area in Apple Remote, the current one is back to tactile buttons ;)

View on HN

> I wonder how a complete industry just assumed that touchscreens are somewhat better

They didn’t assume that they’re better for drivers, only for themselves. Touchscreens are considerably better for manufacturers, and their severe usability issues in a moving vehicle were until recently “unproven” and therefore could be disregarded with plausible deniability.

It would be very revealing for automotive reporters to ask car manufacturers what their views of the safety of a touchscreen are compared to physical buttons.

As a Mazda owner, I can confirm the general layout and philosophy was a key reason for me to choose it over others - couldn't be happier. It's not a perfect car, but damn it's got super intuitive controls.

Now if they could only figure out their electric vehicles. I've been looking to buy an electric. I love my Mazda but 100 mile range is a non-starter.

What are the odds they put a huge touchscreen in their EV?

I wouldn't put money on it either way.

On one hand, their focus on tactile controls is a key differentiator for their brand.

On the other hand, it is very difficult for automotive companies to diverge from their peers, as we saw with their universal lemming-like cancellation of chip orders in 2020.

The MX-30 EV does not have one, so it seems unlikely

The MX-30 is a classic compliance car, so I wouldn't draw any long term conclusions.

Weirdly Mazda MX-30 uses touchscreen for climate control. I tried it and of course it's pain to control. I don't understand why they adopt, maybe they want the model more special(exotic?). I want MX-30 for short-mid range use if UI is sane as like other Mazdas, and has 4WD.

What are your daily range needs? I bought a used 2012 Nissan Leaf in 2015. The range on a very good day would probably have topped out at around 60 or 70 miles. However, for virtually every need I have, it's worked really really well, and I've been extremely happy with it.

We own a second, gas car for long trips, but if you don't have a need for a second vehicle, you can supplement this with ride sharing, or vehicle rental. Would I like more range? Sure, it wouldn't hurt. But do I need it? Really very rarely, and there are certainly options to charge mid-day if I do.

Going into the office is a 50 mile drive. The mazda might just work but there is no wiggle room which makes me uncomfortable. What if I need to run an errand on the way home? I'll pick a different electric or stick with gas until they can get their range issues fixed.

Also with the leaf _how_ you drive makes a big difference. No AC or heat and accelerating slowly when safe can extend it a bit.

Short range EVs are great as commuter/secondary vehicles. They just need to be substantially cheaper. I still can't find anything cheaper than my 2018 Bolt, which was under 25k after tax credits. (and still cheaper than the Mazda EV before credits)

The MX-30 EV is almost certainly just a compliance vehicle.

I have a not-too-old Mazda 3, and will switch to an EV the day after Mazda comes out with a 200mile range EV.

Can confirm. Mazda got it right and it's so easy to use. I only have to move my arm a little to reach the main control button and after a few days/weeks of driving the car you mostly memorize the common stuff you do or you can really quickly peek at the screen and focus on the driving.

Hardware buttons are the way to go, always. The most basic and common tasks apart from driving should be doable without taking eyes of the road (volume, AC, rolling windows, ...).

Mazda controls layout is one of the main reasons I chose their cars.

>I wonder how a complete industry just assumed that touchscreens are somewhat better just because their widespread in smartphones.

When the requirement for backup cameras mandated a screen in the car the automakers responded by utilizing that screen for other functionality.

There was a set time for when screens were going to end up in cars which is why they all seemed to do it at the same time.

I've got a 2017 Miata with absolutely no screens at all, which I love. There's a law now requiring all cars to have backup monitors, so I plan on keeping this car for another 30 years.

A backup camera/monitor is a game changer, so not really the best place to draw the line. I think you’re probably more concerned with them also using the monitor to do other things.

Why? I used them and I am wholly unimpressed.

They have around double the angular field of view in both vertical and horizontal directions, and their placement at the rear of the car has a clearer line of sight than you do looking back from the front of the car. A rear view mirror (or even turning your head) has huge blind spots in comparison, including below the rear window where children and animals could be walking, and both sides which can be blocked by adjacent cars when parked, or landscaping when backing out of a driveway.

At first, I didn't like the lack of spacial positioning you have when you turn around and look with your own two eyes, but in reality I only need that when navigating an odd route in reverse, whereas I always benefit from the increased view that a camera provides.

A rear camera could have its display in the rear view mirror, it doesn't need a display in the dashboard where it will be repurposed for everything else.

It could, although with the increased field of view, you would either need a significantly larger mirror, or smaller image neither of which are ideal. It would also need to be brighter to be visible with daylight in the background (although that would be good on a dash display as well to minimize eye adjustments).

My car actually has both. I think the rear view mirror display is primarily intended to be used at night to avoid glare, and is enabled using the same toggle as a traditional prismatic anti-glare mirror. To keep the image at approximately the same scale as the real reflection, the image is significantly cropped compared to what is seen on the dash display. It is fine for situational awareness, but I never use it for backing up.

Parallel parking

But that’s what bumpers are for!

Backing out of a drive way with parked cars blocking my view down the street. The camera being in the back can see incoming cars that I can't.

I recently sold my 31 year old Miata and they last well.

If only Mazda sold hybrids (barring the new EV and plugin hybrid which you can't buy). They really screwed up being late to the game.

Mazda makes cars that are aimed at maximizing performance/comfort/usability/etc for the driver and nobody else in the car.

With this in mind it makes sense to not have a touch screen, but what happens when the front seat passenger is controlling the music? It's not a great setup if you tend to have multiple people in your car often.

If most of the time you're a solo driver (perhaps like Uber?) then Mazda's focus on building everything with driver in mind makes sense.

>I wonder how a complete industry just assumed that touchscreens are somewhat better

We as people have learned to trust technology... I miss the times when we were more skeptical about it.

Frankly in my experience the literal opposite is true. I and the people around me trust technology less and less with time.

Ask how the US Navy thought touchscreens were a good idea for steering warships? Sometimes people don't think decisions through and just got with the bling and institutional momentum makes it hard to change.

Mercedes old layout way great and a good example of a well thought out analog interface.

For ship, there is probable benefit (tradeoff) of making backup bridge easy - theoretically just a bunch of tablets.

"Fast" for a warship is 50 mph, they're in theory piloted by a few well-trained sailors, and they're doing that mostly on the open ocean with very few obstacles. In retrospect touch screens were still a bad idea, but they're less glaringly so in that context than in the millions of consumer vehicles being driven by largely untrained citizens at 80 mph in thick traffic.

In 2012, Cadillac went to a touchscreen in their vehicles. They too have come back to regular buttons too. What looks nice isn't always what is the most safe while operating a vehicle.

I'm surprised so many people are praising Mazda's physical buttons when my Mazda doesn't have a physical play/pause button...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com