Hacker News Reader

Comment by sschueller | Hacker News Reader

How many people died (this includes pedestrians) because someone tried to adjust their AC in a multi level menu touch screen?

The regulators are literally asleep at the wheel and this should have never been permitted for any critical adjustments such as temperature and even audio volume. The hazard button being the only exception is not enough and Tesla turned that into a capacities touch button on the cybertruck making using it with wet hands or gloves impossible.

In Switzerland you get fined if you eat while you drive! Having to hunt and take your eyes of the road to adjust the temp is way worse.

Now if touch screens had a dynamic 3d surface that you could navigate blindly it would be something else.

View on HN

>Now if touch screens had a dynamic 3d surface that you could navigate blindly it would be something else.

It's not about touch nor physicality of a button or knob, but about a control that is not dependent on UI state

it's both. I need to be able (and I am, on my parents' old fiat) to tune without leaving the eyes from the street. This means I can dedicate at most 5% of my brain and the touch feeling of one-maybe two-digit

Why not both?

Do you really believe that you can close your eyes and touch the "Start" button on a windows machine at arms length every time? Try it throughout your day. I doubt it.

The tactile feedback is important to know that you're making the adjustment you want, and to help you find the right control input.

Since my screen still has a bezel, there's a high likelihood, though perhaps not without spurious touches. Anything more than half an inch off that bezel? No chance.

We're both aging ourselves with "Start button", by the way.

> It's not about touch

It's exactly about touch! The fundamental point is not needing to turn your eyes from the road.

They should have said it's not just about touch. There are two components to not having to take your eyes off the road: first, you need to be able to find the controls. And second, you need to know exactly what the knob that you find will do when you change it.

A dynamic tactile touch screen solves the problem of finding the controls, but if the knob that you find could be the volume or the temperature depending on the mode the UI is in, you're still likely to look down to check which one it is.

Edit: And even some clever solution like giving different shapes to different modes doesn't help a ton, because that still uses more brain cycles and time than "reach for where I know the volume knob is and turn it left". You'd have to reach out and feel the control, and if it's the wrong one then reach for the mode switcher and then find the correct control. That's distracting regardless of whether the eyes can stay on the road, and you're very likely to pull your eyes down instinctively to help with that complicated process.

I could do that with a touchscreen if I didn't need to look at it to know what was where.

There's two problems with this. Firstly it's generally unknowable what will appear where on the touschreen. Secondly even if you just want to know exactly where the touchscreen is then you need to look at it.

>It's not about touch nor physicality of a button or knob, but about a control that is not dependent on UI state

No, I disagree.

The heterogeneity and tactile response of the UI is fundamental, at least for me.

Which quadrant of the display is the control in? You flick your eyes to check. Ok, now is my finger in the right place? You need to check again. Is it at the right level…

For the terminally space-brained like me, buttons and dials work much better. You flick your eyes and can see where the control is and in relation to what. Now you can trace with your finger to the area of the controller, and feel around to locate it in relation to the other controls. If it is ridged, you have tactile feedback on its orientation.

The regulators were indeed negligent. They either should've said no touchscreen controls period. Or said that the touchscreen needs to be disabled when the car is moving - with no override. I would've preferred the former. I think there's no place for a touchscreen in an automobile.

The touch screen should be positioned such that the navigator can use it. If there is no navigator then the driver should have to pull over and stop to get at the screen. This also means all the controls currently on a touchscreen that the driver does need are moved to something physical.

I often and traveling with my wife, and get annoyed that I cannot some options because we are in motion - my wife is driving so there is nothing unsafe about me using the touchscreen. (when I drive I try to avoid looking at the infotainment - there is nothing on it that I need but it is still a distracting hazard)

"Older" cars had screens that only the passenger could see while driving and the driver would see a blank screen.

I feel quite confident skipping a few songs on CarPlay. If I needed to do this on my phone, it would be way more dangerous. Now of course not interacting with the media player at all would be safest, but we’re talking about humans here, so banning touch screens ins cars might do more harm than good.

There are audio button on your steering wheel, yes? Please don't tell me those have been removed.

This seems like an extreme position that at best wastes everybody's time and doesn't improve anything (and is a good example of why being careful with regulation like this is very important).

Consider settings like: how long it takes for the car to shut off the lights automatically after you turn it off and lock it. Or other obscure things. You're not going to have physical buttons for that. You'd have a digital screen with next/previous/ok buttons. That isn't any better than using a touch screen to access those settings. Arguably worse UX.

Another posted suggested allow touch screens but have them not operate while car is in motion, with no override, and I think that's a much more targeted/palatable proposal with (maybe?) less unexpected consequences.

> seems like an extreme position

I assume you mean "no touchscreen controls" is extreme. I probably wasn't clear. By "controls" I meant those for "live" controls (environment, audio, etc). Touchscreen for settings totally make sense - as you said, it doesn't make sense to have physical inputs for settings like lights off delay.

>have them not operate while car is in motion

I'm okay with that too

Yeah maps are useless. /s

Also who needs a nice big screen to watch Netflix while we are parked waiting to pick up our kid? We can watch on my phone, my wife doesn’t mind contorting herself to see.

Chances are the number of accidents caused by the lack of physical buttons is quite low.

Same reason why (in absence of extreme environmental conditions) difficult climbing routes are considered quite safe: Because people are aware of the danger in the specific situation.

Doesn't eliminate the need for safe design, tho, attaching giant spinning metal blades to dashboards might solve many problems, but few in favor of the driver.

> Same reason why (in absence of extreme environmental conditions) difficult climbing routes are considered quite safe: Because people are aware of the danger in the specific situation.

If this were applicable to drivers made up of the general public, we wouldn't have a glut of accidents caused by people using their phones while driving.

Untrue, the top car accident factor at 38% of all car accidents in the UK is "Driver or rider not looking properly" - how many of these are drivers interacting with the built-in touchscreen isn't clear, but it's definitely part of it.

Most will have been people on their phone. In fact, I would suspect that number to be much higher. Since people lie about being on the phone.

Somewhat off topic, but if you climb the best advice I can give is to look at every single route as being extremely dangerous. That attitude of constant danger will keep you alive. There’s a saying in SAR communities - they pull the best climbers’ bodies off of the easiest routes.

The attitude of constant danger will even protect you from another weird climbing stat. Having avalanche survival/safety courses increases the probability that you will die in an avalanche. One of the people who taught me how to ice climb died in an avalanche. We don’t want more dead climbers.

Can we please first analyze the problem before we call for regulation? Are touch screens really causing accidents or are they just inconvenient?

I hate touch screen controls in cars for things that are adjusted during driving like everyone else here. But please let’s not go for a default of „the state has to allow it“ for all new inventions - as dumb as they may be.

You can ask anyone who uses them. Most people will say they feel like they're distracted and taking their eyes off the road while trying to navigate the UI on their touch screen, and the remaining people overestimate their multitasking abilities.

What is there you think needs proving? People can adjust the volume knob or AC without looking. You literally cannot do this with a touchscreen.

it’s not q “dumb invention” it’s a cost saving measure at the expense of injuring people.

I think he's pretty well analyzed it. Personally, I've had to drive a car full of toddlers with no heat in winter because my touch screen gave out and it was unsafe both to pull over and to try and troubleshoot while driving. This happened in a 2023 model year high end minivan. My 2009 mazda POS with physical knobs has never had a single problem in over an order of magnitude more time.

Climate control boards working off physical controls are known to go out as well.

In a Mazda?

Well yes - there has been some research on the use of touch screens in safety critical systems. For example: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49319450

    "We got away from the physical throttles, and that was probably the number one feedback from the fleet - they said, just give us the throttles that we can use," said Rear Adm Galinis.

(EDIT: TFA also talks about buttons, and not being able to find information on screens).

OP article is probably a case of the market working it out if Volkswagen is doing it without regulation. I doubt Tesla-like multi-modal touch screens are going to be default ever. They were never a good idea.

But regulation is essentially the people coming together to say "never again", and that is their right in a democracy. Like it or not as inventors or inventor-adjacent folks we might look more harshly at it. But we also have that power and I don't see a problem per se in using it to direct the market on somewhat trivial things like this.

My wife will finally be able to use my phone chargers b/c of the EU legislation on apple chargers.

> Well yes - there has been some research on the use of touch screens in safety critical systems. For example: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49319450

That article is about controls on a military system. You make it sound as if people are steering their cars with touch controls, which they don't.

Screw overregulation, I do not want the government to assume that I am a complete idiot and regulate every single part of my life.

I'm just quoting the article. TFA talks about not being able to find information on touch screens. The quoted portion talks about tactile controls. Both were a problem.

"Overregulation" is a squishy political term. We cancel each other out on this issue (assuming you're US-based). I'm not advocating for car controls to have regulations, but would be fine if they took sensible action. But they probably won't need to.

> Can we please first analyze the problem before we call for regulation

yes, let's prevent regulators from applying and enforcing no brainer life saving safety regulations without first being required to spend decades studying each individual issue and then litigate each individual issue for another couple of decades, ensuring that nothing ever gets regulated ever

because that's what you're asking for, whether you realize it or not

Let’s also not pretend this was a new invention and/or innovation. It was a (big) change to UX/UI of mass consumer heavy machinery, something that should absolutely require some due diligence and regulation should exist to ensure sufficient due diligence is taken proactively in cases precisely like this. The auto industry is quite used to navigating regulatory hurdles, I doubt this would have been a hindrance. It’s just a matter of requiring them to be proactive about it.

I think it also may not have mattered. We, as in contemporary humans, continue to devalue our attention/focus in regards to our technology. I think that’s the core problem with digital UI is they just requiring too much of our active attention where as physical knobs allow us to passively perform actions with muscle memory (low attention requirement)

If they took all the knobs and put some in the glove box and some inside the console and some in the back seat and so on… we wouldn’t consider that an invention. It would just be obvious that the knobs were difficult to access. That’s basically what they did but act like it’s fine because technically they’re still right there on the dash.

HCI people have been analyzing this problem since the 80s, and the consensus, outside of a few grifters who told Elon Musk what he wanted to hear, is that operating a complicated modal interface while driving is unsafe. It's not even safe to talk on the phone hands-free while driving.

How big should the corpse pile sein?

In summer 2017, the USS Fitzgerald collided with a container ship near the Japanese mainland in an accident that killed seven sailors. The McCain was off the coast of Singapore when it hit a container ship, killing 10 of the Navy destroyer's crew.

The report blames touch screens.

IMHO, car screens are useful to watch some telly or films during your boring commuting

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49319450

I think it was Audi that had an interesting compromise: a screen with a haptic joystick in the center console. Using this joystick was a bit more like sliding a puck around that would “stick” in certain places (to highlight UI elements). I don’t think it’s a total solution, since the UI was still stateful, and it required looking at the screen to determine that state, but it did nicely handle the feedback portion.

VW might actually make this move because of regulatory pressure. There was a recent decision of not allowing the use of Tesla's touch screens in Germany [0]. So if VW had continued with their touchscreen-only design they might have gotten issues in their home country.

That this hasn't happened yet might be because automotive regulation is in general a joke in this country, as the car companies run the economy and thus have strong influence government. But the pressure was building. Plus the customers hating the touch screens, as the article is saying, that will have been a small factor.

[0]: https://www.adac.de/verkehr/recht/verkehrsvorschriften-deuts...

Unfortunately is not only regulators, substitute all physical buttons with touchscreen is way cheaper and future proof, so all automakers were happy and quiet about it.

How is it future proof? Knobs work fine on 30 year old cars and can be 3d printed or ordered. I've never had a daily driver touch screen last longer than 5 years, personally.

It's planned obsolescence. Every part of the car should be good for 20 years. 20 years ago, we were using Moto Razrs and it would be 4 more years until iPhone changed how we think of touchscreens. These junk touchscreen cars from this era will not make it without extremely expensive repair

You can just push a software update and completely change the functionality/looks of it. With the physical buttons, they have to be linked to a certain functionality at the manufacturing stage.

Pushing a software update is a big process, it's not some simple thing. There's a lot of process behind updating the software of a car where a bug could kill the occupants.

For what it's worth: the physical buttons being linked to certain functionality from the beginning is the whole point, and is the defining characteristic of "good usability".

When your buttons change arbitrarily, you will always require eyesight to identify the buttons, which is radically unsafe and creates a horrifying UX since regulators have not yet banned all touchscreen use while a vehicle is moving

> How is it future proof?

They’re infinitely modifiable in software.

If you’re doing a model refresh and want to add a button, you change a few lines of code instead of redesigning the dashboard and sourcing parts and adjusting the assembly process and updating the engineering documents and maintenance and repair manuals and…

I suspect it's also a lot cheaper during model development. UI changes with physical buttons mean changing molds, screen-printed text, electrical connections, etc.

With a touchscreen, you plan "touchscreen here" and the UI can be modified in software basically up to the point the first production car rolls off the line (and even after that, too).

This is insanity, you still have a long and arduous process to design and test your changes. Software isn't a shortcut that bypasses the processes that lead to "legal and safe"

Let us not forget that keyboards are literally programmable buttons. Some with displays on each button. You can have software updates and physical buttons. This is a design issue, not an either or between touchscreens and “hardcoded single function buttons” of yesteryear.

It is a design issue because you cannot freely change the number, location and size of buttons. Also, buttons need to be planned long before mass production starts, and for smaller series it is quite expensive to have the mold and design created only for a specific car. That's why some buttons in super cars are shitty looking stock buttons.

With touch buttons or touch screens you only need to decide on the screen size and placement and everything can be done later in the development. It is quite an advantage from the car manufacturer's view.

Cars from thirty years ago still work. What makes them future proof is maintenance and engineering. Not touch screens.

We will always need to tune the temperature, switch turning indicators, turn on warning lights or change the volume.

Touch screens are only cheap. And it is questionable that we get any software update in ten years. Not even thinking three decades ahead.

And probably we will be glad that there are no software updates removing* or changing* features. With constant updates and internet connectivity we will not get any car safe.

Basically we want electric cars. Not computers, at least none we need to handle.

* e.g. Shimano Di2 (shifting groupset for roadbikes) with a Hammerhead bike computer: Shimano forced Hammerhead in 2022 to remove the support for the Di2 because Shimano now consider them as competitor. One of the reasons for mechanical groups is reliability! * Hello Windows Users. Do you like automatic updates? How about enforced updates? May we increase requirements?

On a personal level, I think of this trend toward making everything detached from physicality as digital Gnosticism. But context is also important. On a phone or tablet where you want ultimate flexibility from the device, touchscreens make sense. In a vehicle, you want each button / switch to do one thing with an immediate and direct impact on physical reality.

I wonder why we do not yet have a hybrid to physical buttons and a touch screen. How I see it, you have a dashboard that has your main touchscreen but also has several buttons and knobs that are "blank", when you setup your vehicle you can decide what actions these buttons perform and they have a small screen on the front to tell you what they do at any given time.

>How many people died (this includes pedestrians) because someone tried to adjust their AC in a multi level menu touch screen?

It's not clear. Does statistically normalized data show more or less death when buttons and levers were the only way to adjust temperature?

The cybertruck doesn't have door handles. You press a button, then the door pops a little, and you put your hand on the door frame where the door closes. Slick design, until you slam your fingers, or it freezes.

The cybertruck door has been tested with an inch of ice and still opens. I once broke my door handle on my Mazda trying to get it open with much less than that.

> How many people died

I don't know, have any?

To play devil's advocate, trying to adjust the AC using regular buttons on an unfamiliar rental car can be a nightmare too. Trying to decipher the tiny icons and lights while driving, what magic combination of button presses and knob positions will work?

There's an argument to be made that for something like temperature control with its various modes (heat/vent/cold, strength/temperature, fan speed, which combination of vents), a large touchscreen is actually a far superior interface -- easier to see and more intuitive.

(Physical touch buttons on the steering wheel for basic adjustments-while-driving like temperature up/down and volume up/down are still important though.)

> There's an argument to be made that for something like temperature control with its various modes (heat/vent/cold, strength/temperature, fan speed, which combination of vents), a large touchscreen is actually a far superior interface -- easier to see and more intuitive.

There is no argument. This is a ridiculous idea.

you can use one of your senses (touch) while operating the car with another (vision) with physical buttons. I feel like your argument supports better designed physical buttons vs more touch buttons, with zero haptic feedback

I think the difference here is that you are arguing that your first time adjusting the AC in a new car is cumbersome and distracting, which of course I think everyone can agree upon.

What the others in this thread are commenting on is the fact that in cars with touchscreen based controls, every time you adjust the AC in a car you drive every day, it is cumbersome and distracting.

> trying to adjust the AC using regular buttons on an unfamiliar rental car can be a nightmare too. Trying to decipher the tiny icons and lights while driving

Ideally you ought to take 5 minutes to check these things out before you set off. And if there are buttons you at least can do this if you want to.

> trying to adjust the AC using regular buttons on an unfamiliar rental car can be a nightmare too

I don't agree with this logic.

When you rent a car it's common sense to familiarise yourself with the controls before you start driving it.

Apparently you haven't watched people leave the rental area at the airport.

You know the saying: common sense is not that common.

Mostly that isn't needed because the controls you need are generally obvious. Every car has accelerator and brake pedals (some also have a clutch) in the same position that works the same with no need to look. Likewise they all have a steering wheel in the same position that again works the same as every other car.

They have turn signal indicator that works the same. Most cars it is a lever off the side of the steering wheel. One car I drove (at night) instead had a switch on the dashboard - I successfully used this to signal my turn several times before I realized it wasn't a lever - but it worked like one so it didn't matter.

Because car makers have historically been good at doing consistent UIs like this when I get into a rental car the only think I need to figure out is where the key goes and how the transmission shifts (shift levers can be many different places and have many different patterns). Everything else important to driving is the same on all cars.

Things like the radio and climate system are not the same on all cars. However they are not critical to driving.

> Things like the radio and climate system are not the same on all cars. However they are not critical to driving.

They can be critical to driving, if you have to move your focus from the street to the screen for changing the settings.

Devils advocado is not some incarnation that makes saying the opposite into an actual argument.

Doesn't change that we have no statistical data for "deaths caused by touchscreens." The nearest offered in the federal numbers that I can find is distracted driving which accounts for roughly 4,000 (which is an estimate) of the ~43,000 that occur in the United States, or ballpark 10%. But that 4,000 estimate includes things like cell phone distraction, your kid screaming in the back seat, or just straight up people not paying attention to the road. And, worth devils' avodacoing here, many newer infotainment systems include things like CarPlay and Android Auto which can if anything mitigate the distracting factor of shitty OEM interfaces.

I don't know how bad they actually are, I know there's been a drumbeat in media recently about how bad they are with no real data I've ever seen to back it up, and I know that I've, at this point, driven more miles with aftermarket touch screen interfaces than I have without and I have yet to be involved in even a minor accident, let alone a fatal one.

Devil's avocado? Sorry, couldn't resist that one.

You are absolutely right, tbh. People make this into too much of a binary choice.

I've had cars with terrible physical controls and cars with really well thought out touchscreen controls combined with a lot of automation.

It isn't obvious that fumbling with buttons below the wheel, near my knee is better than the screen right in front of me. I can't even find them by touch easily, because they've made so many of them, including for nearly useless functions.

I agree with "easier to see and more intuitive" and I'd use it when parked. But when driving, I don't want to "see", I want tactile feedback on whether I hit a control.

I agree that there should be physical buttons, however in most of these cars you can use voice input for adjusting AC as well. I've been using that all the time, it works, and I don't have to take my eyes off the road.

Many people, myself included, can't talk and do things at the same time. Talking is far more distracting to me than pushing a physical button. It actually takes more brain power to talk than to navigate a screen interface, but the screen interface is still worse because I have to take my eyes off the road, but talking is a close second. If I'm in a high-interaction driving environment (ie not an express way with low traffic), I will literally, unconsciously slow down if you ask me a complex question. I think there is some gender asymmetry to this issue, as my wife, and all the women I regularly drive with, can talk and do things at the same time.

I do the same, found its the quickest way and you don't need to take your eyes off the road and your hands off the wheel.

I have a car with voice controls. That don't work if the overall UI is set to Latvian. And struggles with my accent when set to English. The climate control knobs have no problems with my language skills tho.

> Now if touch screens had a dynamic 3d surface that you could navigate blindly it would be something else.

Unless your hand got caught in that 3d surface.

Can't eat while driving in Switzerland!? That's a ridiculous amount over regulation.

Yeah, and you aren't allowed to drink while driving either. The oppression!

I have to assume you were trying to make a joke but have made the mistake of confusing drinking alcohol that impacts your mind with eating food that is a fuel for your body.

It was a valiant (/S) effort!

You know, it's amazing how wildly different expectations people from different places have. Really highlights the completely arbitrary/social nature of most of our customs. One person thinks "why would you even consider eating while driving, this is so insane on so many levels I don't even know where to start enumerating them" while another thinks "of course I should be allowed to eat while driving, that's one of the most natural things".

A couple of days ago there was an article on HN about the littering behaviour and causes of it. As some commenters noticed, the main reason is simply that people do whatever the hell they feel like doing, without much consideration. Driving and suddenly feel hungry? Eat something right now. There is a wrapper paper in one of your hands now and it's inconvenient to hold it while eating and driving? Throw it out of the window. Etc.

And yes, I've seen debaters on the Internet arguing for allowing DUI, for non-requirement of seat belts, for allowing smoking in public places etc, basically for anything that mildly inconveniences a person for a vague personal and/or public benefit. And on HN too, about a year or so ago?

P.S. About "eating food that is a fuel for your body" — there's a fancy term "postprandial somnolence" for that feeling of drowsiness after a meal. Definitely something you'd like to experience while driving (/S).

I'm guessing you live in a place where you don't actually travel that far or has significant mass transit options available to you. Most likely a country in the EU (aka very small distances). You should come visit North America and try and understand how different rural North America is compared to anywhere the EU.

I would argue that the customs and expectations from different places arise from the different needs in those communities and/or the level of regulation that is tolerated from the people. Switzerland has a lot of winding mountain roads - so likely need two hands on the wheel at all times whereas North America has a lot of flat straight roads where it is quite reasonable to drive with one hand on the wheel for short periods of time. Also Tesla auto-pilot helps out.

Additionally I suspect that you argue so strongly in favor of no eating in your car makes me think that you live in a state with very strong control of your population and it is well tolerated by the population - with assumed upside benefits as a result.

Might be worth blocking all controls, touchscreen or not, while the car is in motion.

If you need to turn on the defroster, pull over, turn on the defroster, and pull away again.

I can think of many scenarios in which this can be actually dangerous. Not all roads in the world have a side lane in which you can stop at any time. Driving with a foggy windshield waiting to find the proper lane can be very dangerous.

That sounds awful. When you’re in lane 3/6 on a highway doing 85mph… “oh shit my window is starting to fog up, lemme try and navigate my way to the shoulder with my quickly diminishing visibility so I can press a button then try and merge into a busy highway from a standstill”.

Just design the vehicle better. I can see the status of my HVAC without taking my eyes off of the road—it’s on a display mounted on top of my dash, forward toward the windshield—and turn on defrost mode with the press of a single, large physical button inset inside a large knob which provides a clear touch cue.[0] I have never had to take my eyes off the road to adjust any of this system.

[0] https://assets.bpwalters.com/images/bens_car_blog/10k_review...

You picked a bad example. Defroster is one of the safety critical controls you need to be able to turn on now. More than once I've crossed a weather front while driving and the outside humidity and temperature have both changed drastically causing an instant need of change to the HVAC for safety reasons.

The radio should only have minimal accessible controls while driving. However even then remember that the non-driver should get the ability to have more control.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com