Comment by userbinator | Hacker News Reader

Comment by userbinator | Hacker News Reader

All of this is possible only because Chrysler, like practically all carmakers, is doing its best to turn the modern automobile into a smartphone.

I think this is the biggest problem. Stop making "smart" cars with all these unnecessary features. Even if you can't resist adding entertainment or navigation, don't ever physically connect those systems to the critical systems like engine and transmission computers except through a one-way (to display information) link, like it's done on airplanes.

I'm happy to have a much older vehicle with none of these "enhancements". It has a physical throttle, hydraulic brakes, and steering linkage for which remote hijacking is physically impossible. I can add navigation and entertainment with a smartphone mounted on the dash. It may not be as fuel-efficient or safe(?) as the cars today, but maybe the tradeoff is worth it. That also suggests there could be a market for new "dumb" cars which have all the modern improvements to engines and safety, but none of these "smart" exploitable features.

(I'm not so paranoid as to get a mechanical EMP-proof diesel though...)

It amazes me that while more and more jurisdictions are banning cell phone use while driving, vehicle makers are increasingly resorting to touch screens for things like stereo and climate control. When using a smartphone while driving is illegal, how are in-vehicle touch screen controls meant to be operated by the driver not banned?

As much as I love Tesla and what they are trying to do to the car industry, they are the worst offenders in this. Hopefully by the time I can afford one, there will be legislation making entirely touch-screen dashes illegal and they'll have the usual 3 dials for climate control, that you can operate without having to take your eyes off the road.

All the controls on the Tesla are 1.5" or larger which makes them easy to use out of your FoV while keeping your eyes on the road. Cellphones are a much smaller surface area and require a lot more focus.

Agreed. I got infotainment/navigation touch screen in my Subaru. It is really hard to use without looking at the screen. Even after 2 months of driving, I haven't been able to develop muscle memories like I have for other controls on the car.

Luckily, infotainment screen doesn't really host anything critical. My uses include navigation and phone. Both of those functions should be used while parked anyways. I just cannot imagine changing a/c settings only at stop light.

How would you like those three dials to control the rest of the car systems? And, isn't this what BMW tried to do ages back with that single 'iButton' control that everyone hated?

Uhh, the same way almost every non-luxury car made between 1960 and 2010 did it? A dial each for temperature, fan speed, and where the air is blowing. Plus a button for air conditioning and/or recirculate. No touch screens, no menus.

People have been using cars without touch screens for 50+ years. The UX is a pretty much a solved problem by this point. Yet now car manufacturers seem to want to mess with something that worked great, just so their cars seem cutting-edge.

You do understand that there is more than just climate control that can be adjusted in a vehicle these days? There's navigation and direction finding, traffic alerts, radar proximity warnings from other traffic, radio and entertainment systems, telephony functions, systems monitoring and alerting for various components, current engine and transmission ststus, location data, environmental data...

Seriously, though. The trend that annoys me the most is touchscreens in cars. A touchscreen is the last thing I want on a car. I want physical buttons that I can find and operate by touch alone without having to take my eyes off the road. Maybe voice control if it can be made sufficiently reliable, but that's about it.

It's like car manufacturers nowadays want people to crash their cars so that they can sell more of them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com