The only thing that might save it is the size of the screens (mentioned in the article). The problem with most Western fully touchscreen “infotainment” systems is that they use tiny screens with laggy interfaces. Because the automakers don’t know how to make this stuff and contract out to the lowest bidder like they always have with stereo equipment, only now that stereo is also integral to the car’s operation.
If the car and the interface are designed from the ground up to be readable and responsive, I think there is a way to pull it off (again as mentioned in the article). Having physical interfaces for basic operations related to safety and things that are messed with frequently (volume, shifting, AC, lights, signals, wipers) is a must though because a 2d interface can’t fully take advantage of our 3d spatial awareness.
Making the touch screen bigger doesn’t change the fundamental problem that you have to look at it and away from the road to use it. If the road is in your peripheral vision for any length of time while you’re moving at high speeds, you are at risk. It may be slightly better because you can look at it for a shorter amount of time, but you shouldn’t have to look at all except in your peripheral vision and/or proprioception (physical sense of where your body is).
Agreed, I still think physical knobs and buttons should never be removed. I’m just saying that if there is going to be screen controls the screen needs to be big enough that all controls can be accessed on one screen and not through submenus.
They’re terrible in a car (for at least some functions) because you have to look at them instead of relying on feel
edit: and screens tend to encourage nested menus so they just progressively worse.
The only thing that might save it is the size of the screens (mentioned in the article). The problem with most Western fully touchscreen “infotainment” systems is that they use tiny screens with laggy interfaces. Because the automakers don’t know how to make this stuff and contract out to the lowest bidder like they always have with stereo equipment, only now that stereo is also integral to the car’s operation.
If the car and the interface are designed from the ground up to be readable and responsive, I think there is a way to pull it off (again as mentioned in the article). Having physical interfaces for basic operations related to safety and things that are messed with frequently (volume, shifting, AC, lights, signals, wipers) is a must though because a 2d interface can’t fully take advantage of our 3d spatial awareness.
Making the touch screen bigger doesn’t change the fundamental problem that you have to look at it and away from the road to use it. If the road is in your peripheral vision for any length of time while you’re moving at high speeds, you are at risk. It may be slightly better because you can look at it for a shorter amount of time, but you shouldn’t have to look at all except in your peripheral vision and/or proprioception (physical sense of where your body is).
Agreed, I still think physical knobs and buttons should never be removed. I’m just saying that if there is going to be screen controls the screen needs to be big enough that all controls can be accessed on one screen and not through submenus.