Quote:
Originally Posted by AstulzerRZD
(Post 9186669)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bcrdukes
(Post 9186668)
Which manufacturers/models are these examples? | Mach E, GMC Acadia??, EV6. |
Nice, you got all 3! Except that the EV6 interface isn't specific to EV6: Kia deployed it across almost their entire lineup, regardless of ICE or EV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 68style
(Post 9186679)
I didn't like the Mercedes style shifter when I first got mine... but after using it for a couple days it's pretty intuitive, not all that different from the old column shifters and more... elegant? to use compared to a column shifter. It's nice to have the console area free for other stuff too. |
Is it a twist-type, column mounted? Imo that's the best possible outcome. I like it on our i3. Doesn't take your hands away from the controls, and doesn't take up real estate in the console area.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whitev70r
(Post 9186673)
Let's face it, this forum are full of people locked into the way cars are designed in the 90's - round steering wheel, turn signal stalk on the left, physical shifter on the right, 2 or 3 pedals, physical buttons for heat/AC, side mirrors. With the exception of a button here or there changed, or screen sharper and bigger, every 'innovation' will be seen as unnecessary ... :lol. |
I mean you're generally right... but some of this stuff was
truly thoughtlessly designed.
E.g. moving to touch-based controls (whether that's a touchscreen or capacitive touch buttons): the driver of a vehicle has limited pools of cognitive & visual perceptual resource, and the more that can be spent on actually keeping their car on the road, the safer and better the driving experience.
Since neither touchscreen nor capacitive touch input methods provide any tactile reference, you have to draw from the visual perceptual resource.
The touchscreen is probably the worst, where it's a whole contextual UI that pulls hard cognitive cycles: you have to now even
think about what wtf is on that screen and how to interact with it, before you can even carry out your intent.
Haptic feedback is completely unhelpful because that's just superficial feedback to confirm you touched something, after the fact. It doesn't help you aim, it only gives you a sense of satisfaction that yeah "you did a thing".
Ergonomically, there's not even a way to stabilize your gross motor system before you try to do the fine-honing of your fingers to the tiny ass icon in the UI, to do what you wanted to do. Operating little touchscreen buttons was already a pretty intense cognitive / visual perceptual feedback loop, even
before adding that your fingers' local coordinate system is shifting as your whole damn arm wobbles in the air!
Compare that to a tactile input system (e.g. mechanical switches and buttons) which:
a) provide the physical references for your fingers so they can freely fumble and grope for the controls: you can eventually commit that to "muscle memory" and carry out your intent with your cognitive and visual perceptual system cut completely out of the loop. You've now
b) provide you a way to for you to stabilize your gross motor system before engaging fine motor actuation, because the controls have a non-zero actuation force threshold.
Just imagine your computer keyboard was a touchscreen. You'd have to go back to staring at it, and slowing down to 2-thumb input.
E.g. electronically actuated doors: one issue with this architecture is that the sensing system's prone to false positives, while simultaneously it isn't capable of higher reasoning... but you can't even help it out because you've been totally locked out of the decision making process:
it is overriding
you. It's a tripple-whammy of shittification.
The paradigm typically used for Lane Keep Assist is a better match for this scenario, imo. You basically want this thing to be primarily a
warning system, and instead of preventing you from opening the door, it should just be some sort of tactile friction or nudge. Maybe add some damping to the door hinge, or vibration / pulsing to the door handle, along with beeps and light flashes.
The other issue is that you've introduced more points of failure to a safety-critical mechanism (getting the heck out of your car during a fire). It's totally ridiculous that a catastrophic event of a vehicle fire results in a single point of failure that causes risk of injury
and prevention of escape.
And if there's a backup mechanical override, it's now going to be:
a) something you have to look for*, wasting seconds to minutes of time to escape**, and
b) not often being tested. I.e. at least if a standard mechanical door latch mechanism were to fail, you'd have detected that failure
before you had to depend on it when a catastrophic event (like a car fire) occurred. Because you wouldn't have even been able to get into your car in the first place.
*I had no idea how to manually open the doors in the Mustang Mach-E, and google says there's a release somewhere inside the door armrest. Just the fact that there is no standardization to this across different vehicles is an issue, and it's not even consistent within a vehicle like in the case of the Model Y where the front and rear doors have different kinds of emergency releases.
**What about from the outside?? Even with the doors unlocked, how is anyone supposed to open the door and pull you out of the burning vehicle?
edit - you asshole, you made me work during my work hours!!