As folks noted in the other thread on this topic: This is self-evident to most of the HN audience, but the more studies and more awareness is brought to this topic the likelier things are to improve.
Awareness in my view is useless because touchscreens in auto infotainment are far more visually impressive so they will always be preferred from a buyer's perspective.
What we need is to build a body of scientific evidence to support regulating Auto infotainment within some form of safety-critical guard rails.
It is obvious that touch without mechanical/haptic feedback is dangerous both in terms of decreasing eyes-on-the-road and increasing cognitive load. Mazda had it right first time around the industry needs to catch up.
See, I disagree. I think they look drab, uninspired, and by merely looking at them I can experience some of the emotional pain I know I'm going to feel as frustration while attempting to use it.
I find properly-designed buttons far more impressive.
I am obviously not the target demographic. I've hated touchscreen phones since inception.
> Awareness in my view is useless because touchscreens in auto infotainment are far more visually impressive so they will always be preferred from a buyer's perspective.
Except that the HN audience also buys cars, and prefers something else. And we aren't that unique or exceptional.
All ordinary televisions are now advertising-filled garbage, technical people I know just don't buy televisions. If they need a display they buy either the panel or a projector. But if my mother or sister buy a television it will be advertising-filled garbage.
There is a tiny niche of people who care, and for some reason insist on buying a TV, as a result on a very small scale it is technically possible to buy a TV without built-in advertising - but it's a small enough niche that ordinary people aren't even really aware it's an option. Think medium format landscape camera in say the 1980s. Your parents (or grandparents if you're old enough) probably owned something that used standard cartridge film, they knew vaguely what an SLR was (even if not what "SLR" stands for) but they had no idea medium format landscape cameras even existed. If the local camera shop doesn't have them, they'd never notice.
there’s certainly people on HN that are quite unique and exceptional (the only question is to what extent)
People who don’t use smartphones, people who only pay with cash, people who have smart phones without data plans, people who turn off notifications on their phone for a large percentage of their day, people who own Android devices and strip out everything Google related, list goes on
There are certainly people in almost all audiences that are quite unique and exceptional, but the HN audience as a collective doesn't stand out as much as some of us would like to believe.
It's the product quality equivalent of the Overton Window. People are impressed by their appliances lasting 5 years, or other mediocre accomplishments, because that's increasingly the norm.
Who is impressed by appliances lasting 5 years. If I buy a new Stove or Fridge and is craps out before 15 years I never buying that brand again.
Smaller table top appliances lasting 5 years is ok I guess, something like an Air Fyer or even a Microwave, but larger ones no that should be 15 years.
> Who is impressed by appliances lasting 5 years. If I buy a new Stove or Fridge and is craps out before 15 years I never buying that brand again.
I agree. I was recently shopping for a new fridge and, after reading countless reviews online, I realized that people's notion of quality has dramatically shifted. Even some luxury brands have either been acquired or started licensing Chinese companies to produce inferior-quality products with their name.
Regulating is how we got here. They put the screens in to serve backup cameras. Once you need to have a screen somewhere why not make it replace all the stuff?
Engineers love it because less moving parts, fewer parts. Software loves it because ship garbage now fix with updated version later. Designers love it because "clean lines and crap". Marketing loves it because high tech. Bean counters love it for all the above reasons.
The only thing (touch)screens aren't is cheaper and better but once everyone is mandated to have them that all goes out the window.
> Regulating is how we got here. They put the screens in to serve backup cameras.
And for good reason, they make reversing your vehicle significantly safer. But saying "you must have a backup camera" is in no way an endorsement for massive info-tainment screens.
> Once you need to have a screen somewhere why not make it replace all the stuff?
Because touchscreens don't help serve any purpose of the car, they are merely cool flashy tech that actually makes things less safe. The fact this stuff made it out of prototyping is baffling.
>And for good reason, they make reversing your vehicle significantly safer.
They're significantly safer than the 2005 suburban that had a massive blind spot if your worried about backing over their kid (which wasn't really that common to begin with and was mostly a moral panic).
For your average crossover, sedan or other "typical car" they are no better than the car designs we had 20yr ago that you could actually get decent rear visibility out of. Many would argue that they are worse because they have enabled bad design trends (touchscreens and lack of any useful amount of rear visibility). Backup cameras make full sending it into cross traffic or swinging the front of your car into something way more likely which is why most of the OEMs have systems to detect that and prevent it now.
Basically we've regulated a local minimum because some people couldn't handle not backing over their kids and that failure mode hit real close to home for the "I know exactly what everyone else needs" crowd who then expended political capital getting it legislated.
> The fact this stuff made it out of prototyping is baffling.
Reality never got in the way of a good old fashioned industry circle jerk.
Worth pointing out that the regulation is US only because of the amount of kids dying while backing up oversized trucks with zero visibility.
It is absolutely bewildering how they have let this 'bigger is better' arms race run wild in US roads. Sure lets fit cameras rather than stop designing armoured vehicles.
I like having those studies more so ~~I can feel selfrighteous~~ my intuitive feeling actually gets data supporting it. I try to have 'this is my opinion, not fact' as the default mode when possible.
This isn't a study. It's a "test" run by a Swedish car magazine, analogous to Car & Driver or Motor Trend, and similarly captured by its advertising base. Auto industry rags have always hated Tesla, for fairly obvious reasons, and it's sort of a running joke within the Tesla community.
Does that mean it's wrong? No. But it does mean you need to apply some salt. This isn't first principles science being reported, as you seem to have been led to believe.
Really? Many have occurred and easily discovered with a quick Google. In my grad school CS human computer interaction we reviewed a lot of prior work and individually did our own.
Uh... your third link is coverage of the same non-study being discussed, your second is an auto-generated link farm page that puts "study" in the title but doesn't even talk about one, and the first is a real study that absolutely does not substantiate what you're claiming.
