Buttons are Better

[RM7]

Data that supports it:

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2022/08...s-study-finds/

[adammo1111]

Totally agree, my cousin just got a cupra formentor with no buttons at all and it sucks to use on a bumpy road

[Redd]

I blame this on Tesla's lazy design. They started the whole trend of having one big multi-function screen doing all controls and now everyone thinks that's how an EV should look like.

[chassis]

Agree. When I got in my MB after work I turned 4 knobs/dials and pushed 9 buttons to achieve my desired vehicle settings. Loved every press and twist.

[c1pher]

I also blame Tesla. From an engineering and cost perspective it certainly makes sense. Want a change? No problemo, revise the UI. Want a new feature? No problemo, provided it works within limits of the architecture.

But yeah from a driving/piloting perspective you need muscle memory to function a platform that is moving faster than you can. Delving three menus deep to change a setting whiles you’re turning or braking etc is not good.

[RM7]

My graduate education is based on ergonomics and engineering for humans. The idea with the Apple interface has some good points, it's extremely adaptable to a variety of data and usages, allowing any button or feature to basically adapt as necessary. Can be made bigger, or smaller on a whim. Being able to access so much content with just one finger (well, thumb actually), that was an absolute revolution. They have mastered many ergonomic principles. Or for other applications you can have multiple "panels" into a compact area that allow control over a variety of features. The problem is that in an application like an automobile or aircraft, you need the controls within easy reach and they need to be easy to manipulate. This means going largely by tactile feel, not sight. In aircraft, certain controls are given specific shapes on purpose to differentiate them. Sight is still in there, but the amount of concentration goes way down. If I just adjusted temperature, but now I want to adjust it again, I reach back to the same knob I just touched and move it the opposite direction. I don't need to look at it at all to do this. But if it's the touch-screen, I have to make sure I put my fingers on the right spot, in fact, it's likely not up on the home screen and I would have to navigate to climate first. In a lot of these setups, I've noticed that the controls are not even reachable with a normal seated position, otherwise you have to ram the seat all the way forward to have the entire touchsceen within arm's length.

But the touchscreen does do some good stuff, it lets a plethora of settings be adjustable from a central control point, quickly. Like the stuff that you might adjust while at a stop in park. You don't do this very often, but this is almost the only way to allow so many different options to be set/customized and at this point an I-drive controller is just slower. A few days I was playing with the comfort access settings in my car, but I don't want another button on the dash for something that is so rarely used, that too isn't useful.

So it's kind of a balance, all of the important/common stuff needs to be within easy reach and easily manipulated with switches and similar buttons. This includes audio controls, drive controls, cruise controls, basically anything you'd use while driving. Touchscreens aren't evil, but they shouldn't be used to make up for this.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by chassis

Agree. When I got in my MB after work I turned 4 knobs/dials and pushed 9 buttons to achieve my desired vehicle settings. Loved every press and twist.

Ok, but that's still way too many!

[chassis]

It's cost folks. Plain and simple.

Car companies make more money (less cost) with touchscreens. Plus it's a screen. That's good, right?

[StradaRedlands]

E30 controls have always been my favorite. Two dials and three sliders. Couple of buttons to turn on the AC and vent. Window switches in the middle by the shifter. I miss them!

[Redd]

I'm waiting to see the fun owners are gonna have when they try to make a warranty claim for dead pixels.

[HighlandPete]

Originally Posted by RM7

So it's kind of a balance, all of the important/common stuff needs to be within easy reach and easily manipulated with switches and similar buttons. This includes audio controls, drive controls, cruise controls, basically anything you'd use while driving. Touchscreens aren't evil, but they shouldn't be used to make up for this.

The above paragraph sums up the subject well, IMO.

Without simple controls which are required "while driving", safety is put in second place.

[G30M]

[Efthreeoh]

Originally Posted by StradaRedlands

E30 controls have always been my favorite. Two dials and three sliders. Couple of buttons to turn on the AC and vent. Window switches in the middle by the shifter. I miss them!

Grrr... you beat me to it. IMO the E30, and really its predecessor E21 and the 5 and 7 Series of the same era had the best physical human interface developed for the automobile. No automation and completely analog. A reflection of the times mostly, but what BMW took pride in and made its cars a level above everyone else's and part of the foundation of the "Ultimate Driving Machine". Once iDrive was introduced as standard opeational fare I lost interest in the machines from Munich.

The reason modern cars have lane keeping, pre-collision warning and braking, etc. is not for safety but rather manufacturer liability because modern drivers are constantly focused on the screen on the dashboard.

The new Bronco I just acquired has an effing screen, and for the most part is useless to the act of driving. I take the 2 touch screen steps to turn it off as part of my prep to drive routine: screen off, stop-start off, belt buckled.

I miss my E30 too.

[GTF]

I think the E36 was the best driver focused design.....especially at night with everything orange/red.

[allinon72]

Screen functionality is cheaper, just like EV cars are cheaper to produce. That's the real reason why we have the EV craze.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by GTF

I think the E36 was the best driver focused design.....especially at night with everything orange/red.

Whatever that info is below the radio is a pretty huge ergonomic fail. Even if many people "don't look at it", you would never put information like that in that location. That's like in a few modified aircraft they put a flight-critical circuit breaker on the floor. You either put it in front or don't include it.

[Cos270]

Companies care very little about ergo when it comes to things like this (take the new generation GTI for example). And when I say "companies" I mean the real decision makers - not some low-level engineer that makes a proposal for a new dash layout with buttons, intuitively placed, that when presented to senior management get's struck down after the cost comparison is done between his design and the other engineer that's designed one with screens everywhere. The switch to touch screens is all about the zeitgeist and cost reduction. All the money that can be saved by removing switch gear is just too tantalizing as the OEMs continue to strive to increase their already fat margins. And peons see a big screen and think "Ohhhhhh fancy fancy FUTURE CAR!!!" Another reason I don't see myself buying anything new anytime soon.

[c1pher]

Originally Posted by G80M4

I have no problem with stuffing some lesser used or customization settings that you’ll touch once and never touch again. But look at the Corvette, there’s a bunch of buttons in addition to the screen. Unfortunately from a HMI perspective the hard buttons other than on the steering wheel are not properly designed. You have to look away, maybe you can remember that long wall, but I also bet most of those buttons don’t even need to be there.

[RM7]

Originally Posted by Cos270

Companies care very little about ergo when it comes to things like this

That's only partially true. One of my professors was the head of ergonomics at GM. They do care about ergo, but it's obviously one of many things they care about and sometimes it doesn't get weight it should. Back when he was head of Ergo, the car companies had all of those contracts for bin-parts from suppliers and if you tried to change anything, you were going to put people out of work, because it would have to shift to another company or be developed by GM. So these unionized factories often held a locked-grip over GM and they weren't able to change stuff to obviously better ergonomic designs. I mean, they could have, but then the unions start leveraging the politicians who start leaning on the manufacturer, etc. This obviously still exists to a degree, but overall manufacturers have gotten a much better handle on designing cars, rather than just throwing together the same crap on the same chassis year after year.

But the depth of ergonomics is usually beyond most that haven't studied it, there are so many aspects that go into a human/machine interface. There are obvious ones, and then there are not so obvious ones, to allow operation by the 95th percentile and so on. They absolutely design this into the cars and care...except it's often pretty obvious when there's a ergonomic/human factors design failure. Tends to stick out like a sore thumb when so many other parts were designed with that in mind.

[TheWatchGuy]

i prefer buttons for some things like climate control. Hated where in my old truck i had to go to the climate screen to change things.

for anything else, touchscreen is fine, but i do like good audio controls on my steering wheel

[Humdizzle]

rolex vs apple watch. give me the rolex all day.

[RM7]

There are things I like to be able to adjust on my car via the touchscreen that give a level of control not previously found. It's simply not practical to have all of those switches somewhere on the car and probably not even possible.