The State of In-Car UX

Thirty years ago, the Macintosh was competing with DOS. What you see is what you get versus mastery of obscure commands and syntax, which was common on many computers of the day. But Apple had "Human Interface Guidelines" that meant:

• higher information content per screen square inch
• ability to do more than one thing at the same time
• single-button mouse and small keyboard

One of the Apple guidelines was to avoid 'modal' inputs, consistency. But that seems to have disappeared with the touch-screen inputs. A smooth surface, the button images may still be consistent but there is no tactile feedback. They force our eyes to look at the wrong thing . . . especially when driving.

There is a big brew-haha over texting and driving because it is 'distracting.' Yet no one says peep if the vendor builds similar interfaces into the car. I for one am not a fan of the two, round, four corner buttons on the wheel. That a visual indicator is built into the multi-function display is a design failure. Then there are the flush buttons on the center console with no tactile feedback on their function.

I have long been a fan of 'heads up' displays because it means our eyes are still pointed in the right direction . . . outside the car. The focus is wrong but at least we appear to be looking at what is important. Humans should not be trying to figure out each control each time they sit in a new vehicle.

As for our Prius, I've been thinking about fixing some bird-shot to the 'buttons' so I'll know I'm about to change the temperature or change the volume. There are technical challenges, trying to affix small shot to the surfaces. Alternatively, a hot, soldering iron tip might put a tactile impression on the buttons. Regardless of method, at least ours would have tactile feedback missing today. Of course there is an alternate hypothesis.

It may be that making the controls so obscure, so difficult to differentiate, the 'designers' are pushing us to stop using them. So we find it easier to set the heating and air conditioning on one setting and on fogged up mornings, don't bother with setting the controls so hot-air comes up at the windshield versus just trying to peek through little clear spots. Maybe the 'designer' is doing their jobs to impress some car reporter and really don't care if the driver can operate the car without looking down . . . to be the master of the car and not someone stuck in a puzzle.

Bob Wilson

 

I find that the 2001 Prius ventilation controls were much easier to manipulate with good accuracy without looking than every model after that. On my 2010 and PIP (both the same) the fan speed, temperature, A/C, recirc etc buttons all feel the same, some are behind the shifter and its easy to hit the wrong one.
A very mild improvement with the EV, Eco, Pwr since I think one has a subtle raised bar on it.

But they look perfectly elegant to a designer, all symmetric, laid out in a row.


Mike

 

Early industrial designers had the maxim "Form follows function". I think they need to get back to that.

 

I have pointed to medical articles that are clear-cut in saying that 'hands free' talking on the telephone is no safer than with a phone in the hand, and is equivalent in impairment to driving with a blood Etoh content > 0.08. So far no one has bothered to read the articles and respond; instead people say the equivalent of "we are going to continue in our risky behaviour, so the car companies had best find a safe(r) interface."

<<shrug>>. I gave up trying to fix stupid a long time ago. Why stupid, you ask ? Because no interface can solve the basic problem of diverted attention while talking or texting. So while the UI can be improved for safety, the elephant in the room is ignored.

 

I never really liked how the MSD on the gen2 controlled everything. Want to do something beyond the most basic adjustment for the HVAC or radio, you had to switch the screen. This actually increased the time not focused on the road, along with the drawbacks of using a touchscreen.

 

Some designers do, but they weren't working on the controls in the prius, or the ford sync system. I know Toyota did a good job ergonomically on my previous lexus, so the talent is there in the company.

 

I think it makes perfect sense to turn the car's UI into a dumb terminal for my smartphone. Not only is it a whole lot cheaper, it likely to be less buggy; and perhaps most important to many a user, it is an interface they know and like, and is already hooked into the cloud.

I know Honda is going to outfit the new 2015 Fit with a ~ $200 Nav option that uses a smartphone.

 

Funny you should mention this as I have a work assigned, iPhone, that fits in my shirt pocket when I drive the 2003 Prius. The volume is just loud enough I can listen to podcasts on my commutes. I used to plug the audio into a cassette interface but the drive failed and I'm too cheap or lazy to effect a repair. Our 2010 Prius has an audio jack and I can't remember when I've used the AM/FM/CD interface . . . I really don't know or care if they work.

Both cars have Garmin GPS, which I can take with the dogs on new nature trails. The Garmins help me to track new routes and distance along with the two cell phones, my personal and the work phone.

My wife and I use our personal cell phones. The work phone is used to monitor work jobs and podcasts. I'll upgrade my personal phone when I leave the job. Because I have the Garmins, I really don't need another GPS solution on the work phone . . . that I will eventually turn in with my badge.

At work, I listen to Internet radio on the work iPhone where I can find obscure, new, and interesting music and block out the 'background chatter.' Internet radio has not been captured by Clear Channel whose relentless, mind-numbing, treakle makes silence blessed . . . until I start muttering to myself.

<OWCH>Do I now have to go out front now and yell,"You kids get off my yard!"

The irony is how many old farts like me have bought these new technology Prius. But I come from a generation that watched our parents go to the moon and back. So we are early adopters and that is good.

Bob Wilson

 

I like this idea.

 

As a tech consumer, I tend to match the best tool to the job. Sometimes it is a gadget and often it remains a pencil. I have (finally!) joined the smartphone generation. I bought a very spiffy Android from Motorola called the 'G' for $80 last week. Excellent value, and it does what I want from it. I am actually very pleasantly surprised at how much good work Google has done with the UI. I like it more than the iPhone which is saying a lot, since I think the iPhone in general is pretty darn spiffy.

 

BringGo is GM's $50 nav option for the Spark and Sonic with MyLink. It might have spread to other models. El Dobro's video discusses it, but I think there might be correction needed for it. Since these GM cars have OnStar, there is a GPS antenna installed in the car. BringGo might use that instead of relying on phone's system. Which would be better if the phone is using cell towers for position and loses network.

 

I am under the impression that at least somewhat modern smartphones sold in the US have GPS receivers that collect data from satellites rather than cell towers. It is true of my $80 smartphone. The use of cell towers and wi-fi for location is supplementary.

 

I thought that might be so, but it still would be an advantage for the BringGo app to use the car's GPS over the phone's. Depending on the phone design and where it is in the car, it might have trouble connecting to the GPS network. And I thought I once read that it did so, but my Sonic doesn't have MyLink, and I don't have a smart phone. So I haven't bothered keeping close tabs on it.

I thought GM was brilliant with introducing BringGo with the Spark, and am glad to see it being expanded to the Sonic. It is great that Honda is following suit, but find the $200 price disappointing.

 

Advantage, in the sense of using the best hardware available. Disadvantage, that the phone has to be aware and use it without problem.

This is why I called my preferred car interface a dumb terminal. If all it supplies are buttons and a tactile screen, then the system is no more buggy than the smartphone that drives it. I consider that to be a good thing.

 

Let's try to be more accurate with our history: Xerox originated the idea of mouse-based GUI. Apple copied it after seeing a demonstration.

in reality there were four companies that all released mouse OSes within mere months of one another:
- Apple Macintosh
- Microsoft Windows 1
- Atari ST-OS
- Commidore Amiga OS (the first to have multitasking of several programs)

So it wasn't Mac vs. DOS but Mac vs. Windows vs. Atari ST vs. Commodore Amiga.

None of which was the best seller. The low-cost 200 dollar Commodore 64 held that distinction (few could afford the $3000 Mac.)

 

I say "no" to car navigation screens. Why spend an extra $2000 for that stuff when my iPhone already has it, and only cost $170 to acquire?

Plus the phone is easier to use, since its map is directly in front of my eyes & always has the latest info.

Just give me the base car without the screen.

 

That's what BringGo does, it puts your phone nav onto the car screen. This way, you don't have to buy a nav unit for the car.

BringGo