How about touchscreens in cars

[niky]

I don't want to modify the wheel, the keypads or switches can remain where they are.

Most steering wheels nowadays have controls under your thumbs in the 9 and 3 positions. Of late, more and more manufacturers are putting gamepad-style keypads there to allow you to navigate your display screens without taking your hands off the wheel.

Despite how bad Ford's MFT is, their dual keypads are great. Allowing you to select and control multiple functions, as well as to scroll through data-displays on your instrument cluster.

 

[Exorcet]

This has been pretty standard practice for half a decade now.

Good to hear.

However, typically, it is restricted to radio channel/volume, bluetooth/voice command, & your instrument options because there's only so much room on a wheel. A/C will likely always remain button based outside the nav. unit, though some of our cars at work have their A/Cs controlled through the touchscreen.

I think you could squeeze a fair amount of controls on the wheel. I think with my thumbs alone I could handle about 12 buttons (six positions with two buttons (up/down)). I don't know how comfortable that would be for most people though. Voice control alleviates a lot of the issue though.

Internet & things like that are frowned upon because of the potential lawsuits that could follow, but Lexus has experimented with it using Enform (Facebook, Bing, MovieTickets, etc.). However, these can only be accessed like other general settings whilst in Park. Passenger control will likely never expand beyond A/C controls on their side; it could be argued that the more control of a touchscreen a passenger has, the more distracted a driver may be paying attention to them.

Good point, though it feels like a loss to lose out on some nice features because of issues like lawsuits. If someone does something stupid it should be their fault. I think the passenger control thing could work, I'd imagine that the driver would have ultimate control up to disabling all passenger actions. On long drives I sometimes rely on the person next to me and having a GPS/internet screen under their control while driving would be helpful in quite a few situations. Right now I primarily use my own portable GPS in the car. If I'm driving alone I'll occasionally glance at it, or pull over/wait for a stop to adjust it, but when I'm driving long distance with a group someone else might take over navigation. If anything it takes away from my distraction.

 

[McLaren]

I think you could squeeze a fair amount of controls on the wheel. I think with my thumbs alone I could handle about 12 buttons (six positions with two buttons (up/down)). I don't know how comfortable that would be for most people though. Voice control alleviates a lot of the issue though.

I suppose it would all come down to wheel design, then.

Good point, though it feels like a loss to lose out on some nice features because of issues like lawsuits. If someone does something stupid it should be their fault. I think the passenger control thing could work, I'd imagine that the driver would have ultimate control up to disabling all passenger actions. On long drives I sometimes rely on the person next to me and having a GPS/internet screen under their control while driving would be helpful in quite a few situations. Right now I primarily use my own portable GPS in the car. If I'm driving alone I'll occasionally glance at it, or pull over/wait for a stop to adjust it, but when I'm driving long distance with a group someone else might take over navigation. If anything it takes away from my distraction.

On the first point, that is sadly the world we live in. Manufacturers implement these things more to protect them than us, ironically.

Secondly, completely understand on the passenger using the navigation. I think this is something however, that will remain open to both parties until the day manufacturers feel a driver is no longer safe enough to operate one whilst in Drive, thus cutting everyone off (since a nav. unit is always positioned in the middle of a dash allowed control from either side). Other things however, which I assume was his point, will remain locked as the car can not tell if the controls are being done by the driver or someone else. Giving it second thought, I believe this is why a passenger will never be given more control; the car simply can't designate whose doing the inputs. Or at the least, the technology isn't there yet.

 

[ScottPuss20]

When I went to Queensland with my family a few years back, a Holden Commodore was hired so we could get from place to place, and because my dad isn't that keen on modern tech, he HATED the infotainment system. Touchscreens are useless for his big fingers, and he didn't know how to use the damn thing. He resorts to street directories because he can't be bothered figuring out how to use GPS, and it's not always trustworthy anyway. What's wrong with knobs, dials and street directories people???? Touchscreens in cars are too complicated, so they are not needed.

 

[Montanan46]

Just gonna crash this argue-train with my opinion...

I don't need a touchscreen. I like my buttons and dials and toggle switches. I like having feedback so I know I've actually done something.

But the technology has advanced far enough that I wouldn't mind a touchscreen at all. I've played with the Ford and Chrysler/Maserati screens and they are very, very nice systems. I enjoyed using them and with enough time I would know where each button is and it would be a non-distraction. And now with haptic feedback, the feeling of doing isn't an issue. The amount of technology involved in modern cars necessitates a touchscreen of some kind.

Early 00's touchscreens = bad
Today's touchscreens = awesome

I also prefer buttons and switches. Many do like touch screens, but I don't and don't like being expected to pay for this technology in new cars. Give me a choice on the matter. I have seen a few base model cars available without them, but I don't want a stripped down model. I guess I'll be saving thousands of dollars by NOT buying a new car and being expected to pay for unwanted features.

 

[Danoff]

What's wrong with knobs, dials and street directories people???? Touchscreens in cars are too complicated, so they are not needed.

Spoken like someone who has not used a good one.

 

[Joel]

It's bizzare to me that a line in the sand is so often drawn about how much tech in cars is "enough" when the car itself is a technological replacement for horses and horse drawn carriages and was derided for being one. I don't know how you can throw your hands up at touch screens and say enough. The first in car radios were incredibly expensive and thought of as distracting an unnecessary, but now people want to go back to the "simplicity" of an electronically controlled AM/FM radio with a CD player and multiple station preset options, which relative to the radios in cars in the 30's, isn't simple at all.

 

[Danoff]

It's bizzare to me that a line in the sand is so often drawn about how much tech in cars is "enough" when the car itself is a technological replacement for horses and horse drawn carriages and was derided for being one. I don't know how you can throw your hands up at touch screens and say enough. The first in car radios were incredibly expensive and thought of as distracting an unnecessary, but now people want to go back to the "simplicity" of an electronically controlled AM/FM radio with a CD player and multiple station preset options, which relative to the radios in cars in the 30's, isn't simple at all.

Reminds me of the Last Samurai. That movie was all about an arbitrary line in the sand. Sword technology for killing people? Wholesome and good. Gun technology for killing people? Unnatural and wrong.

 

[Exorcet]

When I went to Queensland with my family a few years back, a Holden Commodore was hired so we could get from place to place, and because my dad isn't that keen on modern tech, he HATED the infotainment system. Touchscreens are useless for his big fingers, and he didn't know how to use the damn thing. He resorts to street directories because he can't be bothered figuring out how to use GPS, and it's not always trustworthy anyway. What's wrong with knobs, dials and street directories people???? Touchscreens in cars are too complicated, so they are not needed.

Can you not think of a single example of something that a screen gives you that buttons can't? Like a map?

Your dad might not have been able to use a GPS, but that's his loss (or maybe a really bad GPS). It doesn't make the concept of GPS anything short of brilliant for cars. I'm somewhat weary of touchscreens, but only because I hate it when something is done wrong and touchscreens seem like something that could easily fall prey to that. Conceptually, the downsides are basically non existent.

Apparently they're good enough for when you're getting shot at, which is one of those times you don't want to be distracted by complicated stuff

 

[McLaren]

What touchscreen is too complicated to use besides the first gen. iDrive? They're all stupidly straight-forward. What you press is what you get. It's only with the Germans that you may have to do a bit of menu-digging, but even then, they're pretty straight forward compared to when they originally came out.

 

[Imari]

When I went to Queensland with my family a few years back, a Holden Commodore was hired so we could get from place to place, and because my dad isn't that keen on modern tech, he HATED the infotainment system. Touchscreens are useless for his big fingers, and he didn't know how to use the damn thing. He resorts to street directories because he can't be bothered figuring out how to use GPS, and it's not always trustworthy anyway. What's wrong with knobs, dials and street directories people???? Touchscreens in cars are too complicated, so they are not needed.

Why even bother with cars? They're so complicated to drive, and they're always breaking down. They cost a fortune, and if you stop paying attention for a second you can be into the nearest piece of scenery.

What's wrong with horses? Cars are not needed.

 

[Wolfe]

This anti-luddite argument is so tired. Sometimes technology complicates existing solutions to problems/tasks, or renders them unsolvable. That's a tradeoff, not unequivocal progress. To some people, and in some contexts, the tradeoff is worth it. In other contexts, and to other individuals, it's not worth it. Say you live off the land, many miles from civilization, roads, petrol stations, and all that: it's likely that a horse is more practical than a car. It has nothing to do with ludditism because you could easily have a state-of-the-art cabin with modern materials and construction, solar power, satellite internet, etc. at the same time.

God forbid that people have different preferences or needs. GPS is useful; not everyone needs it for the driving they do. Touchscreens eliminate dashboard clutter; not everyone thinks buttons/knobs are a problem. You can rely upon a car in your daily life without being logically obligated to accept every new advancement developed for it.

Of course, fighting the tide when it comes to what the market wants is a separate matter.

 

[Imari]

This anti-luddite argument is so tired. Sometimes technology complicates existing solutions to problems/tasks, or renders them unsolvable. That's a tradeoff, not unequivocal progress. To some people, and in some contexts, the tradeoff is worth it. In other contexts, and to other individuals, it's not worth it. Say you live off the land, many miles from civilization, roads, petrol stations, and all that: it's likely that a horse is more practical than a car. It has nothing to do with ludditism because you could easily have a state-of-the-art cabin with modern materials and construction, solar power, satellite internet, etc. at the same time.

God forbid that people have different preferences or needs. GPS is useful; not everyone needs it for the driving they do. Touchscreens eliminate dashboard clutter; not everyone thinks buttons/knobs are a problem. You can rely upon a car in your daily life without being logically obligated to accept every new advancement developed for it.

Of course, fighting the tide when it comes to what the market wants is a separate matter.

I agree. New technology is not necessarily better just because it's new.

When people come in with the argument that something is worse simply because "what we used to have worked fine", I retain the right to beat them with the anti-luddite stick.

There's a time and a place for a GPS, and there's a time and a place for a street directory. And neither should be judged based on crappy versions of either, it's pointless putting an awful street directory up against the world's best GPS, or vice versa.

There's a good argument to be made that a good paper map is superior to an awful GPS unit, but I doubt you'll find much argument from even the most vociferous GPS supporter there.

In a car, a really good voice and touch controlled GPS is almost always better than a street directory. Unless you're technologically impaired you'll find what you want faster, you get turn by turn instructions, recommendations of multiple routes and notification of slow traffic or jams, and you always know exactly where you are without having to figure out if you're on Salton St north or south of the river. It's never going to run out of power as long as the car works, and if the car doesn't work then you likely don't care if the GPS works either because you're not going anywhere.

I'd pack a paper map if I was going hiking, because I don't want to be stuck in the middle of the wilderness with a dead battery in a chunk of plastic. Power concerns aside, a well-sorted GPS unit is superior for any sort of vehicle based navigation I can think of.

If the argument devolves to "I can't use it", then there's something awful about the control design (hi, Model T!) which should probably be remedied. Proving that it's impossible to make a good control design for something is a pretty big step, and the fact that good ones exist for GPS and navigation units makes proving that pretty tough.

 

[Wolfe]

By itself, GPS/navigation is pretty harmless because you can still bring and use a paper map any time you want. It doesn't usurp anything, it just has its own weaknesses like you mentioned.

However, citing built-in GPS/nav as one of the benefits of a touchscreen-driven system is different. If you don't already want or use GPS/nav, it doesn't justify trading buttons/knobs for a touchscreen. That's a case where "what we used to have worked fine"...but again, others have different preferences/needs. I don't agree with CLowndes888's implication that everyone should be happy with just buttons and knobs.

 

[Joel]

God forbid that people have different preferences or needs. GPS is useful; not everyone needs it for the driving they do. Touchscreens eliminate dashboard clutter; not everyone thinks buttons/knobs are a problem. You can rely upon a car in your daily life without being logically obligated to accept every new advancement developed for it.

See, for me the difference is that your gripes are "I don't like or need them", while my post was about people saying they're useless, unnecessary, overly complex, or something along those lines. It's the same as in the manual transmission discussions, there's people like you that say "I prefer and buy them because I like them", and then there's the crowd that says you need to drive a MANual to be a MAN and turns it into this bizarre spiritual thing.

The issue for me is when people get philosophical about touchscreens or automatic transmissions or hybrids as unnecessary from an almost moral standpoint and suggest we throw the idea out entirely. For whatever reason people draw a line in the sand as enough technology for cars as a philosophical thing which is just strange to me when the things we take for granted in our cars (and cars themselves) were once cutting edge technology and derided for their shortcomings.

@CLowndes888 's dad likely rented a turnkey ignition car with variable valve timing controlled by an ECU, power windows and seats, air conditioning, an electronic AM/FM radio with auxiliary connections and programmable radio settings, ABS, TCS, ESC, cruise control, with everything that went into it precisely engineered on computers, but somehow a touchscreen crosses the line.

There are legitimate gripes with touchscreens. A lot of them are awful, unresponsive, and horribly outdated which is particularly frustrating when the ones in modern phones are all very responsive. Replacing physical buttons with touch screen "buttons" doesn't work well. If you don't care for GPS in your car it's overkill to have a touchscreen as your primary controls. They're inherently more expensive than a standard radio, and without supplementary physical/voice controls they're harder to use as a radio. If I bought a new car I'd probably skip the touch screen myself depending on how much extra it would cost me. I get all that, and I understand why people don't want them.

What I don't get is throwing our hands up and saying they suck forever and we don't need them. The ones I've used regularly (2011 VW Touareg/Golf) are very good and intuitive, physical dials for radio and volume, along with steering wheel controls for everything else. People come into this thread and say they've used the screens on a Holden Commodore or Hyundai Accent and disliked them, so therefore touchscreen displays suck. It's a gripe with the specific model, not an indictment of the tech itself.

 

[Wolfe]

I'm just not a fan of this familiar argument; mocking others for declining new technology while accepting other technology that was at one time new. That's kind of irrelevant. I believe there are apexes where convenience and utility/function are in balance. Something can be inconvenient and outdated with no real advantages to make up for it, or slick and modern with drawbacks that outweigh the convenience it's intended to provide.

When the manufacturers make something new a compromise (even if it doesn't necessarily occur to someone else that it might be a compromise), it's fair to prefer sticking to what already works. A touchscreen that replaces all physical buttons/dials is a compromise.

If the touchscreen is only necessary for GPS/nav and the computerized settings/preferences you get on cars these days, that's less of a compromise.

 

[Danoff]

A touchscreen that replaces all physical buttons/dials is a compromise.

You act like this is a law of nature.

 

[Wolfe]

You're giving up one thing for something different. It's just that it was worth it to you (and others).

 

[Danoff]

You're giving up one thing for something different. It's just that it was worth it to you (and others).

That doesn't make it a compromise. It's only a compromise if the thing you're getting is inferior in some way to the thing you gave up.

 

[Wolfe]

Some would say the touchscreen is inferior. I didn't mean it was a compromise for everyone.

When the manufacturers make something new a compromise (even if it doesn't necessarily occur to someone else that it might be a compromise)...

But I admit it wasn't the best word choice. "Trade" or "tradeoff" as I said before, then.

 

[ScottPuss20]

Sorry if my opinion is wrong

Why even bother with cars? They're so complicated to drive, and they're always breaking down. They cost a fortune, and if you stop paying attention for a second you can be into the nearest piece of scenery.

What's wrong with horses? Cars are not needed.

There's nothing wrong with horses. Is getting into a seat, closing a door, turning a key and putting your foot down complicated?

Anyway, why so serious?