undefined | Better HN

0 pointshrktb7y ago0 comments

> As a User Experience Professional, I was never able to grasp the true user's need for touch screens in cars.

For me there is two different scenarii for controlling the car:

- while driving quick adjustments: volume up/volume down, temperature control, play/stop/skip music, start/stop navigation.

All of those should be via easy to understand, direct access physical controls.

- while parked (or by a passanger): navigation setting, app switching, playlist adjustments, peripherals setup, air control strategies, anything finicky really.

I see a case for these operations to be done by a touchscreen with no physical equivalent. Physical controls for those are juste hell most of the time.

In that sense, I feel Mazda is just throwing the towel when a more sensible and best of both world approach could be taken.

0 comments

1 comments · 1 top-level

neogodless7y ago

In the 2015 Mazda I drive, they allow touch under 5 mph (I think?) But I installed Android Auto using third-party/open source software (and touch is always-on.)

By default on your phone, plugged into the car, you have to swipe/unlock Android Auto, but if you're parked, you can do that, and access your apps, including Google Maps. You can set your destination, and it immediately opens on the car screen. I'm completely fine with this model of interface - when parked, use your phone.

However, having said all that, if you still want to use a wheel, it's important they hit the right UI. In a BMW I rented, the way it only showed relevant letters while searching for an address (using the wheel) was pretty good and I was able to type in an address surprisingly quickly, even on my first time of using the software. Probably still not quite as quick as using a touch screen, but close enough.

I suspect that when you allow touchscreen as your fallback, it's harder to be "really good" about making a good wheel + button UI. It's too easy to lean on your crutch.