[mlyle]

There are truly obscure things in cars you don't do often. Changing settings. Programming the radio. Changing a drive mode for specialized off-road use. Getting a report on usage / economy / etc.

If an operation is infrequent and doesn't need to be made when driving, burying it in a touchscreen menu sounds great: conserve those physical control surfaces for stuff that matters so you don't have a ridiculous surplus of buttons. You can go and put the majority of functions on touchscreen menu hell. But don't go and put the climate or windshield wipers or even audio modes on touch surfaces, please. :/

[tablespoon]

> If an operation is infrequent and doesn't need to be made when driving, burying it in a touchscreen menu sounds great: conserve those physical control surfaces for stuff that matters so you don't have a ridiculous surplus of buttons..

That's a bit of a straw man. No one seriously says literally every function needs a button.

And it makes sense to bury seldom-used things in menus. However, there's no reason those menus need to be touchscreen menus.

E.g., in my car, care settings are in a menu, but the screen for it is in the instrument panel and controlled by buttons on the steering wheel. I believe the reason is when it was made they still offered a low-end trim level without a touchscreen entertainment system. This menu is better than a touchscreen, but IMHO it would have been better with done with menu-buttons in the center console screen.

[mlyle]

> That's a bit of a straw man.

It's not a straw man; it's nuanced agreement. It's a shame that people expect argument so much that they can't see where the edges of one opinion are being offered.

> However, there's no reason those menus need to be touchscreen menus.

Might as well be touchscreen menus. Using up and down buttons to pick things in a modal interface isn't clearly superior to a touchscreen for experienced users and worse for new people.

A good button menu system is better than a bad touchscreen, especially with experience. But in a rental car, I appreciate the touchscreens to pair my phone, etc.

[tablespoon]

> It's not a straw man; it's nuanced agreement. It's a shame that people expect argument so much that they can't see where the edges of one opinion are being offered.

I understand that, that's why I said it was "a bit" of one.

> Might as well be touchscreen menus. Using up and down buttons to pick things in a modal interface isn't clearly superior to a touchscreen for experienced users and worse for new people.

IMHO, if you have the space, f-key/button menus (e.g. the hardware shown at https://www.informatique-mania.com/en/tutoriels/quest-ce-que...) are better than touchscreen menus.

[mlyle]

> IMHO, if you have the space, f-key/button menus (e.g. the hardware shown at https://www.informatique-mania.com/en/tutoriels/quest-ce-que...) are better than touchscreen menus.

I like avionics and ATMs where you see these. They're great for experienced users with relatively fixed functionality.

You can't tradeoff UI factors so easily, though. If you usually have 5 options, and found you have 6 somewhere-- you need to break up the section or add a page, etc. And if you add an option the user UI workflow completely changes.

While, with a touchscreen you could accept a smaller target for the least-used option, and adding a new target on a page doesn't change things too much for users (and is arguably more discoverable).

[unbalancedevh]

And speaking of audio, make the volume control a real analog knob that's directly in the output circuit, so when I quickly spin it down it immediately goes down. Not some encoder that's trying to rationalize how far down I really meant to turn it, with an inevitable delay.

[mlyle]

> make the volume control a real analog knob that's directly in the output circuit

I don't miss noisy potentiometers :D

And having a bus with user operations being streamed to it means that designers can choose mappings and behaviors late.

The issue is the delay. I have a lot of amplifiers with knobs that are perceptually instant, even if they really are encoders behind the scene. Stuff is fast enough now that there's no reason for delay. I've built control systems that use encoders that operate at 1000Hz over slower embedded networks than are in modern cars.

[Baeocystin]

And stop having bizarrely chunky steps between volume levels, too. It annoys me regularly that so many of my digital devices have less than a dozen steps between minimum and maximum, leaving me with either too quiet or too loud, and nothing in-between.

[mlyle]

Half a decibel per step is a reasonable chunk; average perceptible change is 1dB but sometimes it's better than that.

Figure maybe 65dB of useful dynamic range in a car + 10dB of range needed based on levels of the recording. That implies you want about 150 steps.

Go ahead and display a number between 1-30 if you want-- that's probably good for usability. I can find "13" and be close to what I typically want. Just, have the actual control surface move 5 steps per number so that I can fine tune.

[withinboredom]

If you’ve ever rented a car in another country, you will find yourself in those menus. Probably while driving. The best cars are when the menus are easy to get to, using buttons on the wheel.

[titzer]

> But don't go and put the climate or windshield wipers or even audio modes on touch surfaces, please. :/

I agree with that, but I don't see any added value of a touchscreen for the other things you mention. It could as well be a deep menu that is still accessed with many button presses to drill down into it.

[mlyle]

> It could as well be a deep menu that is still accessed with many button presses to drill down into it.

I think if I'm not driving, the usability of picking from menus by touch is usually nicer than using buttons to navigate.

If I'm really experienced with the controls, buttons are better than a meh touchscreen.

In a rental car, I appreciate the touchscreen menus.