scottf200
Well-known member
LHD EU cars being made/tested?
OTOH, someone who has extensive experience of flying (driving in this case), in a wide variety of a/c (cars), who is also familiar with the peer-reviewed research into relative safety and issues, and who has also been interested in and followed the tech for most of their life and comes to that conclusion, is of far more value than someone who's just read a newspaper article or seen the typical short TV report that leaves out all the details and is designed purely to gain readers/viewers by employing the maximum possible hype.Oils4AsphaultOnly said:lpickup said:SageBrush said:Feedback from a non-owner ?
TACC "concerns" from someone who has never used TACC ?
Yeah, why not? I was scared to death of TACC myself until I was able to actually use it for several weeks and let it earn my trust (I had constantly been "chickening out" and hitting the brakes). Even now there are certain situations where I am at highway speed and see traffic stopped ahead and wonder if TACC "sees" this or not.
Guy said he had concerns about the safety of TACC. This is his opinion, and I consider it valid. He didn't say Tesla's implementation of TACC sucks and the competition is perfect. So it is a good time to point out (at least I think this is the case) is that if he doesn't trust TACC, he's probably not going to trust EAP, and therefore he shouldn't buy the EAP option, and therefore he is only going to get regular cruise control. And then his right scroll wheel would be completely functionless and he could use it to adjust regen without any fear of inadvertently causing the car to ram into another or brake unexpectedly. Problem solved.
I'm sorry, but hearing from someone about how they would never consider flying, because the've read how dangerous flying could be, isn't a good opinion to reference in the 1950's. Tech changes, and thus uninformed opinion is hearsay.
GRA said:OTOH, someone who has extensive experience of flying (driving in this case), in a wide variety of a/c (cars), who is also familiar with the peer-reviewed research into relative safety and issues, and who has also been interested in and followed the tech for most of their life and comes to that conclusion, is of far more value than someone who's just read a newspaper article or seen the typical short TV report that leaves out all the details and is designed purely to gain readers/viewers by employing the maximum possible hype.Oils4AsphaultOnly said:lpickup said:Yeah, why not? I was scared to death of TACC myself until I was able to actually use it for several weeks and let it earn my trust (I had constantly been "chickening out" and hitting the brakes). Even now there are certain situations where I am at highway speed and see traffic stopped ahead and wonder if TACC "sees" this or not.
Guy said he had concerns about the safety of TACC. This is his opinion, and I consider it valid. He didn't say Tesla's implementation of TACC sucks and the competition is perfect. So it is a good time to point out (at least I think this is the case) is that if he doesn't trust TACC, he's probably not going to trust EAP, and therefore he shouldn't buy the EAP option, and therefore he is only going to get regular cruise control. And then his right scroll wheel would be completely functionless and he could use it to adjust regen without any fear of inadvertently causing the car to ram into another or brake unexpectedly. Problem solved.
I'm sorry, but hearing from someone about how they would never consider flying, because the've read how dangerous flying could be, isn't a good opinion to reference in the 1950's. Tech changes, and thus uninformed opinion is hearsay.
Studies of automation complacency are obliquely relevant when what we're talking about is automation complacency? Just as TACC's issues aren't limited to Tesla, just because Tesla is doing it doesn't mean that they are somehow magically exempt from human behavior.Oils4AsphaultOnly said:GRA said:OTOH, someone who has extensive experience of flying (driving in this case), in a wide variety of a/c (cars), who is also familiar with the peer-reviewed research into relative safety and issues, and who has also been interested in and followed the tech for most of their life and comes to that conclusion, is of far more value than someone who's just read a newspaper article or seen the typical short TV report that leaves out all the details and is designed purely to gain readers/viewers by employing the maximum possible hype.Oils4AsphaultOnly said:I'm sorry, but hearing from someone about how they would never consider flying, because the've read how dangerous flying could be, isn't a good opinion to reference in the 1950's. Tech changes, and thus uninformed opinion is hearsay.
Your peer-reviewed references are obliquely relevant at best. Drawing opinions from those inapplicable studies is what devalues your opinion.
GRA said:Studies of automation complacency are obliquely relevant when what we're talking about is automation complacency? Just as TACC's issues aren't limited to Tesla, just because Tesla is doing it doesn't mean that they are somehow magically exempt from human behavior.Oils4AsphaultOnly said:GRA said:OTOH, someone who has extensive experience of flying (driving in this case), in a wide variety of a/c (cars), who is also familiar with the peer-reviewed research into relative safety and issues, and who has also been interested in and followed the tech for most of their life and comes to that conclusion, is of far more value than someone who's just read a newspaper article or seen the typical short TV report that leaves out all the details and is designed purely to gain readers/viewers by employing the maximum possible hype.
Your peer-reviewed references are obliquely relevant at best. Drawing opinions from those inapplicable studies is what devalues your opinion.
So your claim is that Tesla drivers are exempt from the results of studies of human behavior? Man, I guess driving a Tesla really is magic. OTOH:Oils4AsphaultOnly said:GRA said:Studies of automation complacency are obliquely relevant when what we're talking about is automation complacency? Just as TACC's issues aren't limited to Tesla, just because Tesla is doing it doesn't mean that they are somehow magically exempt from human behavior.Oils4AsphaultOnly said:Your peer-reviewed references are obliquely relevant at best. Drawing opinions from those inapplicable studies is what devalues your opinion.
No. Regardless of how you word your claim, those studies did not apply.
https://insideevs.com/tesla-model-s-infotainment-screen-among-distracting/Tesla Model S Infotainment Screen Among Most Distracting Of 30 New Vehicles Tested
Some systems distracted drivers for over 40 seconds.
AAA put 130 people behind the wheel of 30 new vehicles to test automaker’s infotainment systems, and the results pointed to the need for major changes in the levels of driver distraction. The agency rated 12 of the models as having a “Very High” demand on a person’s attention, and none of the tech received a “Low” grade of distraction.
AAA worked with researchers from the University of Utah to conduct the study. They used cameras and mental exercises to measure a person’s level of distraction both in terms of not watching the road and paying a lack of attention to it. The testing included having drivers use voice commands and do specific tasks through the infotainment system, like tuning the radio or making a call.
The study defined a Low level of distraction as the amount from listening to music. Very High was equal to balancing a checkbook.
According to the research, the most distracting infotainment systems can take a driver’s attention away from the road for more than 40 seconds during tasks like programming the a navigation destination. In addition, as people become more frustrated with the tech’s operation, their level of distraction increases. . . .
The rating for each of the evaluated models is below:
Low: N/A
Moderate: Chevrolet Equinox LT, Ford F-250 XLT, Hyundai Santa Fe Sport, Lincoln MKC Premiere, Toyota Camry SE, Toyota Corolla SE, Toyota Sienna XLE
High: Cadillac XT5 Luxury, Chevrolet Traverse LT, Ram 1500, Ford Fusion Titanium, Hyundai Sonata Base, Infiniti Q50 Premium, Jeep Compass Sport, Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited, Kia Sorento LX, Nissan Maxima SV, Toyota Rav4 XLE
Very High: Audi Q7 QPP, Chrysler 300 C, Dodge Durango GT, Ford Mustang GT, GMC Yukon SLT, Honda Civic Touring, Honda Ridgeline RTL-E, Mazda3 Touring, Nissan Armada SV, Subaru Crosstrek Premium, Tesla Model S, Volvo XC60 T5 Inscription
http://publicaffairsresources.aaa.biz/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/CDST_Final_Report.pdfVisual and
Cognitive Demands
of Using In-Vehicle
Infotainment Systems
https://www.gearbrain.com/car-touchscreens-are-driver-distractions-2579671418.htmlResearch finds car touchscreens are distracting whether drivers use them or not
Experiment also finds voice controls take attention away from the road
Yeah, you're right, these peer-reviewed studies, which essentially just confirm decades of research on similar systems in aviation, aren't relevant at all. :roll:Research into the dangers of using a car's touchscreen interface while driving has found that the computer display remains distracting, even when it isn't being used - and voice controls are no better.
The experiment, which involved 21 participants operating a driving simulator with a smartphone at their side to mimic the touchscreen dashboard of many modern cars, also found that, even though it made them more distracted, drivers felt more comfortable when the display was switched on.
The research was carried out by Jacky Li, a product designer at Connected Lab, a Toronto-based software company focused on user interface, AI and machine learning. Li conducted the experiment after noticing how distracted an Uber driver was by the large touchscreen of his Tesla Model X.
In a blog post, Li writes: "While I was excited to learn more about the car, it slowly become apparent to me that the driver's eyes were more glued to the screen than the road. . . ."
First, Li discovered what anyone who has driven a Tesla or used a similar infotainment system will already know - that they can be a major distraction. "It should come as no surprise that interacting with a touchscreen requires more hand-eye coordination than traditional buttons and dials. The lack of tactility of a touchscreen means we are more likely to need our eyes to see where we are pressing than with traditional buttons and dials."
However, what came as "a shock" to Li and his colleagues was that "even when our participants weren't performing tasks associated with the touchscreen, their eyes were still drawn away from the road and towards the screen."
Li continues: "They would routinely glance over to see if there was anything new to look at. This revelation was all the more surprising because screens have been in cars from as far back as 1986". . . .
What about voice control?
Li suggests a solution could be voice control, and in recent years numerous manufacturers have worked on bringing Siri, Google Assistant and Amazon Alexa to the car, in a bid to keep our eyes on the road and hands on the wheel.
But Li found even this is distracting. "Despite all our optimism, when it came down to actually validating our hunch, voice wasn't the hero we were looking for. For starters, it was never our participants' first choice: using voice to control temperature or find something to play felt laborious, and even when we reminded them that voice was an option, they still chose to use the centre console by hand."
The researchers discovered that, while voice systems like Alexa are useful when the TV remote is out of reach, or you can't be bothered getting up to switch a light on, in the car - where everything is within arm's reach - thinking about what to say takes up too much of our attention.
"It turns out that, as with touchscreens, using voice puts a lot of cognitive stress on the user," Li said. "From thinking of what to ask for, to how to word it, to actually asking for it, the participant finds it much quicker and easier to just reach over and press a couple of buttons."
While it is easy to see how the car infotainment system has matured in a similar way to the mobile phone, graduating from only buttons, to a combinations of buttons and a display, then a touchscreen, the two should not be treated the same way. Li concludes: "Designing for the automotive use case can't be approached with the same lens as designing for smartphone use cases.
"For each task a driver has to perform, we need to [be] especially mindful of which input method most minimizes cognitive load. In my eyes, vehicles that primarily use a touchscreen are no different from driving a vehicle with low safety ratings...aesthetics should never trump usability, especially for products that could put people's lives in danger."
GRA said:So your claim is that Tesla drivers are exempt from the results of studies of human behavior? Man, I guess driving a Tesla really is magic. OTOH:Oils4AsphaultOnly said:GRA said:Studies of automation complacency are obliquely relevant when what we're talking about is automation complacency? Just as TACC's issues aren't limited to Tesla, just because Tesla is doing it doesn't mean that they are somehow magically exempt from human behavior.
No. Regardless of how you word your claim, those studies did not apply.https://insideevs.com/tesla-model-s-infotainment-screen-among-distracting/Tesla Model S Infotainment Screen Among Most Distracting Of 30 New Vehicles Tested
Some systems distracted drivers for over 40 seconds.
AAA put 130 people behind the wheel of 30 new vehicles to test automaker’s infotainment systems, and the results pointed to the need for major changes in the levels of driver distraction. The agency rated 12 of the models as having a “Very High” demand on a person’s attention, and none of the tech received a “Low” grade of distraction.
AAA worked with researchers from the University of Utah to conduct the study. They used cameras and mental exercises to measure a person’s level of distraction both in terms of not watching the road and paying a lack of attention to it. The testing included having drivers use voice commands and do specific tasks through the infotainment system, like tuning the radio or making a call.
The study defined a Low level of distraction as the amount from listening to music. Very High was equal to balancing a checkbook.
According to the research, the most distracting infotainment systems can take a driver’s attention away from the road for more than 40 seconds during tasks like programming the a navigation destination. In addition, as people become more frustrated with the tech’s operation, their level of distraction increases. . . .
The rating for each of the evaluated models is below:
Low: N/A
Moderate: Chevrolet Equinox LT, Ford F-250 XLT, Hyundai Santa Fe Sport, Lincoln MKC Premiere, Toyota Camry SE, Toyota Corolla SE, Toyota Sienna XLE
High: Cadillac XT5 Luxury, Chevrolet Traverse LT, Ram 1500, Ford Fusion Titanium, Hyundai Sonata Base, Infiniti Q50 Premium, Jeep Compass Sport, Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited, Kia Sorento LX, Nissan Maxima SV, Toyota Rav4 XLE
Very High: Audi Q7 QPP, Chrysler 300 C, Dodge Durango GT, Ford Mustang GT, GMC Yukon SLT, Honda Civic Touring, Honda Ridgeline RTL-E, Mazda3 Touring, Nissan Armada SV, Subaru Crosstrek Premium, Tesla Model S, Volvo XC60 T5 Inscription
Direct link to AAA study as above:http://publicaffairsresources.aaa.biz/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/CDST_Final_Report.pdfVisual and
Cognitive Demands
of Using In-Vehicle
Infotainment Systems
As the Model 3 lacks the S' stalk and initially put virtually everything on the touchscreen, it would have been even worse. Moving the C/C controls to the right thumb wheel was a much needed improvement. Still,https://www.gearbrain.com/car-touchscreens-are-driver-distractions-2579671418.htmlResearch finds car touchscreens are distracting whether drivers use them or not
Experiment also finds voice controls take attention away from the road
Yeah, you're right, these peer-reviewed studies, which essentially just confirm decades of research on similar systems in aviation, aren't relevant at all. :roll:Research into the dangers of using a car's touchscreen interface while driving has found that the computer display remains distracting, even when it isn't being used - and voice controls are no better.
The experiment, which involved 21 participants operating a driving simulator with a smartphone at their side to mimic the touchscreen dashboard of many modern cars, also found that, even though it made them more distracted, drivers felt more comfortable when the display was switched on.
The research was carried out by Jacky Li, a product designer at Connected Lab, a Toronto-based software company focused on user interface, AI and machine learning. Li conducted the experiment after noticing how distracted an Uber driver was by the large touchscreen of his Tesla Model X.
In a blog post, Li writes: "While I was excited to learn more about the car, it slowly become apparent to me that the driver's eyes were more glued to the screen than the road. . . ."
First, Li discovered what anyone who has driven a Tesla or used a similar infotainment system will already know - that they can be a major distraction. "It should come as no surprise that interacting with a touchscreen requires more hand-eye coordination than traditional buttons and dials. The lack of tactility of a touchscreen means we are more likely to need our eyes to see where we are pressing than with traditional buttons and dials."
However, what came as "a shock" to Li and his colleagues was that "even when our participants weren't performing tasks associated with the touchscreen, their eyes were still drawn away from the road and towards the screen."
Li continues: "They would routinely glance over to see if there was anything new to look at. This revelation was all the more surprising because screens have been in cars from as far back as 1986". . . .
What about voice control?
Li suggests a solution could be voice control, and in recent years numerous manufacturers have worked on bringing Siri, Google Assistant and Amazon Alexa to the car, in a bid to keep our eyes on the road and hands on the wheel.
But Li found even this is distracting. "Despite all our optimism, when it came down to actually validating our hunch, voice wasn't the hero we were looking for. For starters, it was never our participants' first choice: using voice to control temperature or find something to play felt laborious, and even when we reminded them that voice was an option, they still chose to use the centre console by hand."
The researchers discovered that, while voice systems like Alexa are useful when the TV remote is out of reach, or you can't be bothered getting up to switch a light on, in the car - where everything is within arm's reach - thinking about what to say takes up too much of our attention.
"It turns out that, as with touchscreens, using voice puts a lot of cognitive stress on the user," Li said. "From thinking of what to ask for, to how to word it, to actually asking for it, the participant finds it much quicker and easier to just reach over and press a couple of buttons."
While it is easy to see how the car infotainment system has matured in a similar way to the mobile phone, graduating from only buttons, to a combinations of buttons and a display, then a touchscreen, the two should not be treated the same way. Li concludes: "Designing for the automotive use case can't be approached with the same lens as designing for smartphone use cases.
"For each task a driver has to perform, we need to [be] especially mindful of which input method most minimizes cognitive load. In my eyes, vehicles that primarily use a touchscreen are no different from driving a vehicle with low safety ratings...aesthetics should never trump usability, especially for products that could put people's lives in danger."
lpickup said:It appears to me that you can go too far the other way: a Tesla owner that refuses to accept that there may in fact be a better way to accomplish something.
A recent example: I posted a query to a (different) forum about the "workflow" used for long distance trips. Basically my query was whether there was any way for the nav system to display "optional" Superchargers along route, with estimated ETA and SOC at each one, even if stopping at said Superchargers was not required per the trip plan. The reason being that even though the car may not need to stop, I may have passengers that need to and this information would quickly show me very relevant information and help me decide whether to stop at an alternate supercharger (and adjust navigation to guide me there with a single click), or just stop at a rest area or fast food joint.
The response I got was that I should have done my research before the trip and become familiar with all superchargers en route and know enough about them that I should click the charger icon on the map, scroll to the supercharger on the map, click it to get status and tentatively navigate to it so I could see what my SOC will be when I get there, what the ETA is, etc. And besides, showing "optional" information on the turn-by-turn list is going to be confusing, take up too much space, etc.
Never mind the fact that it could be an optional setting, and being a graphical UI could display the information in a non-obtrusive and differentiated fashion and even be switchable on the fly. But the attitude I received seemed to be saying: "No, it's perfect the way it is. You have no right to complain. No update required." Seems silly to me (and I'm sure most others) to have OTA software ability if that's the attitude. I would hope that people aren't so enamored with Tesla that they refuse to accept any feedback at all.
Then stop. The Nav will adjustlpickup said:I posted a query to a (different) forum about the "workflow" used for long distance trips. Basically my query was whether there was any way for the nav system to display "optional" Superchargers along route, with estimated ETA and SOC at each one, even if stopping at said Superchargers was not required per the trip plan. The reason being that even though the car may not need to stop, I may have passengers that need to
Oils4AsphaultOnly said:As for your question, yes, you can see the list of nearby superchargers by pressing the lightning-bolt icon on the map (even while in a trip navigation). You can get charge estimates by navigating to it. Once done "browsing", you can use the map-search to select the original destination that you were navigating to. All of this requires an LTE connection though, so a little pre-planning on long road trips is prudent until v9 is released (rumored to have pre-downloaded maps and waypoints).
SageBrush said:Then stop. The Nav will adjustlpickup said:I posted a query to a (different) forum about the "workflow" used for long distance trips. Basically my query was whether there was any way for the nav system to display "optional" Superchargers along route, with estimated ETA and SOC at each one, even if stopping at said Superchargers was not required per the trip plan. The reason being that even though the car may not need to stop, I may have passengers that need to
lpickup said:SageBrush said:Then stop. The Nav will adjustlpickup said:I posted a query to a (different) forum about the "workflow" used for long distance trips. Basically my query was whether there was any way for the nav system to display "optional" Superchargers along route, with estimated ETA and SOC at each one, even if stopping at said Superchargers was not required per the trip plan. The reason being that even though the car may not need to stop, I may have passengers that need to
Of course it will. But If I see that a SC is 30 minutes away and the passenger in question can "hold it", I'll defer stopping until then. If it's 45 minutes away (too far), or if it's only 10 minutes away but my SOC is only going to be at 70% by that point and thus not worth skipping an easy off/easy on rest area to get a relatively slow charge, then I may just want to use the rest area instead.
At this point I just don't know why I even bother brainstorming different (and I think better) ways to do things.
You don't see any link between automation bias/complacency and the willingness to be distracted? I refuse to make or receive a phone call while I'm driving, and have it turned off in the car (easier for me to disconnect than for many others; I lived for 9 years without a home phone when growing up), because I know that it requires me to divert a greater amount of cognitive cycles away from driving than I'm comfortable with, but others certainly are so willing (and I have to avoid being run over by them while walking/biking on a bi-monthly basis).Oils4AsphaultOnly said:Absolutely. All your links boil down to the AAA study and an article by Connected Brain. Both of which was about driver distractions and NOT about automation complacency.GRA said:Yeah, you're right, these peer-reviewed studies, which essentially just confirm decades of research on similar systems in aviation, aren't relevant at all. :roll:
And I won't bother providing any more research to you, as you've obviously entered "My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts" reasoning; Tesla is the Holy Grail, and if they say something it must be true, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. That you and others are comfortable with Auto Climate Control is terrific, but as I've pointed out others aren't. To quote Clement Attlee, "we would all be very unhappy living in other's paradises." Nor does either of these groups' personal preferences invalidate scientifically conducted research as to distraction and automation bias/complacency.Oils4AsphaultOnly said:I'm not sure how the AAA study was done, but I'm guessing that one flaw has to do with drivers not being acclimated with their cars. Once a comfortable climate setting is found, I've NEVER had to change it regardless of the weather. Yes the ACC is always set to auto, but when you realize how much more electricity is spent just moving the vehicle, it becomes pointless to worry about how much is used to maintain a comfortable temperature in the car. That changes the entire use cases of the vehicle. So what seems to be more distracting, isn't the case, because the usage profile is weighted incorrectly. The common actions are handled by the scroll wheels and voice commands, while the less common actions are set once and never fiddled with again. Anyway, I won't explain further, as you'll never be convinced to "try it before you knock it".
You are talking about a self-selected sample, 'people who like that sort of thing say that's the sort of thing they like'. A more valuable metric is what % of potential buyers as a whole will simply reject the car outright because they simply don't want to put up with ACC or touchscreen controls, or spend the time to learn how to use it. As for small screens and terrible UI, sure, they're bad; I'd reject them out of hand, because physical buttons controlling single-purpose functions are far superior as far as ease of use and safety; bigger screens and better UI make touchscreens easier to use, but never as easy/safe to use as physical controls, nor, due to cognitive loading, is voice a better option.EVDRIVER said:What Tesla drivers as a percentage or number that know how to use the system are not comfortable with auto climate? I know at least 30 owners and none of them have an issue. Since that's my sample please provide yours. Don't confuse reaching for a touch screen as a substitute for buttons. I rarely need to touch my screen for driving. In fact I don't need to take my eyes of the road and can use steering and voice controls for almost all driving needs. I would say ICE cars with small screens and terrible UI are worse. The LEAF is terrible compared to a Tesla. The majority of complaints come from people that seem to fiddle with things endlessly because the systems are poor in some regard. I bitched and complained about the Tesla climate control until I unlearned my bad habits.
GRA said:You don't see any link between automation complacency and the willingness to be distracted? I refuse to make or receive a phone call while I'm driving, because I know that it requires me to divert a greater amount of cognitive cycles away from driving than I'm comfortable with, but others certainly are so willing (and I have to avoid being run over by them while walking/biking on a bi-monthly basis)? You have said that there's no relevance between aviation studies of such systems and behaviors and similar studies in cars. I've just provided you with examples showing there is in fact exactly similar behavior in the case of touchscreens. There is also the same evidence regarding automation bias/complacency in both aircraft, land systems and cars - I've provided numerous links in both this and the "Tesla's autopilot, on the road" and "Automated vehicles, LEAF and others" threads, or anyone could just search for themselves. But if, as you claim, there's no evidence of automation bias/complacency in Teslas or any other so-called semi-automated cars, despite all the evidence (video and accident reconstruction) showing otherwise, and touchscreens and voice controls aren't far more of a distraction than single-purpose buttons and switch within easy reach when the operator has to keep their attention elsewhere for safety, then you should have no problem whatsoever finding peer-reviewed research that shows that, to counter all the research that says just the opposite. I await your cites.Oils4AsphaultOnly said:Absolutely. All your links boil down to the AAA study and an article by Connected Brain. Both of which was about driver distractions and NOT about automation complacency.GRA said:Yeah, you're right, these peer-reviewed studies, which essentially just confirm decades of research on similar systems in aviation, aren't relevant at all. :roll:
And I won't bother providing any more research to you, as you've obviously entered "My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts" reasoning; Tesla is the Holy Grail, and if they say something it must be true, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. That you and others are comfortable with Auto Climate Control is terrific, but as I've pointed out others aren't. To quote Clement Attlee, "we would all be very unhappy living in other's paradises." Nor does either of these groups personal opinions invalidate scientifically conducted research as to distraction and automation bias/complacency.Oils4AsphaultOnly said:I'm not sure how the AAA study was done, but I'm guessing that one flaw has to do with drivers not being acclimated with their cars. Once a comfortable climate setting is found, I've NEVER had to change it regardless of the weather. Yes the ACC is always set to auto, but when you realize how much more electricity is spent just moving the vehicle, it becomes pointless to worry about how much is used to maintain a comfortable temperature in the car. That changes the entire use cases of the vehicle. So what seems to be more distracting, isn't the case, because the usage profile is weighted incorrectly. The common actions are handled by the scroll wheels and voice commands, while the less common actions are set once and never fiddled with again. Anyway, I won't explain further, as you'll never be convinced to "try it before you knock it".
GRA said:You are talking about a self-selected sample, 'people who like that sort of thing say that's the sort of thing they like'. A more valuable metric is what % of potential buyers as a whole will simply reject the car outright because they simply don't want to put up with ACC or touchscreen controls, or spend the time to learn how to use it. As for small screens and terrible UI, sure, they're bad; I'd reject them out of hand, because physical buttons controlling single-purpose functions are far superior as far as ease of use and safety; bigger screens and better UI make touchscreens easier to use, but never as easy/safe to use as physical controls, nor, due to cognitive loading, is voice a better option.EVDRIVER said:What Tesla drivers as a percentage or number that know how to use the system are not comfortable with auto climate? I know at least 30 owners and none of them have an issue. Since that's my sample please provide yours. Don't confuse reaching for a touch screen as a substitute for buttons. I rarely need to touch my screen for driving. In fact I don't need to take my eyes of the road and can use steering and voice controls for almost all driving needs. I would say ICE cars with small screens and terrible UI are worse. The LEAF is terrible compared to a Tesla. The majority of complaints come from people that seem to fiddle with things endlessly because the systems are poor in some regard. I bitched and complained about the Tesla climate control until I unlearned my bad habits.
I have nothing against touchscreens or voice controls per se, I just reject them for use while driving, flying or for any other purpose when my attention must be elsewhere for safety. Until someone can show that performance and safety are improved under those conditions by the use of touchscreens/voice instead of (well-designed) physical controls, I'm simply unwilling to put my or, more importantly from a societal point of view, other people's lives at greater risk by using them. I also reject cars which have poorly-designed or laid-out, frequently-used (while driving) physical controls for the same reason.
Once autonomous cars have achieved acceptable reliability, my objections to (driver-operated) touchscreen and voice controls go away, because devoting most or all of your attention to operating them will no longer decrease safety.
Enter your email address to join: