Diomidis SpinellisJul 9
Ever wondered why car ergonomics have gone down the drain as touch screens replaced buttons to drive down costs? This reader comment on an FT article on the topic says it all.
Show threadPaddy DukeJul 9

@CoolSWEng I’m inclined to believe this is almost certainly not the reason.

For one thing, the odds of having a design team with no drivers in it are just pretty low. I work in tech, and in every design team I’ve ever been in I was the only non-driver. Most of the world is still too car-centric.

For a second thing, lots of good designers very often design for use cases which they themselves don’t share. You don’t have to be a pilot to design an aeroplane cockpit.

Show threadrastilinJul 9

@paddyduke @CoolSWEng

To me it sounds crushingly plausible that a car company could end up with a tech team that has few enough drivers in it that they could be overruled by the others, plus a management team that "leads by spreadsheet" enough to not know enough to overrule the tech team's design.

Show threadPaddy Duke

@rastilin @CoolSWEng Most of the designers I have worked with were not the target users of their designs. And if by chance they were, we took steps to remind everyone that “you are not your user”. It’s neither necessary nor desirable for good design work to have a design team of ‘insiders’.

I don’t believe that the answer to bad ergonomics in modern cars is “hire only designers who are petrol heads”.

Jul 9 at 12:46pmIvory for iOS
Show threadMacCruiskeenJul 9
@paddyduke @rastilin @CoolSWEng I work in publishing and we have a fairly complex inventory management system that we use for every part of our process. Nearly every day I have reason to think, "the people who made this have clearly never tried to work with their own product."
Show threadPaddy DukeJul 9

@maccruiskeen Which is a fair criticism, but good designers should take that kind of thing into account whether they themselves are a publisher or not.

I’ve also used systems created by designers and non-designers that are very poorly optimised for any use case but the one that was most pressing at the time it was made.

There are all sorts of reasons that bad designs come to be though.

Show threadrastilinJul 9

@paddyduke @CoolSWEng @maccruiskeen

Is it really not desirable for the designer to understand their users and product? I feel this entire thread is effectively about the consequences of designers that don't use their own product.

I feel that it often boils down to the question of "if you yourself wouldn't use your own product, why should anyone else"?

Show threadPaddy DukeJul 9

@rastilin That’s a straw man. The designer should understand the use cases of anything they design. But that’s not remotely the same thing as “being the person you’re designing for”.

If I designed things based on whether I would use it, I would probably design bad products from the perspective of everyone else. And I would absolutely bet that the designers who created these terrible car interfaces believed that they themselves would use them.

Show threadrastilinJul 9

@paddyduke

It's an appeal to authority to say that because the theory says it's good, then it must be good. Presumably the users who hate it aren't experienced enough in design to understand why the interfaces don't suck. Also if those are the designers that don't drive and have little experience with cars, does it matter what they believe they would use?

Though I suspect that yes, the fact that touchscreens can be cheaper than buttons probably also factored into the decision.Though even then, surely they can't be *that* cheap, plastic buttons are basically free.

Show threadMacCruiskeenJul 9
@rastilin @paddyduke It could also be that as designers, they just aren't very good at what they do.
Show threadPaddy DukeJul 9

@maccruiskeen 100%

Most likely it’s a multitude of factors encompassing the designers themselves, the environment and resources available to them, and pressures from other parts of the business.

I’m only saying that I don’t believe the whole problem is down to a handful of user interface designers not being enthusiastic drivers.

Show threadNot🐧A🐧Convicted🐧FelonJul 9
@paddyduke @maccruiskeen Plastic buttons are not "free", you need switches, and wiring, lots of wiring.
Then there's the assembly in the factory, the testing, and the maintenance burden.
There are reasons why car companies have slathered over the touchscreen as a "universal input device", and each of them has a shiny dollar sign on them.
From a usability point of view, as well as a safety point of view, they are a complete disaster. Thankfully drivers are rebelling.
Show threadgretaredJul 10
@sleepyfox @paddyduke @maccruiskeen the “costs” of physical controls are negligible compared to safety. The designers didn’t decide to put the screens in the cars they just get told to design stuff for them. There is someone who decides what is physical and what is on screen and *that* person seems to be making very poor choices more and more frequently.
Show threadtheKPJul 9

@rastilin @paddyduke

The touchscreen was going to be in the car regardless for other UX reasons. It also can perform the functions of the physical buttons. The cheap/free buttons still need to be manufactured, stored and fitted. Plus, all those buttons need electronics which also has the above costs.

If you look at it purely on a spreadsheet it makes immediate sense.