Because you can reuse the same space for a lot of functionality more easily than with knobs and mechanical switches. Right now one of the biggest if not the biggest market for tablets isn’t home use but the industrial market: warehouse and production workers can use them to scan barcodes and to access more complex functionality than an RF pistol is capable of (from stock level screens to production reporting ones to their email) without having to lug a computer around or lug the item to the computer.
You think that’s bad? There are certain cycling computers & running watches that have touch screens. Given these are usually used outside you now add the fact that they don’t work well when wet/raining or unless you have touchscreen-compatible gloves in colder weather. :smack: They’re also frequently a more expensive model. Oh great, pay more for worse usability.
I absolutely loathe the thought of getting rid of my car; it’s old enough that it still has buttons for everything. I can change the radio stations &/or climate control w/o taking my eyes off of the road. Because a touchscreen is flat, one must look at it to press any ‘button’ as there’s no physical delineation between any of the ‘buttons’. I know they’re cheaper to install & in fashion but what a bad, bad, bad decision to have them in a car. Especially a car you’re not familiar with like a rental as there’s no industry standard for how to get to a given option.
My GF’s car has a touchscreen & she’s configured it to default to seatwarmers on high when she gets in. The only way to turn them off is about three screens deep; there have been times where I was out in her car w/o her, which means I need to do that while I’m driving as it’s uncomfortable having a cooking tuccus. It’s something I want to do as soon as I realize it, not wait for the next traffic light or opportunity to pull over & safely navigate that while not also navigating a lane.
If the environment is that rough, isn’t it equally easy to hit the wrong switch or turn a dial a bit too far than you intended?
I have a tesla model 3, and personally this is a complete non-issue, as the 4 times a year i need to open the glovebox i can spend the extra second in the menu. Touchscreen controls on rarely used items or items that don’t require simultaneous attention on the road are IMHO, an ideal use of them.
On the other hand, I was particularly annoyed with having wiper speed controls on the touchscreen, as this i felt was a safety hazard (the automatic wipers using the camera were garbage for Florida thunderstorms). However, a few software updates later and the automatic wipers are vastly better - I just leave them on automatic all the time now - i never have to use the touchscreen any more.
Everything I need to operate while driving is manual control/activation- volume, skip track, cruise control, voice command, window controls.
Voice command works great for calling a phone contact, navigating to an address, or picking music station/genre/song, I feel much better/safer than if these controls somehow only had a manual keypad or button associated with them.
A/C controls? I just set a temperature, put climate control on auto, and forget about it. If i really felt like tweaking it a degree or two it can wait until a stoplight.
I have a gate on my housing development that I used to have to fiddle around for a fob with a manual button to open every day(not safe!). Now I just have the GPS location for the gate programmed into my car, and it does it automatically.
How well do they work when there is a second person in the car whose voice is very similar to yours and who. Doesn’t. Shut. The. Hell. Up?
“Alexa! Hard to starboard!”
"PLAYING ‘A STAR IS BORN SOUNDTRACK’ BY LADY GAGA AND BRADLEY COOPER’
I just realized I described the BMW iDrive system. Are they still making those, or have they moved on to voice control? Seems that they had almost two decades to get that system right.
Why, why why is opening the glovebox tied to extra computer code that runs wires to a electro mechanical switch just to open the glove box? When a simple mechanical latch will do. Can you think of a single situation where that is a good idea?
Security. This way, the glove box is locked automatically when the car is off & can’t be opened even if someone smashes the window to break in. No need to use a physical key to lock/unlock it.
You could achieve the same by having an electro-mechanical lock and a physical latch, and having the car unlock it whenever the car is turned on. But that would be more complex & expensive than just an electro-mechanical latch.
Also, in valet mode, the glovebox stays locked. Probably also simplifies the design of the actual glovebox. And the plan is for when cars are fully autonomous and can be used as taxis (likely not going to happen for the Model 3 but maybe), the owner can keep stuff in the glovebox and trunk that can’t be accessed by riders.
Sure, crowbars are a thing, but cloud uploaded video surveillance is also a thing.
Outside the military I said…
You said “I don’t expect to see more knobs and switches outside of the military. They aren’t `cool’.” So I was trying to ask why you think the military uses touchscreens in fighter jets.
Voice commands are initiated by a manual button press on the steering wheel, so it’s not like it’s just going to pick up on anything in the cabin, unless it’s in the ~5 seconds after you press the button. Although I imagine in that scenario you’d have to wait for your passenger to take a breath first before attempting.
This paper explains the thinking behind it.
“The cockpit is dominated by a large 20 inch by 8 inch Panoramic Cockpit Display (PCD)which incorporates an integral touchscreen. The fly by wire system is controlled via an active side stick on the right and an active throttle on the left. Active means these inceptors are under complete computer control and can be programmed as to gradient, force feedback, and stops - all on the fly. There are 10 switches on the side stick and 12 on the throttle. The Hands-on Throttle and Stick (HOTAS) are mapped to the most used tactical and subsystem time critical functions.”
It further explains that this enables the pilot to choose how their data is arranged and they can select what is shown. The point that is most important is that which I bolded, all the really important stuff is hands on with dedicated switches. No one has time during battle or in a high pressure situation to be screwing around with sub-menus.
:shrug: Ok. I thought you would have to go through the touch screen to open it period. Not just lock it.
That as may be, but the fact is touch screens have no tactile feedback save haptic vibrations. The Navy isn’t stupid in this case you need to be a to grab a hold of something in high seas and controlled it precisely. NO touchscreen can do that. Try using your iPad while riding in the back of a city bus as it goes over a pot hole and you will see what I mean. The other problem as mentioned before is you have to look at it. I do not know of anyone who can touch type with a touch screen without looking at it.If touch screens are so great why does the airplane landing gear knob have a little wheel on the end ? I mean you could easily bury that sucker two or three menus deep on touch screen.
Touchscreen requires you to divert your eyes to the control, to operate it.
So ANY situation where your visual focus is needed elsewhere while operating the control, makes touchscreen a bad idea. YES this includes driving a car!
Touchscreen requires accuracy of touch. With a mechanical control you can use tactile feedback to know when you have the control in hand, and then activate it. Again, tactile feedback gives you confirmation of the action you input without having to look at it. AGAIN, this makes touchscreens when driving vehicle a bad idea. Doubly so if the driver is subject to inertial forces (being shaken around) which is rather common in vehicles!
About now you people will start blathering about “but all modern airliners use touchscreens”.
Yes, yes they do. For actions other than primary control. And modern airliners have TWO drivers. One acting as hands-on pilot, who uses mechanical controls to actually fly the plane, and the co-pilot who does the comms, settings, and fiddly stuff on the touchscreen.
Touchscreens are great for reducing the complexity of a control panel, and for improving versatility of information display. But they inevitably reduce control input accuracy and they require visual attention to operate.
Imagine if you put your car’s brakes on a touchscreen. Argh, a child is running onto the road! eyes to touchscreen. Select controls menu. Select brake slider. move slider to max. Look in mirror to see distant red splat on road.
Erm. I mean, look at touchscreen again. close brake menu, select visuals menu. select rearview mirrors. select central mirror. bring up picture, then see the damage.
Some things should NOT be touchscreened!
Here is a Propublica report on the USS John S. McCain collision.
What incompetence. For example there are 4 places on the ship to control the steering. It would be simple to include a line on the screen as to which location has control (and very desirable human factors). Thus when the helmsman saw that he had apparently lost control of the steerig it would have immediately been obvious that someone had pushed a button to switch control elsewhere. Instead we have a bunch of people not having any idea of what went wrong.
That is an obnoxiously formatted article to read. But unless I missed something big, and I my have as I was getting a headache, The technical system seems fine, it is a system that has to provide options, and overrides to make operation possible, as long as possible, in any conceivable set of equipment failures. And from what I can see it does that, it provides nuts and bolts level access a system that requires it.
My personal blame proportionate is 98% human error. With the blame going up the ladder to fall directly on whoever let a system go out in that critical of functional area, with absurdly inadequate training.
[aside]
No discussion of automated aircraft systems would be complete without at least a passing reference to this well-known (?) snarky cartoon.
[/aside]