Honda bucks industry trend by removing touchscreen controls - <AUTHOR> https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/motor-shows-geneva-motor-show/honda-bucks-industry-trend-removing-touchscreen-controls <comment><USER5> Look at the cockpit of any modern airliner and you will see screens, but they are never interactive. There are hardware buttons, dials and lights all over the place. A tactile interface is both more obvious, sturdy and more stable, and therefore safer. The problem that touch interfaces solve, ever since the advent of the first smart phone, is that the interface is now dynamic. You can change it without having to replace the hardware. Here's the catch: for safety critical interfaces, YOU DO NOT want the interface to change. The point is moot.

Touch screens will hopefully never make it into any critical pilot systems, because safety and stability matters to airline manufacturers, current ongoing scandals notwithstanding. I only wish automobile manufacturers took their job equally seriously.

<comment><USER6> I work for an avionics manufacturer and I can assure you most of our upcoming comercial systems (and even a healthy portion of government ones) feature touch screen inputs.

<comment><USER7> The sad but real reason a ton of this is happening is one very big word that is typically not present in things like car / airplane design: flexibility... flexibility to change the user controls, flexibility to fix problems, flexibility to let the SW team work up until the last minute to get stuff working, and the second part that goes with this is cost. Touchscreens mean increased flexibility for the design and better control over cost to deliver features. Unfortunately, if the display dies and you can't see anything, then the car or plane may crash... so sadly it will probably take a couple of those events happening for this to be changed to have some kind of redundant systems that the pilot can use when the display dies suddenly.

<comment><USER8> If something needs that much flexibility in it's UI that people are messing with it at the last minute it doesn't belong as something people should be messing with while driving. The OP talks about HVAC controls. How much flexibility do you really need for that? The interface has been standardized for a long time. It's a known quantity both from a design perspective and user perspective. Ditto for common audio controls like volume, pause/play, skip.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Eminently sensible call by Honda. Knobs, dials and switches work well and do not demand that a driver takes their eyes off the road. I suppose that voice controls would be a reasonably safe tech option, but probably not cost- effective.

<comment><USER10> Is taking your hands off the steering wheel much better?

Ideally, all controls would be available on the steering wheel without removing either hand. Or, as you say, voice controls.

<comment><USER11> This is a great example of when "perfect is the enemy of good".

Humans have pretty good spatial reasoning (proprioception); the notion that touch controls should replace tactile well-spaced controls is dependent on the fact that both senses (sight, spatial awareness) are uncontested.

I would argue the point that sight is already in-use and must not be interfered with, if there's an alternative that does not use the same resources.

I think of it like hardware acceleration and parrelelisation; the brain has a hardware accelerator for sight, but only one, and has a bunch of cores ready for other tasks, and those other tasks can happen in parallel.

<comment><USER12> Or you could go for Tesla's strategy, which is try to get self-driving ASAP so you don't have the problem anymore.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I will never understand how this trend started in the first place. If you look at e.g. digital cameras, they all have touch screens these days, but they also still have buttons and dials everywhere. The one in front of me has eight physical buttons, seven dials and a power switch. The reason is obvious: when you're taking photos, you don't want to be looking down at a screen; you want to be focused on the task at hand and aware of what is happening around you. If camera designers know this, why don't automotive designers, where the task at hand is a matter of life and death?

<comment><USER14> They make cars significantly cheaper to produce - both in terms of parts and construction time. Evey button you lose is a button you don't have source and install when building the car. There's less wiring, less replacement parts to stock. It's a win in all kinds of situations for the manufacturer.

It's no coincidence that the company with most manufacturing issues - Tesla - also went with completely touchscreen based cabin with pretty much no additional cost. This is further confirmed by the fact that they didn't offset the screen issue by installing a projected HUD display (which is these days available in most 20.000$ cars) - it's complicated to install.

<comment><USER15> What kills me is when "legacy" automakers have dashboards with 40 buttons on them, of which you use may 5 regularly. It's especially annoying when the functions I use every day are buried in nested menus, but the button for setting the clock, sending a text, or satellite radio is right there front and center.

<comment><USER16> It works better in a sales pitch. "If you want to text your broker to punch in a few trades, it's just one button away!".

Nobody bothers to write sales copy saying "You can actually change the cabin temperature and the radio volume on this car"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Always seemed like a cargo cult: iphone good; touch good; buttons bad (steve said).

Let's hope it's a new trend! I love that my Audi still has tactile buttons and wheels, and was a big factor in choosing it. My previous car had a touch screen and it was so dangerous having to brace my hand for accuracy and stare at my fingers while driving.

<comment><USER18> How do you feel about the MMI scroll wheel? I don't feel safe using that either; it still requires eyes on the screen to see what you're selecting. Even my passengers, who can give it their full attention, are routinely stymied by the process of pairing their phones for Bluetooth audio playback.

At least I can get the volume and temperature knobs by feel.

<comment><USER19> Whats interesting about Honda going with a dial, is that they designed, what I thought, was a pretty brilliant absolutely positioned touchpad for Acura. Have peopled used these, what is there feedback. It seems much more natural, intuitive, and fast compared to a dial.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScWOFtlLCyI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScWOFtlLCyI)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcKa9apjOX8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcKa9apjOX8)

<comment><USER20> Lexus also has a touchpad, and an interesting "tactile joystick" type of solution. Takes some getting used to but the tactile feedback goes a _long_ way to reducing the need to look at the screen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Any monitor manufacturers want to follow suit?

What I'd give for hardware input source buttons. This is a ridiculous UX:

1\. Touch button to open menu

2\. Select "Input Source"

3\. Click up/down (possibly multiple times) to find your source

4\. Click OK

...when your monitor has TWO sources. Just give me 2 buttons: HDMI and DisplayPort.

I don't care that this would be marginally more expensive. I'd pay it.

Touch screen controls strike me as not being about cost but being about incredibly lazy UI and a good example of worrying about problems you'll never have like "what if you have 10 input sources? That'd mean 10 buttons". But YOU DON"T. You can't add an input source with software after the fact.

/rant

Touch screens make complete sense for phones. You're looking at it. There is limited screen real estate. The second is why hardware keyboards died. It's even why the Home button on iPhones died, which makes me sad because I loathe Face ID with a passion (compared to Touch ID).

Touch screens require you to look at them. This seems bad when driving. Physical controls are tactile and you can learn to use them without looking. People seem to forget how important this is.

It's also why I prefer keyboards that split function keys into groups of 4 over the terrible design of putting them all together. Function keys are really too far to touch type effectively so you need a non-visual cue of which is which.

Beyond that, every touch interface I've seen in a car is objectively terrible.

Kudos to Honda for bucking this stupid trend.

<comment><USER22> > Touch screen controls strike me as not being about cost but being about > incredibly lazy UI

It's almost always about cost. Touch screens are shocking cheap thanks to smartphones driving the prices down and physical controls can be shockingly expensive per control.

<comment><USER23> Do you have an idea of why dials and buttons are so expensive? That surprises me. The components aren't particularly high tech.

<comment><USER24> I would imagine it's more the one-time cost of the R&D for developing the digital menu system vs per-unit hardware costs for the dials/buttons over time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> [https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1121372_why-mazda-is- pur...](https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1121372_why-mazda-is-purging- touchscreens-from-its-vehicles)

A more in-depth article last year on why Mazda is doing this.

<comment><USER26> Yep, Mazda were the most vocal about rejecting the touch screen trend, and Honda and Toyota are losing a lot of customers to Mazda who have been producing the best cars in their class in the last several years so it makes sense that they are jumping on the bandwagon.

<comment><USER27> Since peaking in 2015 Mazda is not growing. They are steadily losing market share over the last 10 years. They make attractive cars, but they bet on pretending that they are a "premium" brand and priced themselves out.

[https://carsalesbase.com/us-mazda/](https://carsalesbase.com/us-mazda/)

[https://www.autonews.com/sales/mazdas-complicated-journey- pr...](https://www.autonews.com/sales/mazdas-complicated-journey-premium)

<comment><USER28> In terms of sales volume in the US, you are correct: Mazda is not selling more cars. If you look at their financial reporting, they're making more money from car sales. Looks like ~60% more.

Anyone with a lick of business sense would happily trade -10% sales volume for +60% profit from higher margins. They didn't price themselves out, they just decided to not play the loss-leader volume game Ford/Honda/Toyota is playing.

<comment><USER27> Looks like ~60% loss to me. (From $1.1B net in 2015 to $572M net in 2019)

[https://money.cnn.com/quote/financials/financials.html?symb=...](https://money.cnn.com/quote/financials/financials.html?symb=MZDAF)

EDIT: $1.1B in 2016. In 2015 net income was $1.45B :-(

<comment><USER28> From what I can tell from the investor docs, the overall loss was from exchange rates and tariffs from losing access to sharing Ford's factories and costs and the high capex to building a replacement factory and generally transitioning to a fully independent automaker.

Every shareholder report in the last couple years stated that their premium offerings are doing better than they expected and they're making more money than they expected given the capex.

<comment><USER27> JPY/USD rate changed 9% over the last 5 years, are you sure it explains 70% lower net income?

You stated that they make 60% more money. If the point you are trying to make is that they make 60% more _than they expected_ , I won't argue with you.

<comment><USER28> Mass market automakers usually target ~7% margin, so a 9% change in exchange rate without adjustment in price would make an automaker flip from profitable to unprofitable (observable with Nissan as a real world example). It doesn't decrease their profit by 9%.

Mazda raised their margin target to ~10% per vehicle, which is pretty standard for the premium segment. Which if they performed to expectations, would mean 40% more profit; they're slightly overperforming at ~60%.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> > Honda has done what no other car maker is doing,

Huh? The author is not familiar with Mazda - their latest models of the CX line (possibly others) have full control of the interface with a very functional physical knob / dial along with other tactile controls.

Also, the headline is a bit misleading - they aren't removing touchscreen controls entirely - only removing them from "some" controls as their preface text indicates, which to be clear is solely A/C controls.

<comment><USER30> I have a Mazda from 2019 (not the CX), and I can do _everything_ with a couple of knobs. Even the extra buttons you mention (volume up/down in the wheel or quick access to media/navigation/radio in the center console) are redundant and nearly useless. Just a couple of weeks after I got the car, I have never touched the screen again.

A/C controls are completely manual. Mazda got it right from the beginning.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I will defend the screen in the Tesla 3, the simple fact is that you really never have to use on your typical drive and yes muscle memory works for simple UIs like what the Tesla employs.

Compared to 40+ buttons in my previous Volt AND a screen. Many cars have that many or more buttons and this is easier? Where screen's become distracting is when the UI is shit, having more than one or two clicks to do anything, and worse duplicating features there are physical buttons for but naturally distract the driver who thinks they should use that screen.

From automatic headlamps, climate control, and wipers, I really have no reason to interact with the screen except as glances while I do the standard look around while driving.

My favorite test... put a sticky on every button and only remove one if you truly had to use the function. bonus points for not having to remove the sticky to find out what the button did.

edit: spelling error

<comment><USER32> Touchscreens that are huge are somewhat less of an issue because tap targets are much bigger. But most non-luxury vehicles come with 7 or 8 inch screens, so tap targets are small/clustered. Layer on that the fact that many screens aren't capacitive (and instead require a certain amount of pressure from your finger/fingernail), and things get even more annoying/dangerous.

<comment><USER33> With physical buttons we can keep eyes on the road, one hand on the wheel and the other one looks for the right button. With a touch screen we have to look at the screen, hoping we made the right decision about what's going to happen on the road. If there are laws against texting there should be laws against using touchscreens when the car is moving.

<comment><USER31> Just how many controls are you manipulating that are not duplicated to your steering wheel on your drive? Modern cars feature nearly automatic everything, set and forget.

Just a note about laws against texting. So my state recently, finally last year, put in place a law which said you must use hands free.

Guess what happened, now half the dolts have their phone mounted to their windshield in their field of view or on their dash. So yeah, its hands free but even more distracting. Apparently this loop hole exists in many states!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I work in data visualization. Every programmer who gets into datavis goes through a "3D all the things" phase where they look around and realize that 3D visualizations aren't used in a lot of areas where it seems like they should. Eventually you realize that there are big tradeoffs and 3D is very difficult to get right for the human brain.

Touchscreens are similar. The appeal is obvious. Screens are space efficient, customizable, upgradeable, flashy, etc. But they simply aren't as nice as physical controls with tactile feedback. Not only should we not be forcing touchscreens into every HCI situation, I think we should be moving the other direction, adding more physical buttons, dials, sliders etc to our computers and smartphones. In school a couple years back I worked on a project[0] for adding generic bluetooth buttons on a wrist device.

Imagine if you had 4 extra physical buttons, a scroll wheel, and a slider all sitting on your wrist, and your phone and apps were designed in such a way that you could map these to whatever you wanted.

[0]: [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lTOxHxHFjwJXeCLROAPf6OJD...](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lTOxHxHFjwJXeCLROAPf6OJDonKZ9pliw2NMhQ-8QLw/edit#heading=h.52vufnqzfry9)

<comment><USER35> > Imagine if you had 4 extra physical buttons, a scroll wheel, and a slider > all sitting on your wrist, and your phone and apps were designed in such a > way that you could map these to whatever you wanted.

Well this is kind of what Tesla is doing isn't it? You have some general purpose scroll-wheels/buttons on the steering wheel

<comment><USER34> I've never driven a Tesla, but if so that's cool.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Last year I bought a motorcycle (Honda CB300R) and it was a revelation.

No touch screens. No stereo. No GPS. No Bluetooth. No automatic transmission. No cupholders. Basically no "modern car features". And it's a much, much better road experience than any car I've ever been able to afford to drive.

Get rid of all the distractions at a price point under $30k with an engine that doesn't feel sluggish and maybe I'll consider buying a car again.

(Necessary disclaimer: I live somewhere where it's sunny and warm the majority of the year and where car parking is nigh impossible. Maybe I'd feel differently if I lived in rural Canada.)

<comment><USER37> Toyota GT-86. Starts around 27k, three flavors (Scion FR/S, Subaru BRZ). Excepting some radio controls, all button (has steering wheel volume, tuning, etc.) And as a bonus, it's a six-gear rear wheel drive.

Eject button sold separately: [https://i.imgur.com/wHL5Xnc.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/wHL5Xnc.jpg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I buy cheaper cars, because I don't really care about any of the high-end features that cars offer, and this has been one legitimate advantage, at least as of the last time I was shopping; cheap cars cheaped out on the display, so they still had physical controls for things like volume. I hope this trend takes off before I buy another.

I think it would be possible to make a decent touch screen, but it seems like the only people who give even a quantum of a damn about latency are the video game folks. A UI with 95th-percentile or 99th-percentile multi-second latency is an active hazard on the road, even if it is normally acceptable, which itself is fairly rare and expensive.

</comment><comment><USER39> Interfaces to the car should have standardized use cases/requirements that are interface independent.

There should be requirements like - user should be able to rapidly change stations manually without looking at the interface.

For example I have a dial for my XM radio in my tundra, if I want to go from station 10 to station 100, I can easily do it by spinning the dial really fast two or three times without looking at the screen.

In my honda, to get to that UI where I can arbitrarily tune, I have to hit 3-4 buttons all in different places. Then I have to hit the up button 90 times.

I could imagine a digital tuner that is a bar that lets you simply touch where on the spectrum you want to select a station. But up/down arrow to tune should be banned.

</comment><comment><USER40> Funny coming from Honda. My parents own a 2017 (I think) Civic and the only way to adjust volume is by tapping +/\- on the touchscreen. It's the most unusable volume adjustment I've ever experienced. It was completely unusable with a glove in the winter.

So while most other companies only implemented touchscreen controls for secondary features Honda did it for the most widely used one. Now they are backtracking 100%, go figure.

<comment><USER41> I have a 2015 Fit (Jazz in the not US), and it has the +/\- on the touch screen, but also physical buttons on the steering wheel. I guess the compromise is that the driver doesn't need to use the touch buttons because they have the ones on the wheel, and the passenger can take their eyes off the road.

<comment><USER42> I'm curious to know if the buttons are in the base model or are an upgrade.

<comment><USER41> I DO have the highest trim level, so maybe that's why.

<comment><USER43> At least in the US models of the Fit there's no difference in the interior trim levels. I think part of the confused nature of this discussion is that Honda never shipped the touch-only dashboard that this article is talking about in the US market. The Fit and as far as I have seen every model Honda sells in the US has always had real knobs and switches for the climate controls. The touch climate controls were available in Japan and elsewhere.

ETA:

Non-USA interior: [https://img.sm360.ca/images/article/the-honda- way/58810//the...](https://img.sm360.ca/images/article/the-honda- way/58810//the-new-2016-honda-fit-goes-beyond1555083156624.jpg)

USA interior: [https://file.kelleybluebookimages.com/kbb/base/evox/StJ/1082...](https://file.kelleybluebookimages.com/kbb/base/evox/StJ/10826/2016-Honda- Fit-aux-mp3_10826_123_640x480.jpg)

<comment><USER44> For the 2016 year model, the base model has a volume knob but the higher models do not. The 'USA interior' link above seems identical to the Non-USA link vs audio volume knob not being there. This is what the dash looks like for models with the knob (could only find 2015 lx but looks identical to 2016 lx): [https://cdn.jdpower.com/ChromeImageGallery/Expanded/White/64...](https://cdn.jdpower.com/ChromeImageGallery/Expanded/White/640/2015HON009c_640/2015HON009c_640_11.jpg)

<comment><USER43> Oh yes, I'd quite forgotten about the base model radio. Almost surprised it has no tape deck.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Bout time this started happening. Now, the rest of the industry just needs to follow suit.

<comment><USER46> BMW and Mercedes have always had physical dials to control the infotainment system.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> The first and best microwave I ever had simply had a dial, a cook button, and an open button: that's it. The more you turned the dial, the longer your food would cook, and the hotter it would get. That's all you needed to know or do. And you could even turn it back or forth while it is microwaving, to change the time after you start, or finish cooking immediately. But it's almost impossible to find one with a dial, now.

Microwaves with digital keypads are terrible, even with those "convenient" +10 sec / +1 min / hot dog / peep buttons, you still have to hit a little target you can't feel, instead to twisting a big knob you can.

Entering time by touching digital buttons isn't a rapid, reversible, and incremental action with continuous feedback -- i.e. "direct manipulation", like turning a dial is.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_manipulation_interface](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_manipulation_interface)

</comment><comment><USER48> Great! I may actually consider a newer car for the first time in a long while.

I rent regularly and the last decade or so of car UX has been pretty terrible.

Some features are compelling, but distraction limits their effective value.

Feels a lot like early smart TVs to me. Better experiences are had by turning all the crap off.

With a car, the stuff is just there, often does not stay off, requiring constant attention to push out of the way, etc...

An older vehicle, equipped with a bluetooth capable radio, smartphone with voice is better than just about all the new car goodies nearly always.

Frankly, the metrics, mpg, other performance data and sound processing where present are great! I use them when present.

The rest is just a mess.

My other quibble is LEDs. The flicker used to prolong LED life and power use is very seriously distracting both in car, and outside to other drivers.

In car, lots of bright things will often inhibit night vision. Displays, dash lighting, indicators all increasingly bright and many flicker.

As a driver, a quick glance to and fro results in a field of dots. I have asked others about that and have done a few tests when road conditions and traffic present an opportunity.

Older car dashes are not distracting much at all. Can run very dim too. Newer dashes distract far more. Won't always dim, or worse, will dim, sans for one bright thing, usually a little display.

The always on bulbs do leave a vision trail, compared to the dots from LED lights. For many, that trail appears to be processed in a less distracting way.

LED tail lights are the big offender here.

Over time, as I land in various airports, the conversion to LED has been completed. The pattern of speckles are crazy! Various colors, and modest duty cycle rates make for a mess.

Any pilots care to comment?

</comment><comment><USER49> Mazda also did this. Long ago.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20200335](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20200335)

</comment><comment><USER50> Thank god.

I just got a 2005 Porsche Boxster with a CDR-24 radio, and one of my favorite things about it is how simple the interior controls are. Knobs, buttons, switches. The PCM radio I think might have had touch screen, but anyway...

My main point is that my 15 year old car doesn't feel anywhere near as dated as many cars from 2009, that have slow, low resolution, or awkward touch screens. The only car I've used with an acceptable (but still flawed in many ways) touch screen is a Tesla 3 or S.

An absence of features often for me turns out to be a feature. It's a car; do I even really need that many buttons or controls?

</comment><comment><USER51> My spouse has a 2019 Honda HRV and I _hate_ dealing with the touchscreen while driving. It's cognitively very difficult to do the degree of fine motor control and visual attention the touchscreen requires while also driving safely. It's actually a little terrifying.

I remember reading an article a while back about some manufacturer, can't remember which one, adding a clickable knob to control the "smart" functions. Since so much of what we use a touchscreen for is actually menu selection, that could cover most of what we need to "touch".

</comment><comment><USER52> Let me give you another perspective - I own a Suzuki SX4 S-Cross that comes with a fluid, super responsive and intuitive touchscreen with voice commands in it, which can also be controlled from the steering. You can do stuff like ask to call someone's phone, or read a text message or ask you to give directions.

But the real highlight is the UI + UX. It's super intuitive in that the volume controls, although touch, are always in a fixed location and you just drag over towards the edge of the screen up or down. In addition, you also have steering mounted controls to control the volume. The whole screen is divided into 4 quadrants and clicking anywhere in those quadrants will take you to either of the main screen (Eg. Navigation or FM Radio). It doesn't take long to get used to remembering which quadrant is for which. Also, for safety, you can't use some core features of navigation while driving the car. It will ask you to stop first if you want to say, type for a certain address.

I have never seen such fantastic UX in such mid-tier cars. To me, it seem's Honda's move is backward - perhaps it could be solved by simple UX..which Suzuki and Bosch (the supplier of their infotainment units) have already solved?

I find it super convenient because I don't even need to take my eyes off the road...while enjoying the convenience of a touch screen.

A picture (or video is worth a thousand words): [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvERUKfjufg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvERUKfjufg)

<comment><USER53> That's only one control though. You can still accidentally touch something else while you fish for this control. I'm sure most users would prefer dials that provide touch feedback.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> > _The new Audi A3's electronics boss Melanie Limmer told Autocar recently its > decision to remove some physical buttons was made as "more and more people > are getting into touch functions with smartphones"_

That is totally the wrong lesson to take from the popularity of touchscreens on smartphones.

Hardware buttons were eliminated from smartphones for one reason: the devices are small and screen real estate is critically important. So the screens need to take up 100% of the usable area of the front of the device, leaving no room for buttons. (The first iPhone proved how game-changing it was to be able to any web site.)

It's not because touching the screen is better than pressing a button. It's because eliminating buttons is an acceptable sacrifice for something even more important.

But in a car, of course, you don't have these constraints on size, so the reasoning doesn't translate from one type of device to another.

It's the equivalent of saying, hey, we noticed that having only one burner is overwhelmingly popular on camping stoves, and campers really seem to prefer it that way, so for all our new models of kitchen ranges, we are going to just have one burner too.

Of course, I am assuming it even is a sincere belief. It's also possible they have some other reason (maybe cheaper?) and this is just a way of justifying the choice.

</comment><comment><USER55> I have a 2013 Accord with a touch screen (bought it used and it's what came with it) instead of button controls. The latency on the screen is terrible and my father's Acura RDX which does not have a touch panel is much more user- friendly. I would love if more manufacturers started to put more analog controls back into their cars, but kept the non-touch screens for info display/backup cameras.

</comment><comment><USER56> There is a trend to assume new technology will always replace old technology.

During the Vietnam war the F4 ditched its cannons for the sidewinder air to air missile.

The sidewinder is fire and forget for the most part and somewhat of a no brainer whereas cannons require more skill and training in dogfighting.

It also gave the US a MAJOR advantage (in theory) vs the MiG.

The problem is that the Vietnamese picked up on this and changed their tactics.

Before this the US had air superiority and a significantly higher kill ratio.

The Vietnamese built 'hidden' airfields and would dispatch their MiGs when the F4 was directly overhead and engage them in head to head dogfights.

The F4s needed to build distance to launch a sidewinder and this dramatically rebalanced the kill ratio and during this time it came out to close to 1:1 with the US having a slight advantage.

They US realized their mistake and subsequent F4s had cannons...

Same thing here with cars. When the new screens came out everything was done through software but it's just NOT a good design.

When I'm driving I want to push a button and be done. IF just for safety.

When the UI locks up or is slow it's literally a safety risk.

<comment><USER57> Wasn't another factor of the drop in head to head kills and then the subsequent improvement due to the energy-maneuverability of the fighter jets? John Boyd's biography ([https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38840.Boyd](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/38840.Boyd)) talks a lot about his work while an instructor at the Air Force.

EM theory: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93maneuverability...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93maneuverability_theory)

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Funny anecdote: when I was working on the Ultimaker S5 touch screen interface, there were lots of tests done with new users. Many people had trouble figuring out that the previous version did not have a touch screen but a tiny, tiny OLED display that was controlled by a rotating button. People poking their finger at this tiny OLED which was not giving a damn about what they did there. Really funny to look at, but made it very clear customers expected us to have a touch screen.

That allowed for a much nicer interface (we won some award with it), but the only thing that was not better with a touchscreen (IMO) was manual bed leveling, where you look at the print head and not the screen. We did our best on that and to make it as unneeded as possible. I don't have a such an S5 3D-printer and I don't work for Ultimaker anymore, so I'd be glad if anyone here could tell me how they like the bed leveling UI, if they ever used it :-)

</comment><comment><USER59> The best "driver UX" I've ever had is on a 1995 Rover Coupe, with its dashboard and switchgear carried over from a 1988 Honda Concerto:

[https://imgur.com/a/YvpSUFa](https://imgur.com/a/YvpSUFa)

Just 3 knobs for regulating blower fan speed, blown-in heat level, and flow direction. One switch for letting/stopping incoming air flow, another for recirculating/capturing cabin air. A single on/off button for the AC.

Left steering column switch is entirely light-related, right switch is entirely dedicated to the wiper system.

Three buttons just below the dials: emergency lights, fog lights and rear screen heating.

Just the bare essentials that you'll be using 99% of the time, easily discoverable at the most sensible locations, with a solid mechanical "clicking" feedback. It's a significantly safer car simply by virtue of lacking distracting controls.

<comment> frosted-flakes That is very similar to early-2000s Volkswagens (mk4) except for the addition of a radio and seat heater dials, and cruise control on the left stalk (or the steering wheel):

[https://justdrivethere.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/dscf1441....](https://justdrivethere.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/dscf1441.jpg)

The only (IMO) necessary features these cars lack compared to modern cars are audio Bluetooth/line in, and navigation. But both are easily added: audio bluetooth/line in with a module that plugs into the CD changer port on the back of the OEM radio, and navigation using a separate GPS unit (such as the ones Garmin make). Maybe a backup camera too, but you can buy a wireless one that works with a Garmin GPS screen.

</comment></comment><comment> 1970-01-01 Fuck Honda. I'm never buying another "new" Honda:

While their new and "certified" inventory is rusting on dealer lots, they have declared [0][1] that peons owning Takata NADI inflators (SHRAPNEL BOMBS sitting inches from our faces) should just wait (NO FREE RENTAL) a few MONTHS (sometime in 2021) for them to redesign, test, manufacture, ship, and ultimately replace said shrapnel bomb.

[0] [https://hondaairbaginfo.com/nadi](https://hondaairbaginfo.com/nadi)

[1] [https://hondanews.com/en-US/honda- corporate/releases/release...](https://hondanews.com/en-US/honda- corporate/releases/release-0bbc009838e0b24882489e7843003c25-statement-by- american-honda-regarding-nadi-airbag-inflator-recall)

</comment><comment><USER60> Unrelated, but this line stood out, and now I have a question:

> Honda's decision to return to physical controls will be popular with some - > including, no doubt, its ageing owner base in the UK

Ageing? Is there some stat showing Honda owners are older than owners of other models? Or that young people aren't buying Hondas?

<comment><USER61> I'm young and I love tech, but I'd rather feel for the volume control knob while I'm watching the road than stare at a touch screen and try to position my finger to hit an icon in a moving car. Those interfaces were just a terrible idea.

In my brother's old Prius it would randomly switch to a diagram showing how cool its power train system was/energy transfer etc. Just what I need while I'm driving - a useless distraction which I have to close before I get access to the controls I need!

(I don't remember exactly how it worked though because I haven't driven it in a while.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> Excellent move. I totally support this. Touchscreens removes all the accurate tactile feedback of what you are doing to a control and that forces the user to fallback to taking a look, hence deviating the center of the sight from the ideal zone for a really unjustifiable reason.

</comment><comment><USER63> Good. Touch screen controls are a good tool for communicating visual information while having some way to still give users some controls. Tactile controls are good tools for when the operator needs to visually focus on something else and feedback can be sensed in other ways. For cars, the only visual information it should show to the driver are either things that are controlled outside of a touch screen (speedometer, tach) or can't be controlled while the vehicle is in operation anyway (oil temp gauge, etc). Everything else can be intuitively sensed by the driver's other senses and the important part of the control is the feedback saying that you are in fact manipulating the controls properly.

</comment><comment><USER64> _> While Honda's decision to return to physical controls will be popular with some - including, no doubt, its ageing owner base in the UK - the predicted move towards more voice-controlled actions in cars could eliminate the debate around touchscreens versus analogue controls in the future._

No, I will not be talking to my car.

Knobs and buttons with tactile feedback were great and should be used for major functionality.

My favorite fan controller of all time was a fan pull knob on a FJ40, which had physical clicks for each fan setting as you pulled it out:

[https://forum.ih8mud.com/attachments/p13-jpg.509941/](https://forum.ih8mud.com/attachments/p13-jpg.509941/)

It was intuitive and deeply satisfying.

</comment><comment><USER65> The way my brains works, it's hard for me to even read road signs when I'm driving (excepting simple ones like speed limits and one-word signs). Switching contexts is just really slow. If I try to use voice recognition I basically go blind for three seconds.

</comment><comment><USER66> Just and knobs for everything I need when driving. But please keep touchscreen for everything complex I can do while standing still. Complex setup of display options, car setups or whatever is infuriating without touch.

This is how every other device works such as a digital camera. You can't have an unlimited amount of knobs and buttons but you can have a dozen so you choose very carefully which functions need direct manipulation.

I don't think it's so bad currently in many cars to be honest. My VW does what I want, there are knobs and buttons for climate and radio, but setup and other things are touch. Only complaint is that switching source between line in and bt is touch only (and is used a lot).

</comment><comment><USER67> Car audio systems pose greater dangers than texting, pot

[https://techxplore.com/news/2020-03-car-audio-pose- greater-d...](https://techxplore.com/news/2020-03-car-audio-pose-greater- dangers.html)

</comment><comment><USER68> Who thought of the "touch-screen in cars" idea and how did he bait the entire industry into copying such a shitty idea? Touch screens in cars don't _even_ make sense in fully self-driving cars, since you'd just lay down in the backseat on your phone on your way to work.

I still have no idea how to work the screen in my dad's old car. I would literally have to pull over and whip out my phone to Google how to use the damn thing. It made setting/changing the music _way_ harder than it should've been. No one wants to pull over to look up a dissertation on how to use change the channel on your radio.

</comment><comment><USER69> Thank goodness. I bought a Honda quite a few years ago and got the top trim, but insisted that they remove the navigation system as just using it as a radio was far worse because it was entirely touchscreen focused. This might keep on me on Honda's for a while.

Edit: Wait... they're just talking about climate controls here. They're not adding any dials. Apparently other carmakers are going just touchscreen for everything. I guess its just gotten worse over the last few years. Tesla can sort of get away with it. But goodness a huge part of the reason I liked a lot of luxury cars was they tended to do more dials instead of touchscreens.

</comment><comment><USER70> Did you know that in a car you can change the climate control temperate for when the system is "off"?

Try it today. In an old car, set the fan speed to off. Then adjust the temperature. Switch it back and forth a few times and test it.

In a new car you need to turn the fan on, then change the temperature and then turn it off again, in order to change the "off" temperature.

On a touch screen this task requires many seconds of eyes-off-the-road-time to accomplish.

But hey, designers need flexibility because changing temperature is a new concept and they couldn't possibly handle a deadline to work with component selection and other parts of the product team.

</comment><comment><USER71> All they did was put the analogue A/C controls back. I don't see this as a big deal and I kind of like that some of the basic controls don't require digging through menus. One of the drawbacks of touchscreen controls is you have limited screen space to cram everything that used to cover the whole dashboard.

New features like navigation and music makes sense when moved to the touch screen, but adding things you don't need to just means I have to switch away from navigation or music controls just to change the A/C.

I think Honda is making a good choice in terms of User Interface design.

</comment><comment><USER72> I think what Tesla did was cost cutting by putting everything in one big screen - no need to think about hardware knobs and buttons - have the screen UI and update it remotely if it is not intuitive.

<comment><USER73> It seems like the middle way would be:

Build your console with a big hole in the middle. Mount the buttons to the insert, figure out your UI and adjust the button placement, so really most of the last minute design is producing a new mounting bracket for the electronics and physical controls.

The biggest problem I see there is that you are very limited in button placement without resizing the panel. But if you pick a clever panel size to console hole ratio you could buy yourself some flexibility. For example, an almost square panel could allow you to rotate it and move some buttons from vertical to horizontal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> I have a touch screen in my Nissan and it's almost useless when I'm driving down the road at 60 miles an hour and trying to navigate menus 8 layers deep to do something simple that used to be a button press on my old Honda.

Relatedly, the US Navy removed touchscreens from all vessels after a collision happened because someone couldn't navigate the interface in time. [https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49319450](https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-49319450)

</comment><comment><USER75> Touch controls in the car should not be used for anything that is supposed to be used while driving. 1) They give no haptic feedback and require to look at them to do anything. 2) They are very finicky if the hands are wet/dirty/sweaty/cold. Knobs can be rotated and buttons pressed without looking. Physical objects can be manipulated as long as you can move your fingers.

One more reason to consider Honda when the time comes to buy a new car. Another reason is their outstanding reliability ratings.

</comment><comment><USER76> The dirty secret of the electronics industry is that the reason for moving to sensor buttons is cost.

When first capacitive touch devices appeared around 2005-2006, everybody immediately noticed that you only need a single digitizer for the whole front panel of the device, or dirt cheap cap sens circuits for point sensors.

For as long as the sensor is just a piece of polyimide pcb you can glue to anything, but a metal surface, things get really cheap without mechanical buttons, holes in the case to cut, and PCB to hold the buttons.

</comment><comment><USER77> I recall Mazda doing this a while back. [1]

[1] - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20200335](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20200335)

</comment><comment><USER78> Mazda have also announced the same thing. ([https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1121372_why-mazda-is- pur...](https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1121372_why-mazda-is-purging- touchscreens-from-its-vehicles))

Favorite quote: "Doing our research, when a driver would reach towards a touch-screen interface in any vehicle, they would unintentionally apply torque to the steering wheel, and the vehicle would drift out of its lane position,"

</comment><comment><USER79> I understand the problem that touch-screens solve on cell phones. How do you squeeze the most functionality onto the smallest surface? By doubling up on functions, and reusing existing functionality to be context-sensitive. The trend of moving designs from where they make sense to where they do not because the inferior design is seen as more modern since the devices with these constraints are modern has been a very annoying one. Designers have been making software and technology progressively worse. It isn't in any way surprising, it's just annoying that when a piece of equipment or technology can fully utilize the features and interfaces that cheap and mobile technology is forced to do without, they _choose_ not to use it. It'd be like if bicycles became really popular all of a sudden, so auto industry stopped putting in seatbelts and airbags in cars, because bicycles are modern and they don't have those things in bicycles. You're building a car with a fixed set of controls for the machine you're driving in: you can afford to use a physical UI, what are you doing putting in touch-screen?!

</comment><comment><USER80> IMHO the physical controls invoke muscle memory and haptic feedback which enables driver to keep attention on the road. Touchscreen does not give this to same/any degree. I should not have to take eyes, or attention, off the road for longer than it takes my hand to find the right control. Physical controls current significant advantage over digital is "no interpretation required" \- feel or microsecond glance tells you the state. Digital, other than big dials and flashing colors, needs you to think. Those thoughts take focus away from the act of driving.

Im summary i think Honda is right - digital controls for things with no time and attention pressure (like music channel), and physical for those that need near immediate action (like defogging a window or wipers).

FTR been driving cars, trucks, motorcycles, bicycles for nearly 50 years - <USER2> accidents, no hospital trips, and that includes plenty of 'hooning about' well into danger-zone for conditions/environment (wont say more or might get a visit from authorities :-p )

<comment><USER81> I've been driving for 40 years. I totally agree with you. Old school controls you can operate reflexively. Often with barely any conscious thought. Your brain adapts to treat the car an an extension of your body.

That simply does not happen with modal controls.

</comment></comment><comment><USER82> More accurately, they're putting back dials for temperature control in one of the only cars the make that doesn't already use dials. They're not getting rid of touch screens, nor are they pushing against the industry: they're aligning temperature controls in one of their cars with their other cars and much of the rest of the industry.

</comment><comment> m-p-3 I do hope other automakers follow, because why should a head-unit should be considered safe to operate while driving, while touching a smartphone display isn't.

Both lacks the tactile feedback buttons are offering, both don't work with gloves and both requires you to look at the display (and stop looking at the road) to know what action you're making.

</comment><comment><USER83> My preference in cars is touchscreen for rarely used functionality, and then dials, buttons and sliders for everything else.

Messing with audio is a peripheral task so expecting me to take my eyes off the road etc is still unacceptable. Especially to change the track or adjust volume.

That said, we're all used to _small_ touchscreens. These tend to require the user to maintain the current context on what is on screen. The whole screen is subject to change and this complicates / weakens muscle memory. I've used larger touchscreens where controls don't change around so much and muscle memory can easily kick in if the design is sane. The difference is tangible. Eg you can blind press using peripheral vision and it can work well.

The real answer might just be that we're in the early days of touchscreen use. The technology and application thereof is still immature. The design language, for want of a better term, is still evolving.

</comment><comment><USER84> Not all touch controls are created equal.

I'm really happy with the interface in my Model 3 and I've found every other car interface I've used to be on the spectrum from terrible to okay (BMW, Mercedes, Mazda, VW, Porsche).

I think you can probably do either well, but it seems like the car companies (other than Tesla) just don't have this capability.

</comment><comment><USER85> Weird how the article says that Honda is the only manufacturer doing this when I read about Mazda doing it in Feb

[https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1121372_why-mazda-is- pur...](https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1121372_why-mazda-is-purging- touchscreens-from-its-vehicles)

</comment><comment><USER86> If Honda is "bucking a trend" here it just shows how much professionals, experts and decision-makers can be fooled by trends.

I speculate that Tesla made it something other luxury brands wanted too, and then those brands went bezerk: E.g. the newest Range Rover models feature multiple touch screens, they turned your AC-control-knobs into touch-screens as well, and even the once-handy controls on your steering wheel. What's the point then of still having a phisical gear shift?

I applaud Honda for making common sense an official statement again. I ditched the newest lineups of all new premium brands (also) because of that touch- screen nonsense and choosed a cheaper brand instead where it's at least just _one_ touch device.

Premium brands still don't seem to get how un-premium a dashboard full of thumbprints and smudges looks like, even less if everything else has a piano finish.

<comment><USER12> I thought TSLA was doing it because they want self-driving now and this makes it easier.

<comment><USER86> I didn't meant TSLA as a part of premium brands. Rather that TSLA using those large touch screens in their Model S, I think, to a large part drove premium brands into buying into touch screens as a trend.

BTW installing a large touch-screen under the premise of soon-to-be fully self-driving vehicles in 2013's Model S has to be a _loooong_ waiting for " _making it easier_ " ;-)

But I guess the car-makers touch screen folly might be even more attributable to the impact the iPhone made at that time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> I've designed hardware and software for a number of touchscreen devices and applications. I even invented the double-sided touchscreen, which may show up in phones in another few years.) So I love touchscreens, BUT, he lack of feel makes knobs, buttons and switches a far better choice for moving environments - I hate most new cars that lack real controls for at least commonly used functions. It's hard to beat the knobs and sliders in most 50-60 year-old cars for easy work-by-feel operation.

(FWIW, I always thought it would have been cool if someone in StarTrek TNG/DS9/Voyager had sat down at one of those smooth glass LCARS interface panels and been surprised that they could "feel" 3D controls on them. That seems to be the sort of thing that would be done given the obvious capabilities of their holo/forcefield generators...)

</comment><comment><USER88> To be fair to touch screen controls, Honda had exceptionally poor ones. There's always at least a second delay on brightness/volume/etc. adjustments in our 2018 Honda. I think the unit is just incredibly underpowered, because CarPlay (phone driven) doesn't suffer from the same issues.

</comment><comment><USER89> Hallelujah, at least one auto maker is willing to publicly come out against this insane trend of making car controls visual only. I mean, one would think that when you are inside a ton of metal speeding along the road at 60 mph, you would insist on controls that allow you to have 100% of your visual attention on the road and rely on your other senses to change the channel on the radio or adjust the AC. But somehow people think driving a car should be something like playing candy crush on your tablet. That means going forward I'll always have a car manufacturer I can rely on to not sacrifice my safety for a marketing coolness. Too bad makers like Tesla (who have a lot of leadership in other areas) completely drop the ball in this regard.

</comment><comment><USER90> Not all touchscreens are same. There are few touchscreens that are good. Most Honda touchscreens are bad.

<comment><USER91> All touchscreens provide zero tactile feedback or spatial info about its setting. Thus to use any touchscreen, you _always_ must take your eyes off the road to look at it. Thus no matter how logical or attractive or fast the display, screens are always less safe than _any_ tactile alternative control that lets you keep your eyes on the road.

Also, for car devices that provide intuitive feedback on their activity (wiper motion, fan noise, air temperature from outlets, audio volume, etc), you don't need a screen to confirm that it has changed.

And since these devices are the ones that I change most often (and music), I'd much prefer to control them on the steering wheel or verbally, and never use a screen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER92> "Honda is doing what no other car company is doing..."

Except Mazda. 6 months ago. Oof.

[https://www.motoringresearch.com/car-news/mazda-getting- rid-...](https://www.motoringresearch.com/car-news/mazda-getting-rid-of- touchscreens-cars/)

</comment><comment><USER93> This is a great decision by Honda. Touchscreens are a terrible UX when driving. Its difficult to be accurate with the touchscreen in a car when its moving, even as the passenger. Physical controls are much easier to control, less distracting, and we develop muscle memory for knobs dials and switches easily.

As an example, I personally am not a fan of the extreme minimalism in Tesla cars. A fully touchscreen experience makes sense only after a car is capable of fully autonomous self driving. As long as a human is responsible for controlling/monitoring the car, physical controls are better than touch controls.

To be fair, touch screens are better for changing settings, monitoring the health of the car, and any other action that we do while the car is parked.

</comment><comment><USER94> I recently purchased a 2020 Honda Odyssey. I hate the touchscreen controls, and I hate the button gear shifter (i.e. press a button to reverse...)

For example, it's so difficult to change AC controls w/o looking at the screen. It's very dangerous. I don't do it unless I'm at a light, or if on the highway, no one is around me.

Toyota Sienna still has their AC controls as buttons/knobs, still has a regular shifter, and probably more traditional controls.

But the Sienna was lacking in many other areas...so we went with Odyssey. Looks like we coulda waited a few more years!

The article also refers to "voice control". No, I don't want to yell at my car to lower the AC when my baby is sleeping.

I'm all for innovation...but please leave controls as it is!

</comment><comment><USER95> Wasn't it the US marine that moved back from touch screens to physical controls in their ships?

While the actual reason could be a case for discussions, the decision is correct in my humble opinion. The reason was, the loss of (I think) one destroyer, that crashed with a civil ship (a big freighter or tanker), because of misinterpretations of the steering control on the bridge of the destroyer.

In my humble opinion, when it comes to mission critical and distraction free control, nothing is better than physical control systems. In a good car, not only you have physical control systems, but also buttons and switches are of different shape or size or way of control (pressing, twisting, ...), so they can be identified simply by touching them.

</comment><comment><USER96> In my opinion, we need a mix of both. Trying to interact with an entertainment unit with some type of abstracted/bastardised joystick or touch pad is just plain awful. Whereas interacting using touchscreen is just so much simpler, plus allows for UIs that weren't part of the original product development (e.g Apple CarPlay).

But for other things, we need dedicated physical controls that mean we don't have to take our eyes off the road to use; for example, climate control, volume control, cruise control, hazard lights, etc.

A good manufacturer will integrate a mix of both, and user test at each stage of the manufacturing process to ensure what they're doing is in the best interest of the user.

</comment><comment><USER97> I very recently bought a BEV Hyundai Ioniq of the first Generation, and one of the reasons I chose the 1st gen was that it still has some knobs and dials. The new generation has almost only touch controls, and this feels kinda wrong. Notably, it's not a pure touch screen, but the knobs and dials have been replaced by a lot of capacitive touch elements with backlights. When it's dark outside, it would take me a few hundred ms to find the right button, and then I still have to visually guide my finger there. And then there's no physical feedback when pressing.

There are other reasons for why I chose the 1st gen (better fast charging capability), but the touch elements were the last straw.

</comment><comment><USER98> Me in my bit older Mercedes, my gears, lights, whipers all go automatic, im left with radio control and temperature. Audios is easy, it on the steering wheel, so is answering the phone. Two knobs for warm/cold and airco. No need for touchscreen.

</comment><comment><USER99> If my blood is on the touchscreen, it shouldn't break my car or prevent me from getting to the hospital. Who needs more controls? I want physical levers and switches on the dash. Case in point, Ford Mustangs have electronic controls to pull heat off the engine, but the valve only opens when the thermostat says it okay so when it breaks (and costs $250 to fix, and breaks regularly) you're stuck with cold air in the winter until you exceed 50MPH. Just give me a freaking lever that manually/physically opens the valve to and pull the heat off the engine. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

</comment><comment><USER100> My Prius prime has the worst controls possible. During spring and fall, when one part of the day is cold and the other warm, it's annoying to turn on the car. For instance, if I commute home and used A/C, turning on the car in the morning will have the A/C blasting when it's also cold outside. And I have to sit through the animation and boot up of the screen and then go to the climate control settings which usually is a very uncomfortable 30 seconds every time. And then, the touch is not as smooth as a modern smartphone. This is a 2019 Prius too so idk what Toyota was thinking going all touch on this one.

</comment><comment><USER101> My 2018 Opel Insignia also has mechanical dials and buttons for climate control and answering phone, setting cruise control and other "critical" things. But if you want to do detailed configuration for radio, sound balance, music etc you have a rich touch screen available with big buttons to hit. I find navigating between radio stations and navigation so much more accessible with touchscreen that I wouldn't want these things in another way. Anything that has to be accessed using a joystick like interface should be on the touchscreen and critical one dial features on mechanical where possible.

</comment><comment><USER102> My Mazda 3 sGT (and current year model) already does this and it's a joy to use, no touchscreen climate control!

Pics: [http://www.2wired2tired.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/03/Mazda...](http://www.2wired2tired.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/03/Mazda3-Dual-Climate-Control.jpg)

[https://blogmedia.dealerfire.com/wp- content/uploads/sites/45...](https://blogmedia.dealerfire.com/wp- content/uploads/sites/455/2016/08/2016-Mazda-Mazda3-Hatchback-B3_O.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER103> Good. Those damn things were clearly never tested on real roads with bumps.

> _" Oops you fat fingered the main menu icon while you were 5 layers deep! > Guess you have to start over!"_

Physical controls have their place, and in a car is one of them

</comment><comment><USER104> I could only image being blind and having to navigate a world that is completely flat. Knobs and controls add something to grab onto. to me it's also safer, if I'm driving and want to change the radio channel, i can feel for the knob without having to take my eyes off the road. i can't do this with a flat, touchscreen display and I also find that voice command work most times but, on the time they don't, i get frustrated and that's not good when driving either as it can cause road rage.

innovation is wonderful, however sometimes the old ways win out.

</comment><comment><USER105> I like touchscreen controls for my apple car play, but literally nothing else.

I can adjust the climate control temperature with dash buttons, but if I want to control which vents the air comes through, I have to use the touch screen.

Same for if I want to turn on the heated steering wheel. I don't use it too often so that doesn't bug me _too_ much, but sometimes if it's cold when I start my car, it turns it on for me. So when my hands get too hot I have to minimize apple car play, select the ford app, select climate control, and tap the tiny button for the steering wheel.

Seems way more dangerous than reading a text.

</comment><comment><USER106> I really wish Bevi (and similar kiosk type coffee or dispensing machines) would add physical buttons for dispensing and use the screen only for flavor information. I think our machine's screen isn't properly grounded or insulated from the refrigeration motors. I'm appreciative we have one in the office, however, and look forward to getting to see it again sometime.

Definitely agree with the sentiment that touch screens have gone too far. Feels kind of like the over use of plastic as we got better at manufacturing it. Hopefully the pendulum will swing back on touchscreens too.

</comment><comment><USER107> I don't think anybody even bothered to read the article!

It explicitly states, right below the top image -

>> The new Jazz has a touchscreen for many functions, but not temperature control

So, only the temperature control is via a dial. Everything else is still on the touchscreen.

Image - [https://www.autocar.co.uk/sites/autocar.co.uk/files/styles/g...](https://www.autocar.co.uk/sites/autocar.co.uk/files/styles/gallery_slide/public/images/car- reviews/first-drives/legacy/honda-jazz-2020-interior.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER108> Until voice control (or fully autonomous vehicles) is 100% awesome, nothing beats tactile, physical controls. If designed right, you never have to leave your eyes from the road (good luck doing that with a Tesla, for example) and you know 100% what you're controlling.

What also nobody discusses (except for maybe Doug DeMuro): digital screens and controls age POORLY. Any car that's 10-ish years old with tons of tech looks ancient, where an even older one with mostly-analog controls can still look sharp. This obviously mostly matters for high-end cars.

</comment><comment> blaser-waffle Good. There is no way to use a touchscreen effectively while going 80km/h.

It would have to be the smartest touch screen ever, and be able to make assumptions as to what i'm trying to press -- fudge a lot of precision -- and even then I wouldn't know if what I'm touching and what the machine thinks I'm touching are correct without taking my eyes off the road. Meanwhile, I can feel for the 3rd knob or 3rd button and be sure what it is without taking my eyeballs off of the bumper of the car in front of me.

</comment><comment><USER109> My mom she has a Honda Jazz and the UI is one oft the most terrible from all cars I have seen so far. A few things at least like Audio volume, some radio channels and temperature should have hardware knobs or buttons, so I easy can change it without looking on the screen. Then also should be a place under the screen where i can rest my hand (like has something, at least in a new car I drove recently), so I can touch the screen with a single finger multiple times on the same spot without looking on the screen.

</comment><comment><USER110> My 30 year old Land Rover has one of my favourite user interfaces.

For example, the cooling system. It's a big lever on the dash connected directly to a big flap on front of the car. You pull down the lever and it opens the flap, and air gets rammed in through the vent. The only moving part is the lever.

Everything is just so _tactile_. The cooling system, the gear stick, the transfer box, the switches. The user interface goes CLUNK and you can feel the thing on the other end doing the thing you made it do.

</comment><comment><USER111> Great.

I think voice controls are obviously the theoretical best for automotive and I hope that in the near future every car will have built-in functionality - <USER3> will even work offline.

Obviously Siri can't control my AC right now but it infuriates me that CarPlay voice controls don't work without internet.

I have a hard time imagining it would be difficult to increase offline functionality when in my old 2010 Ford I had Microsoft Sync with the functionality to voice control an iPod offline and it worked pretty much perfectly.

</comment><comment><USER112> Another fad that should go away is blue light dashboards. They give horrible afterimages in dark conditions. BMW's red-orange lights are so relaxing to look at in comparison.

<comment><USER91> If a car uses blue dash lights, that will stop me from buying it instantly and unquestionably. Blue is extremely saturating to my eyes' receptors and uncomfortable to look at in darkness even for a moment. Red is 100x more forgiving.

</comment></comment><comment><USER113> I was somewhat dreading what the interface would look like on my next car purchase. On the one hand I'd love the idea that the navigational map on my phone may be displayed on the car's "big screen", but I didn't know what to make about this touchscreen stuff.

Makes a lot of sense! Right now I can adjust almost everything by touch alone: cruise control, volume, etc. I would hate for those to get buried in an inevitable submenu on a touchscreen.

</comment><comment><USER114> Touchscreens are not the only UI problem in recent cars. I have a recent Honda, it suffers from the problem that they decided to make the crucial buttons below the touchscreen touch sensitive (with no tactile feedback). So for eg. if you wipe them should some dirt land on them, you set them all off/on by accident! What's worse, they are glossy, and hard to see with glare. It looks good though and sells cars, I call it "the iPhone" design.

</comment><comment><USER115> I see the benefits of touch screens, but I really miss tactile controls, like the temperature controls on my Dad's 1978 GMC pickup truck, which is the vehicle I learned to drive in. Three super simple, super intuitive slider type controls for all temperature settings: [https://i.ytimg.com/vi/iVtb4z2QozY/maxresdefault.jpg](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/iVtb4z2QozY/maxresdefault.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER116> I for one will be really glad if this sparks and industry wide trend to go back to buttons and shift levers rather than buttons or levers that aren't actually good.

</comment><comment><USER117> GM had it right!

[http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/2/4797/3641/24491...](http://carphotos.cardomain.com/ride_images/2/4797/3641/24491820095_large.jpg)

[https://bestcarmag.com/sites/default/files/65564525286387311...](https://bestcarmag.com/sites/default/files/65564525286387311_ded3d988e0.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER118> Ha! This reminds me of Navy and it's destroyer doing the same thing.

"The US Navy will replace its touchscreen controls with mechanical ones on its destroyers" [https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/11/20800111/us-navy-uss- john...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/11/20800111/us-navy-uss-john-s- mccain-crash-ntsb-report-touchscreen-mechanical-controls)

</comment><comment><USER119> I own a Honda HRV and I agree. The fucking touch-slider for volume control is absolutely atrocious.

There are buttons on the wheel but these are slow compared to a good old knob.

</comment><comment><USER120> I like the UConnect system in my '19 Jeep Grand Cherokee. It has a mix of touch features and dials/buttons. Some features you can control with both touch and dials/buttons. Front seat warmers and coolers do no have physical buttons and I dislike it a lot.

Physical and touch controls should complement each other. Too much touch is bad and too many buttons are bad. I remember looking at Acura's with to many buttons a few years ago.

</comment><comment><USER121> "The new Audi A3's electronics boss Melanie Limmer told Autocar recently its decision to remove some physical buttons was made as 'more and more people are getting into touch functions with smartphones' and added that the new system is as user-friendly as the previous one." - her model is the thing that is responsible for countless distracted driving deaths... great

</comment><comment><USER122> This is fantastic news. Reminds me of this GREAT READ: [https://www.amazon.com/Hand-Shapes-Brain-Language- Culture/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/Hand-Shapes-Brain-Language- Culture/dp/0679740473)

I would not be surprised if this decision resulted in even greater brand loyalty, e.g. drivers becoming attached to the "feel" of a Honda.

</comment><comment><USER123> I'm glad they're going in this direction. Mostly all BMWs use the screen for simply displaying informational content and for input and navigation it uses a multi-direction knob right by the arm rest and it's best most intuitive way to navigate the screen imo. Car screens are either matte and less responsive or glossy and more responsive but less visible in sunlight.

</comment><comment><USER124> What I really hate about touchscreen, and love with analog input, is the "speed control" of rotary dials.

For example, if you want to change the air speed of your ventilation system down to zero from max, a quick rotation of your vent speed knob will bring it back to zero and you can rotate it back to put it to one, without looking.

With touchscreen, it's hard to do the same without looking.

</comment><comment><USER125> Physical devices are far superior to touch controls. Not only can you operate them much more reliably under movement and vibration, you can reliably control them without looking.

Or would you replace your (_mechanical_) keyboard with a touch keyboard of current tech?

Anyone pushing touch screens to replace physical input devices in situations where you need to be doing other things at the same time is just insane.

</comment><comment><USER126> I've always been very happy with Honda's car interfaces. Everything from basic driving stuff to climate control and the radio seem... well, not great, but simply, fine. Most other manufacturers seem to have some trick up their sleeve, with crazy turn signal mechanisms or some other nonsense. I think they have relatively sensible people working in that department.

</comment><comment><USER127> The only feedback I've seen has echoed my own sentiment: "Good". What is the opposing point of view? Is there anyone out there who is willing to defend touch-screen interfaces in vehicles? What's the advantage to the driver? Is it even that much cheaper to the manufacturer? Surely plastic knobs are not a big hit to the bottom line of car makers.

<comment><USER128> Repairability and features as software instead of hardware. For example, Tesla was able to enable Spotify in all its cars with an OTA update. Hell, you can enable rear heated seats in the Model 3 SR+ via an OTA.

<comment><USER129> Tesla also takes away features via OTA updates. It's a double-edged sword.

<comment><USER128> You're referring to the AP / FSD situation?

I believe that was a misstep and was rectified. The "features" I'm talking about are different.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER130> Unfortunately we won't get this car in the US. I love my 1st gen Honda Fit and plan to keep it pretty much forever, they're such a great vehicle. Incredible gas mileage and they're actually fun to drive with the short wheelbase. In tune with the article I put the only Carplay receiver with a physical volume knob in it and it's perfectly easy to use.

<comment><USER131> I gotta say... I got a Fit in 2007, pre-ordered before they were available, and at 300k+ miles it's doing great. The guy at the oil change place literally turned his eyes to the heavens and said that he couldn't find any service to recommend. He'd never seen a car of such age that clean; it should surely be leaking something.

I've heard Honda has gone downhill in the last decade, and my next car probably won't be a Honda. But at this rate, my next car will drive itself. (Especially since I'm no longer putting miles on it at the rate that got me to 300k in a decade.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER132> Now let's go back from this flat UI nonsense everywhere to the kind of solid look that Windows '95 had and make my decade, not just day!

[https://socket3.wordpress.com/2018/02/03/designing- windows-9...](https://socket3.wordpress.com/2018/02/03/designing- windows-95s-user-interface/)

<comment><USER133> Hardware graphics acceleration on High quality, high resolution displays are to blame. And then designers started pretending computers was like paper, they used the same design principles

Interfaces became flat well, because paper design isn't interactive.

I know this sounds stupid, who'd make such a mistake! Look at where the trendsetters cribbed their design inspirations from, and you'll find a classic 2d printed world.

If we relimit ourselves to EGA16/640x480 thinking, at least in thought as an exercise, we'd be good.

</comment></comment><comment><USER134> The only touch screen in any car should be a dumb terminal for CarPlay/Android Auto. Everything else should be dials and buttons.

</comment><comment><USER135> Real buttons provide tactile feedback. Plus they don't move around for each menu screen and with software updates. They can be operated by muscle memory. Buttons also provide information about the current state (think ventilation/heat). It's not about comfort but security that is maintaining visibility while keeping eyes on the road.

</comment><comment><USER136> As far as I'm concerned, there is nothing inherently wrong with "touchscreen controls", it's the usage and user interface assumptions.

Make a touchscreen slider and who knows, perhaps it's even more durable and reliable than a moving part. It's the whole sets of modal interfaces, and jenky controls which make this stuff unsafe, and irritating.

</comment><comment><USER137> Touchscreens unfortunately only provide visual feedback. I can _feel_ the wheel turn without taking my eyes off the road.

There are lots of development-related reasons touchscreens are appealing, but in situations where the user cannot reasonable look at the screen much, it's not obvious a touchscreen is a good solution. Maybe with haptic feedback of some kind.

</comment><comment><USER138> I believe Mazda made this decision not too long ago.

I hope this is a sign of things to come for the automobile industry.

Essentially, why I don't like touchscreens in automobile media interfaces:

-no tactile response

-more distracting due to the increased dexterity required to get where you need and the greater necessity to focus your eyes

-less intuitive than button/wheel controls (in my experience)

-uglier interfaces (again, in my experience)

</comment><comment><USER139> There should be UX research about an ideal combination of tactile physical interfaces (knobs, dials, push buttons, whatever) and voice-activated and voice-feedbacked control while driving.

I we're missing out on not only voice-activated commands, but AI responding and updating about the situation through speakers, not just through the screen updates.

</comment><comment><USER140> From the article, " Honda has done what no other car maker is doing".

False, Mazda started this with the Mazda 3 in 2019 ([https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1121372_why-mazda-is- pur...](https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1121372_why-mazda-is-purging- touchscreens-from-its-vehicles)).

</comment><comment><USER141> > We changed it from touchscreen to dial operation, as we received customer > feedback that it was difficult to operate intuitively. You had to look at > the screen to change the heater seating, therefore, we changed it so one can > operate it without looking, giving more confidence while driving.

Finally, logic, reason, and listening to customers.

</comment><comment><USER142> I'd like to point out Mazda has been doing this for a while. [https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1121372_why-mazda-is- pur...](https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1121372_why-mazda-is-purging- touchscreens-from-its-vehicles)

</comment><comment><USER143> This is #1 reason why I still love my Toyota over Tesla. Physical buttons make a huge difference in driving experience.

If only someone invented a tactile touchscreen, i.e it would bulge where user can interact. like dynamic braille. Material design where different elevation levels are literally popping out of screen at different levels.

</comment><comment><USER144> Apple should follow and ditch the Touch Bar. Also, the excellent The Best Interface is No Interface book [0] talks quite a bit about unnecessary touch screen controls in cars and related topics.

[0] [http://www.nointerface.com/book/](http://www.nointerface.com/book/)

</comment><comment><USER145> What you need is both. The screen should still be a touch screen, and there should be buttons and toggles around it.

For example, I hate it when I can't pan/scroll through the map on the car screen for lack of touch screen. But I also hate it when I have to use touch buttons to change the music that's playing.

</comment><comment><USER146> Is there a name for this phenomenon where manufacturers build harmful features into their products purely for the technical credibility? It's the same with motion smoothing and televisions -- the experience is massively degraded, but the technology is impressive, so presumably sales will increase.

</comment><comment><USER147> > the predicted move towards more voice-controlled actions in cars could > eliminate the debate around touchscreens versus analogue controls in the > future.

Oh yuck, voice controls are the absolute worst. Anyone who thinks otherwise probably only drives alone (or at least without kids yelling in the background).

</comment><comment><USER148> I find the climate control on my Honda Civic to be maddeningly confusing for reasons that aren't really too related to the fact that it has some touchscreen elements, but I'm glad nonetheless. I feel like forcing things to physical buttons forces certain design decisions that you want anyways.

</comment><comment><USER149> I have a 2019 civic. even with the non touch screen option, a weird glitch in bluetooth freezes the entire media center. I have to pull over and park the car and turn the engine off to reset.

Hitting the power button does not solve this. So in some sense having hardware buttons does not solve everything.

</comment><comment><USER150> It seem like what I would really want is a big screen in the middle Tesla style and glue an xbox pad on the steering wheel. And give me a fold out keyboard if I need to type something real. And maybe a minimal hud with just the speed and top speed. That's at least what I would do.

</comment><comment><USER151> My parents have a Subaru with a touch screen for the radio, and I guess some apps.

For the radio, it's crap. For anything else, why would I want something built into the dashboard that'll cost 10x what it's worth to repair?

I don't understand what's so appealing about an in-dash touch screen.

</comment><comment><USER152> I remember years back there was a company that had and inflatable layer ontop of touch screens for flexible "buttons". I'm sure there's ergonomic pros/cons of different kinds of physical switches but seems like we need to move on better touch screen haptics.

</comment><comment><USER153> Wow, this is easily the most annoying site I've come across recently. Not only does it block the whole page if I'm using adblock, but it doesn't even start working when I disable it (I'm using uBlock Origin).

We really need to figure out a proper anti-anti-adblock technology...

</comment><comment><USER34> See also: [https://features.propublica.org/navy-uss-mccain- crash/navy-i...](https://features.propublica.org/navy-uss-mccain-crash/navy- installed-touch-screen-steering-ten-sailors-paid-with-their-lives/)

</comment><comment><USER154> "Honda has done what no other car maker is doing, and returned to analogue controls for some functions on the new Honda Jazz."

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20200335](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20200335)

</comment><comment><USER155> Isn't this the perfect application for ASR technology? Instead of fiddling around with buttons, or worse, a touchscreen, you could just say "Honda: heat up", "Honda: heat two down", "Honda: aircon off". I would love that in my car.

</comment><comment><USER156> Mazda began doing this last year [0]. If anything Honda are jumping on the trend they started, and I'm really happy to see it.

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20200335](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20200335)

</comment><comment><USER157> I'm hoping to get an EV or hybrid for my next car - probably a sedan. My biggest apprehension with most of the ones I've seen is the excessive dependency on software/touchscreen based controls.

Does anyone have experience with Honda EV or hybrids? Would you recommend?

</comment><comment><USER158> In an odd way that Douglas Adams predicted this weird evolution of controls making fun of how manual controls were eventually replaced by controls that forced a pilot to sit perfectly still so as not to change a radio station.

I applaud Honda. Touch screen is a distraction in my car.

</comment><comment><USER159> Didn't Mazda do it first?

[https://www.express.co.uk/life- style/cars/1148040/Mazda-3-to...](https://www.express.co.uk/life- style/cars/1148040/Mazda-3-touchscreen-display-new-cars-distraction)

</comment><comment><USER160> Why not do a standard benchmark, perform a number of actions in different conditions and configurations, and see whether humans can react faster and more precisely with 2 touchscreens (let's level the 2 hands advantage) or multiple hardware controllers...

</comment><comment><USER128> Probably the one thing that bugs me about my M3. 90% of the time, it's fine... but that once or twice a week where I'm actively driving and need to turn on AC or whatever and have to navigate while trying to interact with the touchscreen is rough.

</comment><comment><USER161> Tactile buttons and switches are much easier to use by muscle memory. There is very little muscle memory with touch buttons and touch screens.

Also, touch screens are much harder (thus more dangerous) to use while you are in motion, hitting bumps, going around curves.

</comment><comment><USER162> "Honda has done what no other car maker is doing" isn't correct. For the latest Mazda 3 (2019) Mazda has made the same decision. There's a non-touch screen which can only be controlled by a center knob for safety.

</comment><comment><USER163> The Audi MMI system consisting of a central dial is still the most intuitive and least distracting of all car systems I have seen in the market. And, as a bonus, it also works really well with Android Auto and CarPlay - <USER4> touchscreen.

</comment><comment><USER164> I wonder if you could take existing touchscreens and just have them vibrate differently depending on where the user is touching. Or have them vibrate differently as the user's hand moves across different buttons.

</comment><comment><USER165> The physical dial and nobs and the tactile feedback when human drivers get from operating them is much better than touch screen controls. I applaud Honda's the design, as well as some German automakers' design in the same vein.

</comment><comment><USER166> Touch controls have their place in the car - they are a MUST for a quick map navigation and they are very handy for entering addresses.

Otherwise - yes, 100%, physical buttons and knobs are far superior. Especially for making adjustments without looking.

</comment><comment><USER167> Good. I recently told my local honda dealer I wouldn't be buying another of any car because of touchscreens exactly because of the need to look and lack of tactile interaction.

Clearly this change is because of me, specifically, only me. ;)

</comment><comment><USER133> I've long wanted to create an after market midi style controller that people can put on their dash to give their car the spatial, tactile control again.

Integrating it with the vehicle though... Somewhat dubious if you're just CAN writing

</comment><comment><USER168> What physical controls are an ABSOLUTE MUST for you?

Leaving aside Legally mandated: Wipers, Headlights, Gear Selector, Brake, Accelerator, Horn, Hazards.

Me: Required: Mute Music, HVAC temperature and fan speed. Strongly preferred: All audio controls, Cruise control.

</comment><comment><USER169> > Honda has done what no other car maker is doing, and returned to analogue > controls

It's what I like with the Up! no touchscreen, no stupid added function: just a good mobile phone fixation for the infotainment and good old buttons.

</comment><comment><USER170> I wouldn't mind a tactile touch screen [1] with optional voice prompting, and a jog dial.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiM0u79fals](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiM0u79fals)

</comment><comment><USER171> I bought a Kia minivan in 2018 just because it had the most real buttons and dials.

</comment><comment><USER172> Odd article as this isn't _new_. Is it new in that other manufacturers have started and they have no plans to? My current Honda has a very comfortable interface, probably my favorite of any car I've driven.

</comment><comment><USER173> Yay Honda!

I've never been in a car that had a better designed interface than my '91 Accord. I'm sure they're out there but if a budget car can have such a pleasant interface there's no reason they all can't.

</comment><comment><USER174> I just need a basic stereo, manually cranked windows, and a 5-6 speed stickshift.

</comment><comment><USER175> It ia a about usability and safety of operation, not reliability. Touch screens need eye contact to operate. Knobs and physical buttons can be operated on muscle memory only, so your eyes can stay on the road.

</comment><comment><USER176> Without seeing the buttons and knobs in question it's really hard to see whether this is a good or bad move. I've been in plenty of cars with conventional controls that were horrible to use.

Edit: fixed typo.

</comment><comment><USER177> I'm pretty happy with the newest Rams - large screen with touch controls, but things like volume and temp are physical buttons. Volume is the one thing that should NEVER be a touch control (IMO).

</comment><comment><USER178> Tell that to my 2019 HRV. Doesn't even have CarPlay so I can't use Siri to do anything for me. All AC controls are touch screen so I have to look away from the road just to change the fan speed.

<comment><USER179> Why did you buy it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER180> The headline had me alarmed. This is just moving heating and whatnot to physical controls. That's awesome. I was worried they were getting rid of the touchscreen entirely.

Android Auto has been an absolute game changer, and it works so much better with touchscreen. Voice controls actually do cover the majority of use cases, but things like being able to quickly see the next turn or zooming out on the map with one hand are simple, and can be done without really looking at the screen until you need to see the info.

Unfortunately, the car I ended up buying (Acura TLX) had Android Auto, but was controlled by a dial knob. It was really the worst of both worlds, since heating was still managed through a second screen that was a touchscreen.

</comment><comment><USER181> A lot of mention of Mazda, but my 2018 Ford Escape has buttons/knobs for all the standard car features. I also have Apple CarPlay which is great for maps/media. Very happy with it.

</comment><comment><USER182> New Mazda models also no longer have touchscreens. We lease one of the newer models and honestly do not miss the touchscreen at all. The rotary controls are intuitive and less distracting

</comment><comment><USER183> Related (re Mazda) from last year: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20200335](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20200335)

</comment><comment><USER184> Good for Honda. Frankly, some of these touch screen features were getting out of hand - no pun intended. I miss the tactile experience of touching a knob, a dial, flip a switch.

</comment><comment><USER185> Finally! Bring back some sanity to machine controls.

I much prefer knobs, dials, and switches to control things inside the car. And especially if I need to modulate it while operating the car.

</comment><comment><USER186> Mazda waves hi. Touchscreens auto- disable when driving but buttons/ knobs are still usable to control it. Last I heard they wanted to move to a HUD system.

</comment><comment><USER187> Hopefully other manufacturers will follow suit. In my view the large touchscreen / lack of mechanical controls is the single biggest deficiency of the Model 3.

</comment><comment><USER188> I'm baffled by the insane number of upvotes this post has. "Honda is putting knobs in their cars" is the least interesting thing posted in HN history

</comment><comment><USER189> Dear Honda, my next car is now much more likely to be a Honda. I am literally at less risk of dying with controls I don't need to look at. Thank you.

</comment><comment><USER190> Every single car - except Tesla - does a bad job implementing touchscreens, from my experience. They are generally a pain to use and unintuitive.

</comment><comment><USER191> At least it's good that honda has been thinking about this kinda stuff. Some of their UI's have been pretty atrocious in the past.

</comment><comment><USER192> Their touchscreen implementation is so horrible, that this sounds like the right move. This is the only thing I hate about my 2019 Clarity.

</comment><comment><USER193> Solution here is generic knobs that can be assigned to different functions: Temp, fan speed, volume, for those with kids fader control :-)

</comment><comment><USER194> Best thing that ever happened in the automotive industry. Thank you, Honda. The many accident victims will thank you for the rest of us.

</comment><comment><USER195> Honda has good safety and UX in this. Touchscreens are sexy but distracting and probably not sensible. Tesla will fight back I am sure.

</comment><comment><USER196> Voice control maybe works for folks in silicon valley but it is very lacking in quality for smaller languages or even non-existent

</comment><comment><USER197> God bless em.

RWD electric car, and tactile controls, and all the other cool stuff they're doing? Honda is becoming cool again.

</comment><comment><USER198> A friend bought a Tesla and he was very pleased with it. He insisted I drive it. I couldn't stand it. It was obviously designed to not have a human drive it. My friend doesn't care for driving, but I love it.

I think that's where the touch screen comes in. The driver is secondary. They have to let the driver access things, but they don't have to make it safe or convenient.

Now that the self driving hype is dying down, perhaps the driver will be put first again.

</comment><comment><USER199> Top complaint of my Civic, touchccreen controlled volume/mute. TS buttons just don't cut it for some things.

</comment><comment><USER200> I'm surprised there's no mention of Mazda, who started doing this a year ago in more mainstream models.

</comment><comment><USER201> hallelujah!

the controls were a big reason i got a subaru; its a car you can drive the ____ out of with eyes on the road/dirt/gravel. the layout on the honda looks astonishingly similar. i duno how it is formalized in business terms, but it seems neat how all the japanese auto companies seem to cooperatively share tech

</comment><comment><USER202> The steering wheel and acceleration pedals should be made into touch screens. Physical interfaces are so old school.

</comment><comment><USER203> Hurrah!

I am suppose to be looking at the road, not a screen when I want to adjust the air con.

Give me something I can feel every day of the week.

</comment><comment><USER204> Although I do not drive around much, fully hardware buttons + Siri voice controls(maps, music) does not sound bad.

</comment><comment><USER205> Hooray! That's why I didn't get the EX-L and went with the EX, didn't want a touchscreen, give me knobs and dials!

</comment><comment><USER206> [https://outline.com/VugcGV](https://outline.com/VugcGV)

</comment><comment><USER207> This article talks about using dials for climate control. I have a 2019 CR-V and it still uses dials for that.

</comment><comment><USER208> Never liked the touchscreen on my car. Tactile buttons are easier to control when your eyes are on the road.

</comment><comment><USER209> Mazda did it first :) The new Mazda 3 2019 model (launched in october 2018) has no tuchscreen control.

</comment><comment><USER210> Yay for Honda and common sense! Touchscreens are no good when you gotta keep your eyes on the road.

</comment><comment><USER211> I still don't get it. For me banning touchscreens from every car interface is a no-brainer.

</comment><comment><USER212> Well done!

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'm going to repeat a comment I made a few times before, as I think it's relevant:

In one of the talks at Google I/O a few years ago a VP from Audi (or Volvo?) spoke in a thick and lofty German accent about how "ve haf completely oferhauled ze driver exzperienze". He played a sexy video clip showcasing their new Android infotainment system (something like [https://youtu.be/h_7_fKJ0PNs](https://youtu.be/h_7_fKJ0PNs)), and the first thing I noticed is how they'd taken away my traditional temperature knobs and replaced them with digital touchscreen ones. They looked just like physical ones, and were in the exact same place you would expect ([https://9to5google.com/2017/05/15/android-cars- audi/](https://9to5google.com/2017/05/15/android-cars-audi/)). So, I've gained absolutely nothing, and now I have to take my eyes off the road and look down at the stupid console just to change the temperature.

TLDR: Tacticle feedback is a Good Thing(tm) and designers should cultivate - not fight - muscle memory.

</comment><comment><USER213> The elegance of the Apple Watch Series 5 crown with haptic feedback for scroll function.

</comment><comment><USER214> The trend towards a touchscreen interface seems like a nod to startrek and the LCARS OS.

</comment><comment><USER215> I think Land Rover has made one of the neatest and most balanced yet useful interior designs with Land Rover Defender 2020. [https://carbuzz.com/cars/land-rover/defender](https://carbuzz.com/cars/land- rover/defender)

</comment><comment><USER216> honda generally gets called out for having some of the most touch heavy interface of any cars in their reviews, im not sure if finally responding to that feedback counts as "bucking the trend"

</comment><comment><USER217> Good, the Honda touchscreen controls in my 2016 Pilot are incredibly awful.

</comment><comment><USER218> Mazda started doing this a couple years ago. Glad to see it spreading.

</comment><comment><USER219> This is a thread of people arguing about touch vs physical buttons.

</comment><comment><USER220> I love me some good switches and buttons.

Sadly cars are kinda bad at those too.

</comment><comment><USER221> IIRC, Mazda are also pushing back against the touchscreen fad

</comment><comment><USER222> good, can't count how many times I've had to mash a touch-screen (not in Honda, so may be different) to get something to "click."

i'm all for physical UX.

</comment><comment><USER223> a great reason to buy a Honda... if this becomes the new normal, I wonder how much this will hurt Tesla since it'd be a pretty drastic change for them.

</comment><comment><USER224> It takes courage to remove the touchscreen.

</comment><comment><USER225> Larry Tesler would be pleased today.

</comment><comment><USER226> Nice. I see a Honda in my future...

</comment><comment><USER227> All I can say is, thank f __k

</comment><comment><USER228> They're not _wrong_.

</comment><comment><USER229> these days I am having very difficult time unlocking my iphone with my facemask on

</comment><comment><USER230> This link is better: [https://jalopnik.com/honda-follows-mazda-by-ditching- some-to...](https://jalopnik.com/honda-follows-mazda-by-ditching-some- touchscreen-contro-1842564375)

Autocar requires you to disable your ad blocker in order to view the website. Jalopnik does not, and does not even show a GDPR cookie popup.

</comment><comment><USER231> UX designer here, I approve.

</comment><comment><USER47> Bret Vector's classic paper "Magic Ink: Information Software and the Graphical Interface" boldly states: "Interactivity considered harmful"!

When I first read that, I was flabbergasted and offended, because I love interactivity. But he's right.

"Interaction should be used judiciously and sparingly, only when the environment and history provide insufficient context to construct an acceptable graphic." -Bret Victor, Magic Ink

This is a critically important lesson to apply to automotive user interfaces. It's much safer if, as much as possible, instead of being interactive, the user interface predicts and infers from context and history what the user wants, when or before they want it, and presents it to them without them asking, so it's there when they need it.

[http://worrydream.com/MagicInk/](http://worrydream.com/MagicInk/)

Interactivity considered harmful

Chris Crawford defines interaction as a three-phase reciprocal process, isomorphic to a conversation: an interactant listens to her partner, thinks about what was said, and speaks a response. Her partner then does the same. __See Crawford's book The Art of Interactive Design (2003), or his essay Fundamentals of Interactivity (1993). For manipulation software, interaction is perfectly suitable: the user views a visual representation of the model, considers what to manipulate next, and performs a manipulation. The software, in turn, inputs the user's manipulation request, updates the model, and displays the updated representation. With good feedback and an effective means of "speaking" to the software, this process can cycle smoothly and rapidly. It mimics the experience of working with a physical tool.

Information software, by contrast, mimics the experience of reading, not working. It is used for achieving an understanding—constructing a model within the mind. Thus, the user must listen to the software and think about what it says… but any manipulation happens mentally. __Except possibly for signaling a decision, such as clicking a "buy" button, but that concludes, not constitutes, a session. The only reason to complete the full interaction cycle and speak is to explicitly provide some context that the software can't otherwise infer—that is, to indicate a relevant subset of information. For information software, all interaction is essentially navigation around a data space.

For example, Amazon's data space consists of their catalog of items. For a yellow pages directory, the data space contains all business listings; for a movie guide, all showtimes and movie information; for a flight planner, trips to and from all airports. In all of these cases, every interaction, every click and keystroke, search term and menu selection, simply serves to adjust the user's view into the data space. This is simply navigation.

Alan Cooper defines excise in this context as a cognitive or physical penalty for using a tool—effort demanded by the tool that is not directly in pursuit of a goal. For example, filling a gas tank is done to support the car, not the goal of arriving at a destination. Cooper goes on to assert that software navigation is nothing but excise:

…the most important thing to realize about navigation is that, in almost all cases, it represents pure excise, or something close to it. Except in games where the goal is to navigate successfully through a maze of obstacles, navigation through software does not meet user goals, needs, or desires. Unnecessary or difficult navigation thus becomes a major frustration to users. In fact, it is the authors' opinion that poorly designed navigation presents the number-one problem in the design of any software application or system… __Alan Cooper and Robert Reimann, About Face (2003), p143.

If all interaction is navigation, and navigation is the number-one software problem, interactivity is looking pretty bad already. However, when compared with the other two sources of context, interactivity has even worse problems than simply being a frustrating waste of time:

The user has to already know what she wants in order to ask for it. Software that infers from history and the environment can proactively offer potentially relevant information that the user wouldn't otherwise know to ask for. Purely interactive software forces the user to make the first move.

The user has to know how to ask. That is, she must learn to manipulate a machine. Donald Norman's concept of determining a user's "mental model" has become widespread in the software usability community, and is now considered a core design challenge. __See Donald Norman's book The Design of Everyday Things (2002), p9. However, Norman described this concept in the context of mechanical devices. It only applies to software if the software actually contains hidden mechanisms that the user must model. A low-interaction, non- mechanical information graphic relieves both user and designer from struggling with mental models.

Navigation implies state. Software that can be navigated is software in which the user can get lost. The more navigation, the more corners to get stuck in. The more manipulable state, the more ways to wander into a "bad mode." State is the primary reason people fear computers—stateful things can be broken. __The only state kept by a book is which page it is open to, which is why "getting lost in a book" describes a pleasurable experience!

Beyond these cognitive problems are physical disadvantages of interaction. The hand is much slower than the eye. Licklider described spending hours plotting graphs and seconds understanding them. A user who must manually request information is in a similar situation—given the mismatch between mousing and reading speeds, most of her time may be spent navigating, not learning. Further, the user might prefer to learn information while using her hands for other purposes, such as writing or eating or stroking a cat. Each time software demands the user's hands, this activity must be interrupted. Finally, the growing prevalence of computer-related repetitive stress injuries suggests that indiscriminate interactivity may be considerably harmful in a literal, physical sense.

Unless it is enjoyable or educational in and of itself, interaction is an essentially negative aspect of information software. There is a net positive benefit if it significantly expands the range of questions the user can ask, or improves the ease of locating answers, but there may be other roads to that benefit. As suggested by the above redesigns of the train timetable, bookstore, and movie listings, many questions can be answered simply through clever, information-rich graphic design. Interaction should be used judiciously and sparingly, only when the environment and history provide insufficient context to construct an acceptable graphic.

It is unfortunate that the communities concerned with human factors of electronic artifacts have latched onto the term "interaction." __Most professional communities and academic programs use the term Human-Computer Interaction, or HCI; the ACM special-interest group is CHI, the converse. Many practitioners, following Cooper and Bill Moggridge, refer to their profession as "interaction design." For information software, the real issue is context- sensitivity. Interaction is merely one means of achieving that. And as long as "speaking" is constrained to awkwardly pushing metaphors with a mouse, interaction should be the last resort.

The working designer might protest that interaction is unavoidable in practice, and may even consider my ideal of interaction-free software to be a scoff-worthy fantasy. This is only because the alternatives have been unrecognized and underdeveloped. I believe that with the invention of new context-sensitive graphical forms and research into obtaining and using environment and history, the clicking and dragging that characterizes modern information retrieval will be made to seem laughably archaic. But every condonation of "interactivity," from the annals of academia to the corporate buzzvocabulary, postpones this future.

</comment><comment><USER232> difficult to operate intuitively is exactly right.

</comment><comment><USER233> Welp, looks like Honda's back in the running for my next car!

</comment><comment><USER47> There's another Hacker News discussion about a related topic, a paper Ben Shneiderman wrote in 1993, "Beyond Intelligent Machines: Just Do It".

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22742100](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22742100)

[http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/trs/93-03/93-03.html](http://www.cs.umd.edu/hcil/trs/93-03/93-03.html)

>It seems that you can hardly go to a computer conference without seeing a videotape of a futuristic computer system that talks to you from a wall, desk, or some random appliance. Is this the interface of the future? Over the last decade, Ben Shneiderman, head of the University of Maryland's Human-Computer Interaction Laboratory and author of Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction (Addison-Wesley, 1992), has been the most forceful voice against anthropomorphic interfaces. He argues that users want a sense of direct and immediate control over computers that differs from how they interact with people. He presents several examples of these predictable and controllable interfaces developed in the lab at UM.

Ben Shneiderman and his colleagues like Richard Potter, Andrew Sears, and Catherine Plaisant at his HCIL lab have performed a lot of research and user interface design with touch screens, like the "lift off" high precision pointing strategy, and early touch screen keyboards.

An experimental evaluation of three touch screen strategies within a hypertext database

[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/1044731890952595...](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10447318909525956)

Clocks, calendars and schedulers on a touchscreen (1988, HCIL)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzMHqF9Pkv4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzMHqF9Pkv4)

Touchscreen keyboards - Andrew Sears, Ben Shneiderman. Human-Computer Interaction Lab, University of Maryland.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDRKP2ATBRg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDRKP2ATBRg)

And he just dropped by HN to announce a new paper he's just published on a similar topic, the result of years of work, which also relates to this discussion:

Shneiderman, Ben (2020). Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence: Reliable, Safe & Trustworthy, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction,36, 6 (Published Online March 27, 2020).

[https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1741118](https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2020.1741118)

Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence: Reliable, Safe & Trustworthy

>Abstract

>Well-designed technologies that offer high levels of human control and high levels of computer automation can increase human performance, leading to wider adoption. The Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HCAI) framework clarifies how to (1) design for high levels of human control and high levels of computer automation so as to increase human performance, (2) understand the situations in which full human control or full computer control are necessary, and (3) avoid the dangers of excessive human control or excessive computer control. The methods of HCAI are more likely to produce designs that are Reliable, Safe & Trustworthy (RST). Achieving these goals will dramatically increase human performance, while supporting human self-efficacy, mastery, creativity, and responsibility.

>Introduction

>This paper opens up new possibilities by way of a two dimensional framework of Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence (HCAI) that separates levels of automation/autonomy from levels of human control. The new guideline is to seek high levels of human control AND high levels of automation, which is more likely to produce computer applications that are Reliable, Safe & Trustworthy (RST). Achieving these goals, especially for complex poorly understood problems, will dramatically increase human performance, while supporting human selfefficacy, mastery, creativity, and responsibility. This paper focuses on the three RST goals, which may help to achieve other important goals such as privacy, cybersecurity, resilience, social justice, human dignity, and environmental preservation.

>The traditional belief in computer autonomy is compelling for many artificial intelligence (AI) researchers, developers, journalists, and promoters. I assume a broad definition of AI to include automated/autonomous systems using technologies such as machine learning, neural nets, statistical methods, recommenders, adaptive systems, and speech, facial, image, and pattern recognition.

>The goal of computer autonomy was central in Sheridan and Verplank (1978) ten levels from human control to computer automation/autonomy (Table 1). Their widely cited one-dimensional list continues to guide much of the research and development, suggesting that increases in automation must come at the cost of lowering human control. Shifting to HCAI could liberate design thinking so as to produce computer applications that increase automation, while amplifying, augmenting, enhancing, and empowering people to innovatively apply systems and creatively refine them.

>Sheridan & Verplank's ten levels of automation/autonomy have been widely influential (Sheridan, 1992), but critics suggested refinements such as the four stages of automation: (1) information acquisition, (2) analysis of information, (3) decision or choice of action, and (4) execution of action (Parasuraman et al., 2000). These stages refine discussions of each of the levels, but the underlying message is that the goal is full automation/autonomy.

>Even Sheridan (2000) commented with concern that "surprisingly, the level descriptions as published have been taken more seriously than were expected" (see Hoffman & Johnson (2019) and Kaber (2018) for detailed histories). However, in spite of the many critiques, the 1-dimensional levels of automation/autonomy, which only represents situations where increased automation must come with less human control, is still widely influential. For example, the US Society of Automotive Engineers adopted the unnecessary trade- off in its six levels of autonomy for self-driving cars (Brooks, 2017; Society of Automotive Engineers, 2014) (Table 2).

>Critics of autonomy have repeatedly discussed the ironies (Bainbridge, 1983), deadly myths (Bradshaw et al., 2013; Mindell, 2015), conundrums (Endsley, 2017), or paradoxes (Hancock, 2017) of autonomy. A common point is that humans have to spend more effort monitoring autonomous computers because they are unsure of what it will do, often leading to inferior performance (Blackhurst et al., 2011; Strauch, 2017).

[...]

</comment><comment><USER234> Yesssssss

</comment><comment><USER235> Oh thank goodness. Haptics are a real.

</comment><comment> user-asdfgh Appeal to authority is one of the informal fallacies of logic. It can/should never be used to prove a point.

</comment><comment> java-man Thank you, Honda!

Touch screen controls in automotive environment is such a bad idea (unless the vehicle is stationary, and even then...)

<comment><USER236> > Touch screen controls in automotive environment is such a bad idea

Touch screen controls are a bad idea _in general_ when the form factor has space for adequate physical controls.

The only time they're an acceptable compromise is for small devices like phones. Even then careful use of a small number of buttons can be a great improvement.

<comment> kube-system The situation is more nuanced than "touchscreens are bad"; the number of controls has grown exponentially since touchscreens have made it easier to put literally hundreds of buzzers and whistles on modern vehicles.

It's fairly common now for cars to have configuration settings like: the number of seconds that the courtesy lights stay on after locking the car. This is a feature that would never need to be operated while the vehicle is in motion, and likely wouldn't be configured more than once by any given owner.

Features like this are more than adequately served by touchscreen controls. Really, you would have a worse UI if there was a hardware slider for this on the dash.

But yes, all controls that a driver would want to use while the vehicle is in motion should be controllable with hardware controls that can be located and operated tactilely.

<comment><USER236> > The situation is more nuanced than "touchscreens are bad"; the number of > controls has grown exponentially since touchscreens have made it easier to > put literally hundreds of buzzers and whistles on modern vehicles.

Touchscreens aren't necessary for any of that, though. There are alternative, better UI interfaces. For instance: f-key driven soft menus. Those have tactile feedback, have reliable key-press detection, and can be operated with regular gloves.

The only situation in a car where I could see a touchscreen being the right option are cases where a soft keyboard is needed.

> It's fairly common now for cars to have configuration settings like: the > number of seconds that the courtesy lights stay on after locking the car.... > Features like this are more than adequately served by touchscreen controls.

My Honda has a button-operated menu for that, and that's better than a touchscreen.

> you would have a worse UI if there was a hardware slider for this on the > dash.

I never said that cars should have a dedicated, physical control for each function. What I said was touchscreens are unnecessary and sub-optimal.

Commonly used functions should have dedicated physical controls, especially those that are likely to be used while in motion (driving controls, climate control, basic audio stuff). The next most common set of functions should be implemented with a combination of shortcut keys and f-keys. Finally, seldom- used functions (such as configuration) should be accessed with f-key driven menus.

<comment> kube-system I do like key-driven soft menus (like the steering wheel controls commonly used for HUDs or gauge cluster menus), but they get a bit unwieldy with longer lists. Some automakers (GM) address this by nesting all the options in a bunch of sub-menus, but I find this frustrating because I end up just having to search through a bunch of menus to find what I want.

Some automakers (Mazda, BMW) use a knob instead, which makes it a bit quicker to scroll through a longer list, but I have found myself overshooting and then having to back track which is sometimes annoying.

There's really pros and cons to whatever implementation is used. While I completely agree that any function that might be operated while driving needs to be able to be operable with hard controls, I also don't think it's a good idea to clutter those menus with a bunch of junk that you _don 't_ want or need while driving.

I think there's a good case to be made for 3 levels of controls:

* Things that must have dedicated hard keys: anything that must be adjusted rapidly for driver attentiveness, control, or comfort -- HVAC, audio levels and basic tuning, all lighting and vehicle controls.

* Things that must have hard keys, but can live in a shared menu: anything that a driver may want to adjust while driving, but is not essential for immediate use -- trip data, infotainment, non-critical gauge monitoring etc.

* Things that don't need hard keys and should not clutter any of the above interfaces: odd-ball configuration settings that a driver would not need to operate while driving -- key fob configuration, entry-exit preference configuration, software updates, integrations with external services, maintenance logs, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> What if--and stay with me for a moment--what if it's good for different manufacturers to have different approaches to the problem, giving people the option to choose Honda for buttons or Tesla for touchscreens?

What if there are legitimate arguments for both and it's good that there's both options available?

<comment><USER237> If your metric is safety, control, and effectiveness, there is not an argument. Touchscreens are a cost saving measure, not a feature.

<comment><USER10> > "Touchscreens are a cost saving measure, not a feature."

That's why there are so many high-end phones with lots of buttons.

<comment><USER238> "If your metric is safety, control, and effectiveness, there is not an argument"

not really the metrics for high-end phones

<comment><USER10> You left out the last part: "Touchscreens are a cost saving measure, not a feature."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER239> I've said it before, I'll say it again.

Touchscreens CAN BE DONE RIGHT. (or at least better)

I have an aftermarket JVC headunit in my 2003 VW. It has one button, that's the "Menu" button on single press, or Power button when held.

The screen itself is relatively intuitive to control without looking because of a gesture feature it has as well as button placement being useful.

If I want more volume I put one finger on the screen and make a circle gesture in the clockwise direction. Down is counter-clockwise. The play/pause button is in the very bottom right so you can find the button with feel. You can shuffle songs with another gesture (though I never use it).

I really like my touchscreen. And every time I am using a work vehicle (Ford Explorers), or my wife's GMC Sierra, I hate the controls because you have to look up to see what you're doing. Thankfully their steeringwheel controls are generally good.

<comment><USER240> Or you know, knobs and buttons which don't require any user on-boarding or discovery process.

<comment><USER241> there is a place for both kinds of controls. frequently used functions (volume, climate controls) should have physical buttons. infrequently used functions (like reset tire pressure monitoring) is best hidden in a touchscreen menu.

<comment><USER240> Absolutely. Use the right tool for the job, etc.</comment></comment></comment></comment>