This isn’t a topic I normally write about (or even think about). But it’s been near top of mind for me as Mrs. Bits and I have been shopping for a new car. We traded in our 2005 Toyota Sienna. The primary feature we wanted was all-wheel drive (the 2011 New England winter was a nightmare), and of course, it needs to fit our little family of four and all the stuff we need for vacations and so forth.
Another thing we wanted was a built in technology package that included most of the stuff we like to have around, especially for long trips. In 2004, cutting edge vehicle technology meant having a place to plug in your iPod. So one of the little frustrations of life was all the management of all the wires for the GPS, phone charger, DVD system, etc, etc. Not to mention the lack of integration between all this stuff. So one of the other things we wanted to splurge on was a robust system that we could be reasonably happy with seven or eight years from now as we progressively drive the wheels off the vehicle.
Pretty much every feature we wanted was available on every car we evaluated: Navigation with traffic, bluetooth, satellite radio, auxiliary inputs. Of course, all this comes at a price. On every one of these vehicles, the tech kit was the single most expensive option on the car – typically between 10-15% of the total price of the vehicle. Pretty hefty.
What struck me is how different the implementations were between vehicles. Some had touch screens, some didn’t. A couple had a particularly baffling interface that required manipulation of a joystick. One of them was nowhere near the screen, but behind the gear shift, where the user doesn’t even have a view of the joystick.
Seriously? You’re trying to sell me a $3500 computer where I have to blindly use a frickin joystick to type in addresses? One salesman told me it was “because touch screens get fingerprints on them”. Please. I have two small kids. Any space they occupy for more than about 10 seconds is filled with goldfish crackers and smooshed fig newtons. Fingerprints on a touch screen don’t really concern me, especially since I can, you know, WIPE THEM OFF.
Eventually we decided on a Hyundai. It was comparable in most respects to other vehicles we tested, but the UI on the navigation/phone/radio interface was the most familiar. Basically, they tried to mimic other computer interfaces and GPS devices in wide use, and for the most part they were successful.
So I got to thinking about why there’s so much variance between the interfaces of different manufacturers, why so many otherwise high quality manufacturers can put out such insane technology, and whether differentiating your car with its electronics UI is a good idea.
I think I know why they do it. It’s to differentiate themselves from their competitors; I know what it’s like to compete with other formidable products, and I realize that the smallest things can make the biggest difference to the customer. It’s very easy for a competitor to match your specs in a car (mileage, acceleration, turning radius, etc), but it’s hard to replicate the “feel” of a car, and the tech package is a big part of the “feel” for people who actually buy and use it.
They continue to do it because nobody calls them out on it. My brother in law is a car nut; he gets at least a half dozen car magazines, and I flip through them when I visit. The reviewers focus on the driving experience. How it handles, road noise, acceleration, and the numbers. They do this because they’re all metrics, and they’re easy to review. They barely pay attention to the technology kit, and if it's unusable, it hardly warrants a sentence.
I think it’s a terrible idea. A moving vehicle is probably the worst possible place to introduce novel user interface concepts. In addition, people tend to want a familiar user interface that’s easy for them to both figure how to manipulate, and works easily and quickly in operation. It’s like trying to differentiate your car by putting the brake pedal on the right and introducing the great new pentagular steering wheel that’s safer because it forces you to rest your hands at 10 and 2.
I’m clearly not the only person who feels this way. A quick browse turned up this article from 2004, which covers some automotive electronics UIs, but also things like remote controls. I’m with him on the remote controls, but I’ll tell you, people don’t generally try to manipulate them on the highway. He says that poor UIs lead to bad reviews, but I don’t agree. Reviews of these devices barely mention a poor UI, despite the fact that I couldn’t imagine getting used to them, and people I know who have these systems barely leverage them precisely because of the UI. He brings up a good point that manufacturers have little incentive to emphasize usability because the user doesn’t realize how bad it is until after they’ve paid for it. He expresses hope for the future of the consumer product UI. Unfortunately, it’s been seven years now, and few manufacturers are heeding his advice.
Well, I'm a bit torn about this. Driving, when done properly, is done subconsciously. Every detail like checking the gauges, steering, shifting, and even checking the mirrors, are done automatically by a drivers body. Adding an out of place gauge in the interface can be a bit distracting. On the other hand, there could be great improvements if you switch interfaces around. It would really depend how fast the driver could adapt.
Posted by: Leisa Dreps | April 28, 2011 at 07:26 AM
It doesn't really matter how many stuff you have in your cars. Knowing your car specifications are good but the priority will be safe driving.
Posted by: air management kits | October 25, 2011 at 12:46 AM