I applaud the author for putting thought into how to design digital controls, in contrast to the "just put whatever garbage on a touch screen" strategy most carmakers do today.
However, I still question the benefit of this complex, modal control (you have to press a single knob to "cycle between" multiple modes). My ancient, 2016 car features three knobs. This luxury allows me to, without looking, adjust any of three settings (temp, fan, air location), as well as a button which does each seat heater, without any "check what mode it's in, tap, look at the tiny screen, tap again if necessary" step.
True, in this trim, my car does not have a thermostat mode, which in theory is useful, but it is so trivial to modulate the temperature based on "do I feel cold, hot or comfortable right now" and reaching over to twist one of the controls anyway, and even in the other car I have which has this mode, I frequently need to adjust things anyway, except in that car some of the functions require multiple mode changes on the touch screen and looking away from the road.
My 1997 Lexus has a knob that controls the digital climate control. Except that instead of a spinny position encoder, they used a knob with stops so you have tactile feedback for when the temperature is all the way up or down.
This is the kind of detail that I love about a well engineered car.
That's how the knobs normally work. And the original poster describes how "automatic a/c" or "climate controls" have always worked in cars, you set a target temp and they handle fan speed and air temperature.
Why does the article want to make a multifunction dial with no tactile feedback? Have they only ever driven a Tesla?
My 2004 5 series BMW had this (it was called iDrive). A command style knob that could move on an axis of sorts (up and down, left, right). You could also press it in. I absolutely hated it.
Curious if I am missing a detail: It sounds like a knob with endstops, incremental notches for a finite number of positions between the endstops, and probably a spinny position encoder underneath it?
(this also describes my 2009 saturn; I think; unsure, but that's a good sign: I don't look at/think about this knob conciously!)
I agree. I don't want a "smart" knob. I'm dreading going car shopping sometime this next year. I anticipate having to rule out a large pool of cars to keep my controls navigable without looking.
My wife bought a new car with fully digital display a year ago. For me, I got a 2013 low mileage dumb car. Couldn't find anything new that I liked with my preferred level of UX technology (or lack of). I drive both equally and even a year later, I hate operating anything in her car. Once you get it dialed in, not too bad, but there's constantly edge cases of things you do infrequently and really have to search around for how to change a setting. The dealership always changes something when we take it for regular maintenance and it's always a PITA to figure it out how to get it back to normal. Also, it seems impossible to set a default setting for many things. There's a feature that activates anti-glare on the rear mirrors, for me it makes driving at night impossible, and I can't set and forget my preference. Every time the car starts my preference is overridden. It's maddening. The only saving grace is this feature only requires 2 clicks on the rear mirror (1 click of 2 physical buttons). I've memorized those clicks and can do them without having to go through screen clicks and hamburger menu hell.
Don't forget that almost every car made in the last 5 years reports telemetry (including vehicle speed, accelerometer data, and location) back to the manufacturer who shares that data with third parties, sometimes including insurance companies.
There's also the fact that most thermostats do manage to keep the sensor input constant, but that's surprisingly uncorrelated with how you actually feel.
(Often due to the slightly bonkers idea that single sensor, often not in any location the user is, will correctly reflect the actual environment)
"Make it warmer/colder" is sufficient input and doesn't pretend a precision it doesn't have.
> "check what mode it's in, tap, look at the tiny screen, tap again if necessary"
This is my concern as well. It's a perceived improvement in UI but still a loss over analog UX. I'll end up cranking the knob and wondering why my radio channels are rapidly changing when I wanted to adjust the volume. You're almost forced into retaining state of your knobs in your head if you want to do anything eyes-free. Eyes-free operations should be the ultimate goal, that's what we had with analog.
My Lexus has climate control up down and track selection up down in the same column within inches of eachother and I have to look every time. Even the fact there's a knob next to the track ones...
I gave up on having decent and reliable design of controls in cars. Even if someone would come up with something having minimal (preferably zero) cognitive disruption that is easy to learn and used to, the constant self-forced and determined nervous pressure of providing new, and new, and very new, and revolutionary, and new revolutionary, and disruptive, will make me re-learn whatever new idea is forced on me with a new car. I dread replacing our 20 yo car. But we have to. Maybe - considering all other troubles with modern cars, like very poor computerization and inherent safety issues, optimization to the level of corruption or unreliability, sales hostility (subscription), nauseating design nightmares - better move to a city and country with decent mass transit system. Could be a win-win for us and the environment. For the missed cases there is taxi and rental. Car dominated societies are not nice to live in anyway.
I gave up on cars in the US for few years now... I just bought a hyper electric escooter and use it to travel 60+/- miles per charge... no gas, no insurance, no maintenance (only the rare flats and brake pad changes), and no plate and safety/emission... etc etc.
Buy once, use till the battery dies... rinse and repeat... gear is inconvenient though but can put up with it.
I find the thermostat mode only works on overcast days or at night as the sun contributes so much feeling of warmth when driving (in California) that the heating and cooling thermostat doesn't work well.
As someone mentioned a Lexus in the thread, my memory popped up the fact that most expensive models have thermostat corrected for the sun position and probably current weather.
The author is pretty clear that having more than two modes diminishes the usefulness of the interface. Three modes was complex enough that he redesigned it down.
I've changed the channel tuner when I've reached for the volume knob. If the haptic feedback between the two is clearly different, that will help, no?
Controls that require a feedback loop have more cognitive overhead than controls you can just use “blindly” (this includes not having to check for haptic feedback to test what mode it’s in) and from pure muscle memory. For example, you learn that your preferred volume when driving on a highway is at (say) the two o’clock position, and with time you’ll blindly turn the knob to that position without even consciously thinking about it. If, on the other hand, you “know” that the knob could be in a wrong mode, you’ll tend to hesitate when operating it because of that anticipation, having to check back whether the knob is indeed in the correct mode.
Interesting comment regarding the lack of a thermostat. Sometimes, qualitative setting is better than quantitative. Precise temperature settings lead to overthinking and fiddling, in my experience. With qualitative settings, at most two interventions are necessary to reach a comfortable setting.
> I discovered thermal comfort depends on four environmental factors: air temperature, heat radiation, airflow, and humidity.
He's managing more variables than those handled by your three knobs, and also deals with seat temperature in his setting.
You might not want any of the finer control, some don't even want climate control and will run with open windows in dead winter. But I see a lot of benefit of his approach for anyone who cares as much as him about climate control.
A good interface would provide a helpful abstraction that allows the user to make clearer and faster decisions about those four variables rather than just exposing them directly to the user.
The fourth one controls recirculate, and it allowed you to set in-between positions between 100% recirculate and 100% fresh air.
To simultaneously optimize pollution/humidity/CO2 I find I prefer about 80% recirculate and 20% fresh air, but achieving this configuration is impossible in most (all?) modern cars.
Simplicity: are they exactly the same knob, thus lowering ordering costs, shipping and receiving costs, inventory costs, supply chain costs, design costs, and error potential? Quite likely. This also allows upstream suppliers to double down on volume and work to lower costs at their end.
Versus... the designer of a custom complex multi-part powered assembly (manufacturing cost not discussed, cleaning not discussed, visibility in varying light conditions not discussed) who has the fantasy that users want to squint at a tiny screen on a knob while driving, and that pushing all this and associated documentation down a global service network is going to come at an acceptable cost to users.
Why is it that when the entire auto industry does something right Toyota gets credit? Fanboyism is a pox upon online automotive discourse.
Every OEM has used the 3-knob design on and off but it was particualrly hot in the 90s and 00s. It isn't a Toyota thing, or even a specifically Japanese thing.
Oh, hi, creator of the SmartKnob (mentioned in the article) here - I'm continually blown away by how much UX discussion it has generated over the years!
One of the things I regret a bit about the prototype and demo I originally shared is that I used a press action and the screen as a modal/menu interface. The screen makes for a snazzy demo video, and works great for interfaces where you have the user's full attention (like a smart home control panel) but I think there's a lot more potential for just the haptics, paired with other dedicated buttons to switch to specific (i.e. not a menu of) modes, like this later demo I built using the haptic feedback for a video timeline jog tool: https://youtu.be/J9192DfZplk
The smart knob you made is genuinely one of the best hardware creations I have ever seen. I only wish that I was creative enough to think up good uses for it so that I could put it to work, lol.
Haha, I've built at least 5 of them and my problem is that I enjoy the hardware/design portion as a hobby, but writing the software to put them to use feels too much like my day job, so I haven't actually done anything too useful yet...
I am actually also enjoying the critical thinking about UX that is stemming from this design.
I'm starting to feel that full software modifiable screens are not the "new age" of in-car experience, but a v.01 of highly customizable, highly complicated settings control; a lazy first implementation. What we are seeing with your design is more of the refinement of the concept. So, kudos to you!
I concur with many people that this might still not completely cut for "eyes-free" usage which you need while driving a car. But for a lot of applications, it's a way more premium/refined interface. I'd limit the number of options on the main menu to 5 and already you've reduced the number of buttons from 10 to one knob.
On the note of just using the haptic feedback: did you compare things to the surface dial? I really expected that to gain more "mainstream" traction, but it seems to have fizzled out.
There’s a commercial product that looks like a fancy fancy version of this and I think has a tilt sensor as well.
It’s notable not just because it is loved by some media people, both art and video, but also because it’s shown up on the pilot’s chair in several notable sci fi movies/series with an outer space theme.
I do want more smart devices with analog inputs and outputs though. I feel like Ambient Technologies were onto something but never found the market fit I hoped they would find.
Kudos for to the author for the work put into this and the intelligence functions are interesting. I do have a couple concerns though.
A. Trying to design down to two knobs makes each knob multi-modal. This removes a lot of muscle memory benefits requiring a glance at a screen, a small screen that is now partially covered by your hand while operating the knob. Haptic feedback might be able to help you know what mode you're in without looking but now you have a lot more to memorize to use it while keeping your eyes on the road which may begin to defeat the simplicity benefits.
B. Haptic feedback... will this work with gloves on? (will you feel it, will it sense your touch)
A lot of manual systems now have 3 knobs, not much more than the 2 presented here, which will always do the same thing each time you reach for them. My concern would be how long it would take the user to be familar with the interface without looking. One quick thought, I would be inclined to think that feedback through a large screen not covered by your fingers might have advantages.
It's a great study on UI consistancy however, esp around how to program the detents, etc.
I think the multi-modal stuff can be mostly fixed by dedicated mode selection buttons, which can be blindly pressed to enter a specific mode. The logical option would be to place them around the dial like a pie chart, as that would be trivial to find without looking. Place those buttons underneath the dial instead and you can use the display as a clear mode indicator as well, without the hand obscuring it.
You could also put a copy of the display somewhere in the driver's HUD. It'd still draw some attention, but having it for example temporarily fill up the center of the speed dial (perhaps in some way only when the driver is touching it?) would be a lot less distractive than having to look all the way over on the infotainment panel.
As to B: it's a physical knob, with a motor pushing against your turning force. It'll have zero trouble with gloves.
Agreed to rotating the knob on the second point... but it looks like a touch screen to change modes? Or is it a physical push button under the knob? I may have been unclear on how the knob functions.
Designing car controls is easy. You take what engineers have spent 100 yeas fine tuning every element of, for precision and ergonomics, then you give to someone with an industrial design degree who throws it all out the door to make something shiny, and it kills Anton Yelchin, amongst others.
I've been convinced for a long time that much of this is a jobs program for staff ui/ux developers. The UI for AWS hasn't changed appreciably in ten years but they've still managed to redesign it at least three times in that period with no benefit to anyone. It would be nice if major companies would have a LTS UI for paid users and then allow the UX team to disrupt others workflow using an opt in strategy.
One overlooked feature of physical controls is that they also give interiors an identity and experience.
Growing up obsessed with cars, I loved seeing how different brands would lay out the cabin. Volvos from the 2000s used a rather large diagram of a seated person to select the HVAC vent for example.
Also, in my brain, a 3000+ pound object just dang requires some stuff to physically press, push, and hear click!
A couple giant touchscreens with touch controls nearly eliminates that.
The classic Range Rover has a seat-adjustment control in the shape of a little seat. If you want your seat to lean back, you just grab the back of the miniature seat and push it in the appropriate direction; the motors in the actual seat move it to match.
While I'd have preferred a simple, bulletproof, nonmotorized seat, if one must automate, that's a great interface.
I get what you're saying, but I totally disagree with it. It reminds me of mid-2000s Nokia, where each year they completely redesigned their phones simply to change them. It turned out what people wanted was a brick with a few common buttons, a nice screen and a standard GUI.
The main problem stems from the fact that car manufacturers will always choose novel designs over usability. They change components not to improve functionality, but simply for differentiation. As you pointed out, even if a control is well designed like Volvo's HVAC, it's phased out during the next refresh.
A newer problem is that every single car maker is beyond incompetent when it comes to software and UX. It's not part of their culture and expertise. So in addition to bad or missing buttons, even the screens are a nightmare.
This is an entrenched idea in the automotive industry, so it probably won't change, but it's something that really needs to stop in my opinion.
As I get older the one thing these designer overlook is aging eyesight. My Honda has decent controls but the small display (like on these knobs) is very difficult to see sitting still. At night, while driving - it's impossible. The icons are tiny. Given the size of the current screens in cars - that's a lot of real estate for knobs. Use it.
On the other hand, one of the most important aspects of physical controls is that you shouldn't need to look at them to operate them, as your eyes should remain on the road.
Car manufacturers, please hire this guy to build your interfaces. He gets it. Touch screens must not be used for controls you are going to frequently operate while driving the car, it's maximum unsafe.
I wish that was the unsafest thing car manufacturers did.
Jeep, for example, has just discovered a predilection for random full-screen alerts with a blaring alarm sound, if, for example, they magically inferred there's a tow-truck somewhere. (There's about a 50% chance you'll encounter a tow truck in the next 10 minutes, at best)
This is great if, say, you're three hours into a night drive, all alone on the road, and suddenly ALARM THE WORLD IS ENDING.
I actively hate car manufacturers. They should not be allowed to use touch screens. Even if they could be useful - they have repeatedly proven they are too stupid to use them well.
I feel like car touch screens are designed like those 3D hologram interfaces in Minority Report: they look really cool and you want them, but they're entirely impractical in day-to-day operation. If car manufacturers are optimizing for cars looking cool in the dealership, whiz-bang touchscreens win over boring physical controls.
I guess that's a nicer touchscreen than others, but I just don't get why we need touchscreens at all to begin with. I'm a fan of Mazda having a touchless screen, and I'm even more a fan of my 2004 bmw X5 that has the beautiful control of minutely adjusting the temperature by turning a dial in the middle of the dash.
You can set the temperature to something moderate like 70 or whatever and then if the air hitting your face and hands is too hot or cold, you just turn the dial, all other vents continue doing their thing at 70, but you can have hot/cold air on your hands at the same time. And, of course, you can do this adjustment in a split second while you merge onto the highway.
Readit News
However, I still question the benefit of this complex, modal control (you have to press a single knob to "cycle between" multiple modes). My ancient, 2016 car features three knobs. This luxury allows me to, without looking, adjust any of three settings (temp, fan, air location), as well as a button which does each seat heater, without any "check what mode it's in, tap, look at the tiny screen, tap again if necessary" step.
True, in this trim, my car does not have a thermostat mode, which in theory is useful, but it is so trivial to modulate the temperature based on "do I feel cold, hot or comfortable right now" and reaching over to twist one of the controls anyway, and even in the other car I have which has this mode, I frequently need to adjust things anyway, except in that car some of the functions require multiple mode changes on the touch screen and looking away from the road.
This is the kind of detail that I love about a well engineered car.
Why does the article want to make a multifunction dial with no tactile feedback? Have they only ever driven a Tesla?
(this also describes my 2009 saturn; I think; unsure, but that's a good sign: I don't look at/think about this knob conciously!)
I hardly ever touch my AC, I just leave it on auto and the car does the rest to get it to the right temperature as quickly as possible.
I suspect this is what most automakers think the real solution should be, just make it easy enough to set a temp and leave the rest to the computer.
(Often due to the slightly bonkers idea that single sensor, often not in any location the user is, will correctly reflect the actual environment)
"Make it warmer/colder" is sufficient input and doesn't pretend a precision it doesn't have.
This is my concern as well. It's a perceived improvement in UI but still a loss over analog UX. I'll end up cranking the knob and wondering why my radio channels are rapidly changing when I wanted to adjust the volume. You're almost forced into retaining state of your knobs in your head if you want to do anything eyes-free. Eyes-free operations should be the ultimate goal, that's what we had with analog.
Buy once, use till the battery dies... rinse and repeat... gear is inconvenient though but can put up with it.
I've changed the channel tuner when I've reached for the volume knob. If the haptic feedback between the two is clearly different, that will help, no?
> I discovered thermal comfort depends on four environmental factors: air temperature, heat radiation, airflow, and humidity.
He's managing more variables than those handled by your three knobs, and also deals with seat temperature in his setting.
You might not want any of the finer control, some don't even want climate control and will run with open windows in dead winter. But I see a lot of benefit of his approach for anyone who cares as much as him about climate control.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/W9AjhGko2mA/maxresdefault.jpg
The fourth one controls recirculate, and it allowed you to set in-between positions between 100% recirculate and 100% fresh air.
To simultaneously optimize pollution/humidity/CO2 I find I prefer about 80% recirculate and 20% fresh air, but achieving this configuration is impossible in most (all?) modern cars.
Versus... the designer of a custom complex multi-part powered assembly (manufacturing cost not discussed, cleaning not discussed, visibility in varying light conditions not discussed) who has the fantasy that users want to squint at a tiny screen on a knob while driving, and that pushing all this and associated documentation down a global service network is going to come at an acceptable cost to users.
This begs the question: who's the real knob?
Every OEM has used the 3-knob design on and off but it was particualrly hot in the 90s and 00s. It isn't a Toyota thing, or even a specifically Japanese thing.
Here's a random 00s Honda:
https://www.samarins.com/reviews/img/cr-v_04_int_large.jpg
Here's the OJ era bronco:
https://media.carsandbids.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=2080,quali...
Here's a GMT800
https://jandjautowrecking.com/cdn/shop/files/57_8fc2bd4a-2cb...
Here's a radom VW
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/7w0AAOSwApleAMyP/s-l1600.webp
One of the things I regret a bit about the prototype and demo I originally shared is that I used a press action and the screen as a modal/menu interface. The screen makes for a snazzy demo video, and works great for interfaces where you have the user's full attention (like a smart home control panel) but I think there's a lot more potential for just the haptics, paired with other dedicated buttons to switch to specific (i.e. not a menu of) modes, like this later demo I built using the haptic feedback for a video timeline jog tool: https://youtu.be/J9192DfZplk
I'm starting to feel that full software modifiable screens are not the "new age" of in-car experience, but a v.01 of highly customizable, highly complicated settings control; a lazy first implementation. What we are seeing with your design is more of the refinement of the concept. So, kudos to you!
I concur with many people that this might still not completely cut for "eyes-free" usage which you need while driving a car. But for a lot of applications, it's a way more premium/refined interface. I'd limit the number of options on the main menu to 5 and already you've reduced the number of buttons from 10 to one knob.
On the note of just using the haptic feedback: did you compare things to the surface dial? I really expected that to gain more "mainstream" traction, but it seems to have fizzled out.
It’s notable not just because it is loved by some media people, both art and video, but also because it’s shown up on the pilot’s chair in several notable sci fi movies/series with an outer space theme.
I do want more smart devices with analog inputs and outputs though. I feel like Ambient Technologies were onto something but never found the market fit I hoped they would find.
A. Trying to design down to two knobs makes each knob multi-modal. This removes a lot of muscle memory benefits requiring a glance at a screen, a small screen that is now partially covered by your hand while operating the knob. Haptic feedback might be able to help you know what mode you're in without looking but now you have a lot more to memorize to use it while keeping your eyes on the road which may begin to defeat the simplicity benefits.
B. Haptic feedback... will this work with gloves on? (will you feel it, will it sense your touch)
A lot of manual systems now have 3 knobs, not much more than the 2 presented here, which will always do the same thing each time you reach for them. My concern would be how long it would take the user to be familar with the interface without looking. One quick thought, I would be inclined to think that feedback through a large screen not covered by your fingers might have advantages.
It's a great study on UI consistancy however, esp around how to program the detents, etc.
You could also put a copy of the display somewhere in the driver's HUD. It'd still draw some attention, but having it for example temporarily fill up the center of the speed dial (perhaps in some way only when the driver is touching it?) would be a lot less distractive than having to look all the way over on the infotainment panel.
As to B: it's a physical knob, with a motor pushing against your turning force. It'll have zero trouble with gloves.
Growing up obsessed with cars, I loved seeing how different brands would lay out the cabin. Volvos from the 2000s used a rather large diagram of a seated person to select the HVAC vent for example.
Also, in my brain, a 3000+ pound object just dang requires some stuff to physically press, push, and hear click!
A couple giant touchscreens with touch controls nearly eliminates that.
While I'd have preferred a simple, bulletproof, nonmotorized seat, if one must automate, that's a great interface.
… don’t all cars do this? I can’t remember seeing anything other than that to represent which vents are active.
The main problem stems from the fact that car manufacturers will always choose novel designs over usability. They change components not to improve functionality, but simply for differentiation. As you pointed out, even if a control is well designed like Volvo's HVAC, it's phased out during the next refresh.
A newer problem is that every single car maker is beyond incompetent when it comes to software and UX. It's not part of their culture and expertise. So in addition to bad or missing buttons, even the screens are a nightmare.
This is an entrenched idea in the automotive industry, so it probably won't change, but it's something that really needs to stop in my opinion.
If you are in your twenties and designing things to be seen, invest in your own future as well as a large demographic that usually has more money...
[0] https://www.aoa.org/healthy-eyes/eye-health-for-life/adult-v...
If you're lucky.
Jeep, for example, has just discovered a predilection for random full-screen alerts with a blaring alarm sound, if, for example, they magically inferred there's a tow-truck somewhere. (There's about a 50% chance you'll encounter a tow truck in the next 10 minutes, at best)
This is great if, say, you're three hours into a night drive, all alone on the road, and suddenly ALARM THE WORLD IS ENDING.
I actively hate car manufacturers. They should not be allowed to use touch screens. Even if they could be useful - they have repeatedly proven they are too stupid to use them well.
This is still too multi function.
You can set the temperature to something moderate like 70 or whatever and then if the air hitting your face and hands is too hot or cold, you just turn the dial, all other vents continue doing their thing at 70, but you can have hot/cold air on your hands at the same time. And, of course, you can do this adjustment in a split second while you merge onto the highway.