Tom Magliozzi
In Our Humble Opinion
Until recently, I drove a magnificent 1963 Dodge Dart convertible. To my mind, it was the epitome of simplicity and functionality. For example: Heater controls were three big round knobs. It was easy to remember which knob did what, and I could always tell which knob I was touching---even in the dark.
Nearly 40 years of technological progress have brought us to an era in which it appears that nearly all automotive designers seem to have forgotten the lessons that they should have learned at their knees of their (far more intelligent) predecessors. One would think, for example, that Ergonomics 101 would make it quite clear that people using the controls in a car are otherwise busy: they're driving a car, for God's sake! The controls should not demand all their attention; i.e. you don't make controls that REQUIRE the driver to take his eyes off the road. Duh.
I recently drove a car that for some reason needed 14 buttons to accomplish what was done by the 3 knobs in my Dart. (I won't mention names; we have enough lawsuits pending. OK, it was a GM car). Not only did this Buick (oops) have 14 buttons, but they were all exactly the same size and shape, and all perfectly flat, so as to be totally indistinguishable by touch (meaning that one had to look at the miniature icons stenciled on each button to determine its function).
Unfortunately, mistake like this seem to be the rule rather than the exception. We test-drive 50 to 100 new cars a year, and I am struck by the proliferation of blatant ergonomic screwups. I've been pondering the situation, and it seems that there's a pattern to these mistakes. So, I would humbly like to suggest a Taxonomy of Blatant Ergonomic Blunders. Here are the categories:
Consider these examples. A few years ago, I climbed into a mid-size American sedan with power everything. The seat controls were in the traditional location on the bottom left side of the driver's seat. But, when I reached down to adjust the seat, my hand didn't fit between the seat and the door. I had to open the door to adjust the seat! Clearly a category 6 mistake---Too many cooks. The designers of the door never bothered to talk to the designers of the seat controls. No big deal, I thought; there will be complaints and bad reviews, and common sense will prevail. They'll fix it next year.
They following year, the seat controls had indeed been completely redesigned. First of all, they were no longer the classic 2 buttons (or 3, if you get the lumbar control. We all need to control our lumbars, don't we?). No, instead of 2 (or 3) buttons, the seats were now controlled by 9---count 'em, 9 buttons. Nine flat, identical buttons. (Category 3, Reinvent everything?) And where to put these 9 flat identical buttons? Well, there really was no place to put 9 buttons. Ah, but the car had a center console between the bucket seats, and they put their fancy new buttons on a vertical plate at the back end of the console---towards the rear of the car (category 7---Where the hell ...). Were these controls awkward to reach? Just try touching a spot on the back of the chair that you're sitting on with your fingertips. Easy?
It gets better. Assuming you can reach the buttons without chiropractic intervention, which button to press? To see the hieroglyphics stamped on the buttons, it was necessary not only to take my eyes off the road, but also to look toward the back of the car! While I'm driving! What were they thinking?
The seat control debacle is especially sad considering that many years ago, Mercedes Benz designed the ultimate in power seat controls that will surely go into the Seat Control Hall of Fame for beauty, simplicity, and pure elegance. "If you want to control a seat", they must have said, "why not make a control that looks and feels like a seat?". Indeed.
Can you do any better than that? Should you even try? Did all other manufacturers immediately jump to this brilliant idea? Ford, to its credit, was the first to copy it. But Chrysler? Volvo? Even the Japanese---who built their reputations by copying stuff? No, no, and no. And GM? Buttons, Flat, indistinguishable buttons (a classic Category 4, Copy nothing).
(NOTE: As of this writing, most manufacturers have finally admitted their complete failure in seat controls---after a decade or so---and have managed to overcome their stubbornness. There are still a few holdouts, but I won't mention any names. It reminds me of Jerry Seinfeld's comment regarding the Chinese persistence in using chopsticks. "After all", he said, "they've seen the fork!").
The car radio is another area of technology run amok. One rule of thumb seems to be "the cheaper the radio, the better the controls". More money gets you technological overkill. Like a graphic equalizer. A graphic equalizer? Graphic? In a car? At the other extreme we have tiny, tiny buttons. I think Volvo has changed the design, but the last one that my wife owned had 6 teeny buttons performing various functions. The total surface area of the 6 buttons was a little less than the surface area of 1 finger. It was virtually impossible to touch only 1 button at a time unless you carried a toothpick with you. I suppose the Swedes figured it like this: "Every one of these teeny buttons does something wonderful. Why should you care which one gets pressed. Take a chance! Lighten up".
So, just how far can designers take their obsession with inappropriate technology? The answer came from---of course---GM. (And others have actually copied them. Lexus, for example).
Here's what I think must have happened at that great Center for the Ergonomically Challenged (a.k.a. the General Motors Technical Center in Warren, Michigan):
"Why not", they must have mused, "put the controls for everything in one place?". How might one do that, you might ask. Their answer? "Why, on a touch-sensitive screen, of course!".
If you want to turn on the heater, you press the menu item that says Heater Controls. Then you get a new screen with Temperature, Fan, Air-conditioning, Vents, etc. Say you choose Temperature. You get a screen that says Up and Down. So, you go up a bit. But you don't know if that's what you want because the fan isn't blowing hard enough. So, you go back to the original menu. ("Let's see, how do I get back to the original menu? Let's try this. No, that's not it. How about [...]"). Insert here the sound of screeching brakes, a horrible crash, metal tearing at your flesh, flames engulfing [...] Well, you get the idea.
"Whoopee!" they all (must have) cried out. "Whoopee!"
This touch-screen technology takes the multibutton philosophy to a whole new level of stupidity. For one thing, it can display thousands of buttons! And these buttons have no discernible edges at all! You have no chance of finding the buttons without taking your eyes off the road. Can you feel a pixel? The touch-screen technology was used Because It Was There (Thank you, Sir Edmund Hillary)---not because it made any sense.
These are just a few of the blunders I've noticed. I keep asking myself "What are they thinking?" Is it that they just aren't thinking? Or if they are, they just aren't thinking too good---so they shouldn't be thinking too much. I don't know.
Maybe they'll get the idea when they find out that I have instructed my heirs to sue the sorry butt off the manufacturer of the car that I'll be driving when I go to that big used car lot in the sky. Because I know the accident will have happened while I was feeling around for a pixel---or equalizing my graphics.
[ Miscellaneous | Krishna Kunchithapadam ]
Last updated: Sun Jun 27 17:00:19 PDT 2004
URL: http://www.geocities.com/krishna_kunchith/misc/cars.html