Comment by subscribed
2 months ago
And what would you say is more conductive to safety -- having to use the giant tablet and READ it to use the temperature/volume controls, or having a physical, tactile buttons and knobs that can be found and operated without ever taking the eyes off the road?
If you say that making a font easier to read increases the safety more I think NCAP would like a word.
> If you say that making a font easier to read increases the safety more I think NCAP would like a word.
Yes, I say that. However, what I don't say is that we shall increase touch controls. I support more physical controls, but physical controls doesn't invalidate displays or the need for text.
See, reducing cognitive load is the aim. If I can read a road sign faster, or understand what my instrument cluster is saying in shorter time, both are equally significant wins. LCD instrument clusters are not going anywhere, and they come in variety of sizes and qualities. A boring, quickly readable cluster is always better than an exciting, but an unreadable one, so design and font choice is a factor.
Below, I noted the instrument cluster of Ford Puma Hybrid. Utterly boring, extremely easy to understand and packed with more information than most cars I have driven. It's a great experience, and font selection is at least 30% of that.
So yes, a good font is a security multiplier, and if it can look good while staying very legible, this is a great win.
I asked if in your opinion clarity of the font on the CONSOLE, inside the car, is more conductive to the safety than being able to operate critical / common functions without looking (ie: without having to read the text).
DON'T ADD the road signs to the context, Volvo is not updating road signs. This is moving the goalpost/strawman.
First is a current situation in this car to change the temperature:
1. Having to look at the screen, read, find, reach to touch, read, find, touch
versus the situation with physical controls:
2. Reach without looking, press/turn
And you really say "having to look, read, find, reach to touch, read, find, touch" is better than just reaching without looking? Because this is what you say: making a font on the infotainment easier to read improves the safety more than adding physical controls.
No more questions.
I reread the thread from the start, so I want to set some things straight:
1. I have cited "highway sign design" & "Germany's license plate font" as factors external to cars. I'm not moving anything except my fingers while typing this comment. Moreover, I'm not trying to win anything and we're just discussing here. Moving the goalposts would be something silly to do, if I ever attempted it.
2. No, you asked whether the clarity of the fonts contribute to the safety of the whole car, and I said "yes!", and will say again. Your question lacks a comparison relative to anything, so it stands on its own. Again, for the third time, legibility of anything inside (and around) the car is a contributor to security of it.
3. Again, citing myself, I told that we shall reduce touch controls and increase physical ones. I mean that comment is 2 days old. I can't edit it in, can I? However, by citing displays I again openly mentioned "digital instrument clusters", and displays attached to controls like climate controls' displays sitting in proximity of rotary dials most of the time. Legibility of these things are equally important as blind controls, because if your car wants your attention, you need to understand what's happening as quickly as possible.
I believe there's a clear misunderstanding going on, and I honestly don't know what to do and say, because you're stuffing words in my mouth.
I'll probably go make tea.
Happy (belated) merry Christmas and happy new year.
Please drive safe, and be attentive to road.
1 reply →
Why do these have to be mutually exclusive?