Firmware 7.0 Beta Discussion

[childcarepro]

Haven't read all 82 pages, but I read the first 20 or so. Seems to me 3 major issues at play here:

1. Flat UI. Skeuomorphism (fake design cues from structures necessary in the original) is out, hence all the flat UIs everywhere. Fake raised curved chrome elements reminiscent of old Cadillacs and the like are anachronistic and out of place in a 21st century clean sheet design state of the art auto like the Tesla Model S. IMHO.

2. Car avatars. I believe it's to over time give drivers confidence that it won't miss a car. Check this podcast: Children of the Magenta (Automation Paradox, pt. 1) | 99% Invisible The short version is that Air France 447 in 2009 didn't have to crash. Well-programmed automation is MUCH safer than humans who are prone to poor judgment, distraction, chemical influence, falling asleep at the wheel, and yet we CAN'T SEEM TO TRUST the tech.

3. Reduced energy data. As Model S sales ramp up and they get ready for higher volume models, the buyer demographic is shifting from geeky early adopters to more regular Joes who want a car that is as easy to drive as an ICE. I just picked up my 85D 1 month ago, so I'm not married to all the stats, but a lot of you are. TMC is learning a very expensive life lesson: be careful what you give people; people get pissed when you take stuff away. Including clutter and skeuomorphism.

I think if it's feasible, it would be great for them to offer users options: skeuomorphic data overload for those who want it, flat minimal for the rest of us.

 

[Cyberax]

They've delayed enough. They're in trouble if they delay more (angry people waiting for autopilot.........) and in trouble if they release with the UI that some people dislike. I think I'd go for the latter and fix the UI as we go.

Tesla can't do fixing... Even trivial bugs persist for _years_.

 

[mknox]

This isn't a toy; it's a car. Many of us evaluated the UI carefully before spending $80K+ on it. Downgrading the UI involuntarily is really unacceptable. Tesla needs to be very conservative about making UI changes to the car *after it's been sold*. Particularly the parts of the UI which are used while driving, when people must gather information in a split second while focusing on the road. The original UI was actually exceptionally well-designed, and it's a serious mistake to delete data from it.

That is a really good point. Much of the decision making we do around vehicle purchase has to do with the aesthetics and "how we feel" about the car. The interior and driver information screens (i.e dashboard) are an important consideration for many. I know in the past I have decided against certain vehicles simply because I didn't like the control layouts and dashboard. How is it reasonable for a manufacturer to completely change the look, feel and functionality of the car's primary controls like this? How would you feel if you took your Ford in for service and got it back with a whole new dashboard - - one that you don't care for? I know that upgrades and feature additions were "part of the deal" with Tesla, but changing the "look and feel" for no reason that I can imagine seems a bit much.

- - - Updated - - -

I think if it's feasible, it would be great for them to offer users options: skeuomorphic data overload for those who want it, flat minimal for the rest of us.

Absolutely. I know certain Cadillac cars let you choose between 4 different dash layouts.

 

[apacheguy]

2. Car avatars. I believe it's to over time give drivers confidence that it won't miss a car. Check this podcast: Children of the Magenta (Automation Paradox, pt. 1) | 99% Invisible The short version is that Air France 447 in 2009 didn't have to crash. Well-programmed automation is MUCH safer than humans who are prone to poor judgment, distraction, chemical influence, falling asleep at the wheel, and yet we CAN'T SEEM TO TRUST the tech.

I trust the tech as long as I have final say. I will never enter a car that does not take any driver input.

 

[slevit1md]

3. Reduced energy data. As Model S sales ramp up and they get ready for higher volume models, the buyer demographic is shifting from geeky early adopters to more regular Joes who want a car that is as easy to drive as an ICE. I just picked up my 85D 1 month ago, so I'm not married to all the stats, but a lot of you are. TMC is learning a very expensive life lesson: be careful what you give people; people get pissed when you take stuff away. Including clutter and skeuomorphism.

I think if it's feasible, it would be great for them to offer users options: skeuomorphic data overload for those who want it, flat minimal for the rest of us.

If they want to make the model 3 dumbed down of the average joe, that's just fine. When you buy the car, you'll see the dumbed down interface and if you like it, you can buy it. However, it should not be acceptable to degrade the interface of an already purchased vehicle. I would certainly be all for the option to change the dash based on preferences and I'm already a little surprised that the entirely glass cockpit isn't already more customizable than it is.

I personally do not like the new interface at all, either for the dash or the center console. I don't dislike flat interfaces, but I don't think Tesla did a good job with this one and I think the old interface looks much nicer. I especially don't like the decrease in functionality, the ugly analog clock, and the lack of date/time always being present. As I've mentioned before, I'm really hoping that this is just a testing skin that they threw up for early access people to prevent the actual design from leaking. Hopefully, the Tesla folks are laughing at this thread, waiting to blow us away with whatever is to come when 7.0 is widely released.

 

[apacheguy]

Or, let's satisfy both camps by opening up the diagnostic screens to read-only access! That way most will see a dumbed down UI, but those of us interested in more advanced info will go online and look up the access code. Simple. Problem solved.

 

[slevit1md]

Or, let's satisfy both camps by opening up the diagnostic screens to read-only access! That way most will see a dumbed down UI, but those of us interested in more advanced info will go online and look up the access code. Simple. Problem solved.

Why should I have to do extra work to access information I can already access?

 

[HankLloydRight]

1. Flat UI. Skeuomorphism (fake design cues from structures necessary in the original) is out, hence all the flat UIs everywhere....

2. Car avatars. I believe it's to over time give drivers confidence that it won't miss a car....

I find these two statements to be completely contradictory.

 

[Gizmotoy]

I find these two statements to be completely contradictory.

It's a good illustration of where taking the "eliminate skeuomorphism" to the extreme results in a confusing interface. If you're going to produce a local map of the cars around you, making the icons something other than little pictures of cars might be confusing for the user. It can be done, but it's more clear for the user to just use the cars.

 

[Stoneymonster]

I, for one, will never be satisfied until the UI matches the TIE fighter instrument panel.

 

[garygid]

Does anyone know if the Cabin Temperature will be displayed somewhere?

 

[Max*]

Does anyone know if the Cabin Temperature will be displayed somewhere?

On the cellphone app, lol.

They don't want to display the cabin temperature, because if I set my AC to 67, the cabin temp is 72. That'll raise a lot of questions.

 

[gizmoboy]

Haven't read all 82 pages, but I read the first 20 or so. Seems to me 3 major issues at play here:

1. Flat UI. Skeuomorphism (fake design cues from structures necessary in the original) is out, hence all the flat UIs everywhere. Fake raised curved chrome elements reminiscent of old Cadillacs and the like are anachronistic and out of place in a 21st century clean sheet design state of the art auto like the Tesla Model S. IMHO.

2. Car avatars. I believe it's to over time give drivers confidence that it won't miss a car. Check this podcast: Children of the Magenta (Automation Paradox, pt. 1) | 99% Invisible The short version is that Air France 447 in 2009 didn't have to crash. Well-programmed automation is MUCH safer than humans who are prone to poor judgment, distraction, chemical influence, falling asleep at the wheel, and yet we CAN'T SEEM TO TRUST the tech.

3. Reduced energy data. As Model S sales ramp up and they get ready for higher volume models, the buyer demographic is shifting from geeky early adopters to more regular Joes who want a car that is as easy to drive as an ICE. I just picked up my 85D 1 month ago, so I'm not married to all the stats, but a lot of you are. TMC is learning a very expensive life lesson: be careful what you give people; people get pissed when you take stuff away. Including clutter and skeuomorphism.

I think if it's feasible, it would be great for them to offer users options: skeuomorphic data overload for those who want it, flat minimal for the rest of us.

This is largely my sentiment as well. We may be a majority, but it's a damn silent majority if we are...

I listen to how people talk about using the energy meter, and I'm reminded of how my dad taught me to maximize fuel efficiency by keeping the the Tach at a certain point and ho higher.

My response:

 

[JST]

I actually do seem to be in the minority here, which is fine. I just don't want them to decontent my car remotely, but there's nothing I can do to stop them.

One of the disadvantages of driving a rolling software platform. Oh, well, at least the instrument panel in my Volkswagen isn't going to radically change overnight.

 

[gizmoboy]

I actually do seem to be in the minority here, which is fine. I just don't want them to decontent my car remotely, but there's nothing I can do to stop them.

One of the disadvantages of driving a rolling software platform. Oh, well, at least the instrument panel in my Volkswagen isn't going to radically change overnight.

Is there some known point at which they will force a pending update on you, or is it up to you to accept it?

(IOW, could you choose to stay at 6.2.46 or whatever indefinitely?)

 

[apacheguy]

Not aware of a circumstance where an update will be forced but the system will nag you daily to accept the install so it's annoying. Wish there was a permanent option called "skip this version."

 

[HankLloydRight]

Is there some known point at which they will force a pending update on you, or is it up to you to accept it?

(IOW, could you choose to stay at 6.2.46 or whatever indefinitely?)

Whenever you take it in for service, and they ignore (intentionally or not) your request NOT to upgrade.

I suspect this could become an endemic problem if the firmware gets updated in this fashion.

 

[dirkhh]

Is there some known point at which they will force a pending update on you, or is it up to you to accept it?

(IOW, could you choose to stay at 6.2.46 or whatever indefinitely?)

I remember that people didn't upgrade when the auto-lowering was taken away. That was late in the 5.x series.
And someone didn't upgrade in the 4.x series for a reason I forgot. And it at least one of the cases they finally had to have their upgrade done at a service center because the OTA update wasn't working given how old their firmware was...

 

[travwill]

So, since the assumption is that Model X will be release by September 29th (from what I've seen), should we assume that V7 with autopilot function will be available to Model S by then?

 

[dirkhh]

So, since the assumption is that Model X will be release by September 29th (from what I've seen), should we assume that V7 with autopilot function will be available to Model S by then?

I don't think so. My guess is that they were beta testing with their Model S user base, but that they will focus on the new Model X once that has been released.
And frankly, I still hope that they'll fix the glaring UI issues before they distribute v7 to their existing customers.