Adding an optional menu setting that changes scroll wheel behaviors is a terrible idea? Clearly you feel strongly about it, hey its optional. Others seem to like the option. Software is nice like that.
Don't like it, don't use it, but each scroll wheel has 4 way directional control, and much of the time is totally unused. I personally find it tedious when looking through music or drive menus that I have to reach out and touch a particular button as the bumps in the road make my hand unsteady. If I had a "Highlight and select" type interface, driven by the scroll wheels on command I could much easier change my driving mode to sport for instance, or regen to low.
Its the car of the future, it doesn't have to follow all the rules of the past.
I realize you want some credit with this idea but it is a bad idea. Sorry I’m not trying to be rude but there are better ways to address this. I didn’t mean to be so harsh so my apologies. But yes I do have a strong opinion.
Again there is already a dedicated electromechanical switch for wiper control.
Let me repeat. There is already a dedicated electromechanical switch for wiper control.
Think about that.
One of the worst things Tesla could do is mix inputs from multiple electromechanical devices to control what is definitely a critical function of the vehicle.
They have voice control and touch screen input already for wiper control. Plus one single and dedicated mechanical input. That is all they need.
It’s an evolutionary software update to add the ability to cycle thru the wiper speeds with the same switch that is already dedicated to the wiper.
I am an engineer. I have worked in the nuclear industry where human factors are an incredibly important consideration for machine and reactor control. My current job I have dealt with software displays for control of safety systems in large machines. Trust me, Tesla will make the right call on this. Their consideration of human factors engineering, contrary to popular belief, has been excellent. Their display modality is the best in the industry. I know their approach on the model3 has been criticized, but overall it’s been a revolutionary change and a wake up call to the industry.
One of the considerations in control of critical functions of a machine are executing a thorough risk analysis and failure mode effects analysis which in this case must involve human factors. Providing different control schemes for critical vehicle functions always lights up a risk analysis. So the three INDEPENDENT operator command input methods are good. This is ok. They are independent of each other and that is acceptable. Now when one of those independent input control methods is no longer independent the risk for operator confusion goes way up. This will show up in a risk analysis and should be abandoned unless there are other important contrary requirements. Operator confusion with control schemes is a big issue. A software switch to change this function I don’t think will happen. There is not a good argument for it.
Now, Tesla is doing this for other aspects of the vehicle. And critical safety related systems at that! The three way option for drivetrain functionality, creep, roll, and one pedal driving. I am sure there was tremendous debate and evaluation to get approval to provide these options. However, here the argument is complex where drivers of previous generation of cars are looking for the same vehicle response from operator commands (creep analogous to automatic transmission, roll analogous to a manual transmission, and one pedal control being the next generation of control of the vehicle). This is a different situation where strong CCRs (critical customer requirements) drive higher risk options to the customer. Most of us love the one pedal driving but my wife refuses to use it because it is so different than her Acura RDX that inherently creeps. She is afraid of being confused because she drives both cars regularly. I on the other hand love the one pedal option and am willing to take the chance when I drive the Roadster or the Acura. Both creep. So, this is an argument for providing a different schema for individual operators. A risk analysis in this case could go both ways. CCRs not being met can affect acceptance and overall sales of the vehicle so they win out.
So yes this is a wiper system. Not steering or braking or drivetrain control. So a lower risk system in the vehicle. But higher risk than say the radio in the car. I’m not trying to be over the top but it still must be dealt with carefully.
