The Pub - OT posts and discussions

[Neilman]

Just to add to the mix - the focusing aspect is made worse if you need spectacles to drive e.g. if you're short-sighted.
Some aspects of the screen can't be resolved clearly with driving spectacles.
If I push my specs to the end of my nose the screen becomes a little clearer - but then its not right for the road ahead!
Unless the car's doing the driving or you're stationary, there's very little time to fuss with the screen.

 

[Peteski]

no human being has the ability to even discern a rough outline of something at a couple of feet away whilst their eyes are focussed at infinity

In this respect I don’t see any advantage of a traditional dial speed display over a numerical speed. Aged 53 I also don’t have any issues at all with my eyes re-focusing. If I did then that would be a problem for any type of dash display. A HUD focused at infinity would be the ideal and every HUD I’ve seen to date has favoured a simple numerical speed display.

 

[Glan gluaisne]

In this respect I don’t see any advantage of a traditional dial speed display over a numerical speed. Aged 53 I also don’t have any issues at all with my eyes re-focusing. If I did then that would be a problem for any type of dash display. A HUD focused at infinity would be the ideal and every HUD I’ve seen to date has favoured a simple numerical speed display.

I think you may have misunderstood. Accommodation isn't something that is noticeable, so you wouldn't know that it's happening, until such time as your accommodation range starts to decrease with age, as it will eventually. It's a reflex action, so not normally under conscious control, and neither is the delay at all noticeable. Just like with the visual defect we all have, the blind spot, we're wired to just never notice reflex actions like this, and have no clue that some things are quicker than others at this sort of scale.

It's why loads of time was spent researching how long it takes people to acquire and process information, because just asking people didn't give valid answers, everyone asked just says they think something is instant, when in reality there are measurable, and significant, time differences between different types of information presentation.

Not sure why this is, but it reminds me of a boss I had years ago, who used to drink a fair bit every lunchtime. He insisted that drink had no effect on his ability to drive, or do anything else. Eventually, we got him to agree to spend half an hour in a sim before lunch, and again after lunch, to prove to him that he was severely impaired by alcohol. He still refused to believe it, though!

With analogue versus numeric information presentation we're talking about a difference of perhaps a 1/2 second glance at a display and a 1 second glance at a display for someone with good eyesight. That half second could be important, though, and there seems no merit in deliberately increasing the time a driver has to take his or her eyes off the road even for an additional half a second.

A lot of glass cockpits are designed to look like dials, despite using screen technology that is pretty much identical to that used by Tesla. This is a typical civil aircraft glass cockpit, mostly flown by crews that have probably not seen an analogue instrument for years, so it isn't trying to emulate anything old, it's just been designed from the ground up to be as easy to read as possible:

FWIW, this is the cockpit of the last aircraft procurement programme I managed, showing the screens with buttons around the edges, after we found that touch screens just weren't sufficiently accurate or easy to use:

 

[Peteski]

As I said, your eyes are very definitely re-focussing - no human being has the ability to even discern a rough outline of something at a couple of feet away whilst their eyes are focussed at infinity (as they will be when looking out the windscreen).

Head up displays are a good illustration of this, and why a great deal of money has been spent in creating optics that focus at infinity, so that the eye can be fooled into thinking that something on the HUD is really a great deal further away, avoiding the need to accommodate in order to read the information. Worth noting that few, if any, car HUDs actually use infinity optics, though, as the technology is still pretty expensive and doesn't lend itself to being projected on to a windscreen.

None of us are usually aware of accommodation happening, although older people often become aware of it as age related accommodation decline starts to set in, usually at around the age of 50. This often starts as a noticeable increase in the length of time it takes for a near object to become clear, a side effect of the focussing movement of the lens becoming more restrictive with age, and ends up needing corrective glasses to focus at shorter distances. A younger person with good eyesight won't notice accommodation time at all, it's just something that automatically happens whenever our eyes move from viewing at distance to viewing close up, and vice versa.

You have got me thinking now about how I actually focus while driving. I don’t believe I actually do focus at infinity when looking down the road. I think what I really do is scan up and down the road from near to far and vice versa. I first became aware of this effect when mountain biking on technical single track. You generally focus on a point quite close just a few feet ahead of the bike and then every few seconds scan quickly into the middle distance to see where the trail is heading. But you never really focus on anything that far away. So when you do suddenly stop and consciously try to focus on something in the distance it all looks blurry for a good couple of seconds. I even went to see my optician when I first noticed this in my mid 40s. I’m sure it’s the same when driving. For example you never focus your eyes on a number plate in the distance, you are just aware of the entire vehicle without really focusing on it at all. If you did consciously try to focus on a distant number plate and then suddenly looked at your dash I’m sure it would all be a blur. Even sitting here with my phone I can easily test that idea by looking at a nearby object and then back to my phone, then focusing on something in the far distance and back to my phone. In the latter case my phone looks blurred for a good second or more, but if I merely glance into the distance and back then it doesn’t. So how far ahead of the car do you actually focus your eyes? The fact that my dash never looks blurred when I glance back suggests it is not very far.

 

[Peteski]

I think you may have misunderstood. Accommodation isn't something that is noticeable, so you wouldn't know that it's happening, until such time as your accommodation range starts to decrease with age, as it will eventually. It's a reflex action, so not normally under conscious control, and neither is the delay at all noticeable. Just like with the visual defect we all have, the blind spot, we're wired to just never notice reflex actions like this, and have no clue that some things are quicker than others at this sort of scale.

It's why loads of time was spent researching how long it takes people to acquire and process information, because just asking people didn't give valid answers, everyone asked just says they think something is instant, when in reality there are measurable, and significant, time differences between different types of information presentation.

Not sure why this is, but it reminds me of a boss I had years ago, who used to drink a fair bit every lunchtime. He insisted that drink had no effect on his ability to drive, or do anything else. Eventually, we got him to agree to spend half an hour in a sim before lunch, and again after lunch, to prove to him that he was severely impaired by alcohol. He still refused to believe it, though!

With analogue versus numeric information presentation we're talking about a difference of perhaps a 1/2 second glance at a display and a 1 second glance at a display for someone with good eyesight. That half second could be important, though, and there seems no merit in deliberately increasing the time a driver has to take his or her eyes off the road even for an additional half a second.

A lot of glass cockpits are designed to look like dials, despite using screen technology that is pretty much identical to that used by Tesla. This is a typical civil aircraft glass cockpit, mostly flown by crews that have probably not seen an analogue instrument for years, so it isn't trying to emulate anything old, it's just been designed from the ground up to be as easy to read as possible:

FWIW, this is the cockpit of the last aircraft procurement programme I managed, showing the screens with buttons around the edges, after we found that touch screens just weren't sufficiently accurate or easy to use:

Okay so how would you actually design a pie chart to display precise road speed in a more beneficial way than just having a large prominent numerical display. It’s not a very dynamic requirement as you only ever need to check your speed in a fairly steady state condition. Rate of change is pretty irrelevant. Numerical speed shown on a HUD appears to be the new default standard in all new premium cars. I’m fine with that and find it a huge improvement over a traditional dial display. Tesla haven’t bothered with a HUD of course, but the speed display is nonetheless very easy to read too.

 

[Glan gluaisne]

You have got me thinking now about how I actually focus while driving. I don’t believe I actually do focus at infinity when looking down the road. I think what I really do is scan up and down the road from near to far and vice versa. I first became aware of this effect when mountain biking on technical single track. You generally focus on a point quite close just a few feet ahead of the bike and then every few seconds scan quickly into the middle distance to see where the trail is heading. But you never really focus on anything that far away. So when you do suddenly stop and consciously try to focus on something in the distance it all looks blurry for a good couple of seconds. I even went to see my optician when I first noticed this in my mid 40s. I’m sure it’s the same when driving. For example you never focus your eyes on a number plate in the distance, you are just aware of the entire vehicle without really focusing on it at all. If you did consciously try to focus on a distant number plate and then suddenly looked at your dash I’m sure it would all be a blur. Even sitting here with my phone I can easily test that idea by looking at a nearby object and then back to my phone, then focusing on something in the far distance and back to my phone. In the latter case my phone looks blurred for a good second or more, but if I merely glance into the distance and back then it doesn’t. So how far ahead of the car do you actually focus your eyes? The fact that my dash never looks blurred when I glance back suggests it is not very far.

As repeatedly mentioned, this is an autonomous reflex action, not something you normally either control or are aware off, as the conscious part of the brain only receives information after the direct feedback loop between the eyes and the visual cortex has done the accommodation process. To use a computing analogy, accommodation is a bit like DMA, direct memory access, in that it's very fast, but cannot do anything other than that one task.


Your eyes will focus at infinity when relaxed and looking ahead at the road. When relaxed in this setting clear vision covers a wide range, with very little change in accommodation between around 10m in front of the car to the far horizon. If you've looked at the focus ring on a manual focus camera you may have spotted that it's very non-linear, it typically jumps from 10m to infinity in next to no movement of the ring:

The eye is the same. All the effort to accommodate is at the closer end of the accommodation range, down around 0.5 to 2 metres. This means that everyone's eyes when driving do very little adjustment when looking at the road ahead, everything, from street markings to road signs will normally be in focus and easy to read.

The moment your eyes glance into the car, though, and have to refocus on something less than half a metre away, they will be moving through pretty much their entire accommodation range, and this takes some time. It's only a short period of time, but nevertheless it is measurable.

 

[Peteski]

As repeatedly mentioned, this is an autonomous reflex action, not something you normally either control or are aware off, as the conscious part of the brain only receives information after the direct feedback loop between the eyes and the visual cortex has done the accommodation process. To use a computing analogy, accommodation is a bit like DMA, direct memory access, in that it's very fast, but cannot do anything other than that one task.


Your eyes will focus at infinity when relaxed and looking ahead at the road. When relaxed in this setting clear vision covers a wide range, with very little change in accommodation between around 10m in front of the car to the far horizon. If you've looked at the focus ring on a manual focus camera you may have spotted that it's very non-linear, it typically jumps from 10m to infinity in next to no movement of the ring:

The eye is the same. All the effort to accommodate is at the closer end of the accommodation range, down around 0.5 to 2 metres. This means that everyone's eyes when driving do very little adjustment when looking at the road ahead, everything, from street markings to road signs will normally be in focus and easy to read.

The moment your eyes glance into the car, though, and have to refocus on something less than half a metre away, they will be moving through pretty much their entire accommodation range, and this takes some time. It's only a short period of time, but nevertheless it is measurable.

All sounds very convincing until you test it for yourself. I’m well aware of how cameras work, but I’m also aware how different human vision is in terms of image processing. Often you don’t specifically focus on objects just because you are looking at them. But I can see this is going nowhere. I want to see your pie chart speedometer idea next!

 

[Glan gluaisne]

Okay so how would you actually design a pie chart to display precise road speed in a more beneficial way than just having a large prominent numerical display. It’s not a very dynamic requirement as you only ever need to check your speed in a fairly steady state condition. Rate of change is pretty irrelevant. Numerical speed shown on a HUD appears to be the new default standard in all new cars.

I believe the reason that numerical displays have become relatively commonplace in cars is down to the pretty slow adoption of technology into cars. The first displays used weren't capable of displaying graphics, so some designers though it would look "modern" if they used them anyway. Some HUD displays still don't use a graphic capable display, for reasons to do with the need for high brightness to get the projection to work they use segment type displays.

I'm not a designer of this stuff, but do know that the combined annular ring type displays that include a numeric in the centre were found to give the best compromise between speed and accuracy of being read when tested. The gauges to the left in this sort of display for example:

Hot favourite for most glass cockpit speed-type displays is probably a vertical moving bar, like these to the left and right of the AI, though, although I remember that TRRL pretty much condemned an early car speedometer that used a moving ribbon speed display, for some reason:

It is telling that I cannot find any glass cockpit images that just display numerical information alone, all use graphical representations.

 

[Peteski]

I believe the reason that numerical displays have become relatively commonplace in cars is down to the pretty slow adoption of technology into cars. The first displays used weren't capable of displaying graphics, so some designers though it would look "modern" if they used them anyway. Some HUD displays still don't use a graphic capable display, for reasons to do with the need for high brightness to get the projection to work they use segment type displays.

I'm not a designer of this stuff, but do know that the combined annular ring type displays that include a numeric in the centre were found to give the best compromise between speed and accuracy of being read when tested. The gauges to the left in this sort of display for example:

Hot favourite for most glass cockpit speed-type displays is probably a vertical moving bar, like these to the left and right of the AI, though, although I remember that TRRL pretty much condemned an early car speedometer that used a moving ribbon speed display, for some reason:

It is telling that I cannot find any glass cockpit images that just display numerical information alone, all use graphical representations.

I think it’s more a case of horses for courses. The combined angular/numerical displays are great, but would take up more space (I think Audi do use them) and I’m not at all convinced you need to know the approx speed range you are in that the analogue part shows. You just want to know your actual speed rather than a speed range. What use would a quadrant dial calibrated from 0-150 mph actually be? I can see in your cockpit that you would just glance at those dials to check they were all in the green and then maybe look at the specific numbers as and when appropriate - say if one of the dials was approaching the red zone.

Don’t you agree that the ribbon speed indicator in your lower photo would be horrific to read in a car? It’s the very last thing I would want to see in a car HUD! But in an aircraft it works fine. Horses for courses.

 

[Glan gluaisne]

The ribbon display was, I think, condemned by the TRRL decades ago, when at least one manufacturer thought it would look "space age" to replace the speedometer with a moving ribbon. It's far from ideal for displaying speed, but sort of works either side of an AI, although I can't say I like it.

The main thing with aircraft displays is that the pilot has loads more time available to read them, and sometimes will have no other view other than the instruments (when flying IMC). The other big difference is that a lot of aircraft accidents in the early days were determined to be, in part, caused by the failure of the pilot to properly acquire information from the instruments, or a failure to operate the correct control. It's wasn't uncommon for instruments to be misread and the wrong engine to be shutdown, for example, not was it uncommon for the wrong minor control to be moved.

Because aircraft accidents are pretty much always high profile, a lot of time and money was spent on finding out the best way to present information, and the best way to design controls such that they were as close as possible to being foolproof to operate. An aircraft is an extreme case where function always trumps form - doesn't matter what the cockpit looks like, as long as it's as efficient as it can be at allowing the pilot's to do their jobs well.

Cars are the opposite, and getting worse. Design now has such precedence over function that manufacturers are now choosing to degrade functionality a lot in order to get the showroom look they want. AFAIK, there's precious little research into the effect of car interior design on driving safety, for some strange reason it's not thought to be that important.

Given what we know about the way humans interact with devices, learned from both aviation and other spheres, like machine tool design, device interfaces, etc, this seems pretty odd. We learned in the early days of personal computing that graphical interfaces were both quicker to navigate and more accurate than interfaces using text and menus. It's a lot easier and faster to select, for example, an icon that has a specific function, from a screen full of icons, than it is to select a box of text from a screen full of blocks of descriptive text.

 

[darkNstormy]

So how do I wire this up to make it into a Tesla HUD?

 

[Glan gluaisne]

Just to add to the mix - the focusing aspect is made worse if you need spectacles to drive e.g. if you're short-sighted.
Some aspects of the screen can't be resolved clearly with driving spectacles.
If I push my specs to the end of my nose the screen becomes a little clearer - but then its not right for the road ahead!
Unless the car's doing the driving or you're stationary, there's very little time to fuss with the screen.

Pretty much the main gripe I have, especially since the display was made much harder to read, with the speed display being reduced by ~30% in size and repositioned so that, for me, it's now partially hidden behind my left hand most of the time.

I've been short sighted all my life, so have always worn glasses. For the past ten years or so I've had to switch to varifocals, as age has kicked in and started to reduce my accommodation range, as it does for everyone sooner or later. I have had a different prescription made up for driving, with a change to the positioning of the distance to near vision transition, and improved view to the sides, This does make a significant difference, but it still isn't easy to read the Model 3 display at times, and it's definitely not sensible to try and adjust anything using touch controls whilst driving (perhaps harder because I'm right handed and really rubbish at doing anything that needs fine motor control with my left hand).

I usually get my wife to do things like adjust the climate controls, turn the wipers on or off, etc when we're both in the car, as she can use her right hand from the passenger seat. When driving on my own I've had to stop the car a few times now to change the wiper setting, especially at night, when it's even more difficult to try and use the screen. We've been looking for a new EV for my wife over the past few days, a small hatchback, and one of her selection criteria is not having to rely on touch screen controls, as she says even she finds it difficult to use the Model 3 screen from the passenger seat when we're moving, which is odd, as she uses an iPad all the time for pretty much everything, and is far better with touch screen devices in general than I am. It's the one thing putting her off the Peugeot e 208, as it has touch screen climate controls. It might well be the deciding factor between her getting the e 208 of the Zoe, as she likes the fact that the Zoe has conventional climate controls.

TBH, being able to adjust the climate settings on the move isn't something that I do at all often, I can't remember the time I last changed the settings, probably a year ago! She's constantly winding the temperature up and down though, reckons her internal thermostat has broken so she's feeling hot one moment and cold the next. . .

 

[MrBadger]

So how do I wire this up to make it into a Tesla HUD?

That brings back memories.

 

[Peteski]

Cars are the opposite, and getting worse. Design now has such precedence over function that manufacturers are now choosing to degrade functionality a lot in order to get the showroom look they want. AFAIK, there's precious little research into the effect of car interior design on driving safety, for some strange reason it's not thought to be that important.
.

Now this I agree with! There are some awful “designer” UIs out there. Lots of pretty graphics without much useful information and often confusing to read. Have you seen the power display on a Volvo hybrid? Or the awful speed/tachometer display on some BMWs. The iPace UI looks a mess too. At least the Tesla UIs are now fairly clean, apart from their obsession with FSD.

 

[Glan gluaisne]

The thing that bugs me the most about the Tesla UI is that there is masses of display space and loads of processing capability, so it could be so much better than it is. I can't understand why a very low importance feature, like visualisation (adds zero real value when driving the car most of the time, IMHO) takes up most of the driver information display area, and why some information that is either essential, or very useful to see at a glance, is relegated to the edges and made too small to be useful.

The displays in any car that I tend to look at the most are speed, state of charge, some of the lighting icons and the time. I also like to be able to see what tracks are playing, or the programme info from the radio. All of those items seem to be sized, formatted and positioned so as to be harder to read than something like the daft wheelie bin visualisation.

The design could still look as good, perhaps better, if more emphasis was given to displaying key information the driver needs to see, and less emphasis given to information that is either secondary, or pointless. If the visualisation stuff came up only when needed, for example when reversing, manoeuvring at low speed, or if the systems detect a threat, then that would be fine. I don't need to have the red proximity warnings on all the time, as they are when driving around here most of the time, not do I need to see a large image of the car - I know what it looks like now.

It's almost as if there have been two different design teams working on the interior, that don't talk to each other. One team has come up with that great minimalist look, and put a great deal of careful thought into getting the details right, the other team have chosen to throw stuff on to the screen with little regard for what's needed, or even any sort of coherent design theme. The mix of tiny fonts and icons along the top, larger fonts and icons at the bottom and the haphazard arrangement of the icons down the right hand side, just doesn't look at all "designed" to me. It probably wouldn't take much to turn the display into a really eye catching and functional thing. Perhaps they need to stop the gamers playing with it and get someone with real design flair to give it a makeover.

 

[Dilly]

In the setting home on your nav thread was a bit of a discussion on car thieves

in the 23 years I’ve lived in my little hamlet, only once have cars been broken into.
A desperate drug addict broke into all the neighbours cars one night. My wife’s car was a heap that was just for ferrying her dogs around and it wasn’t locked. Nothing was taken from it but the thief dropped two pound coins on the seat.
Several car stereos and CD’s were taken from other cars.
Unfortunately for the thief, my neighbour was a Police Superintendent. He was on duty at the time. His wife rang the Police and within 15 minutes, 8 officers had arrested the guy and recovered his loot !!

 

[Adopado]

In the setting home on your nav thread was a bit of a discussion on car thieves

in the 23 years I’ve lived in my little hamlet, only once have cars been broken into.
A desperate drug addict broke into all the neighbours cars one night. My wife’s car was a heap that was just for ferrying her dogs around and it wasn’t locked. Nothing was taken from it but the thief dropped two pound coins on the seat.
Several car stereos and CD’s were taken from other cars.
Unfortunately for the thief, my neighbour was a Police Superintendent. He was on duty at the time. His wife rang the Police and within 15 minutes, 8 officers had arrested the guy and recovered his loot !!

Did you have to give him his two pound coins back?

 

[Jez_GB]

They say every day is a school day! Reading the posts in this thread around UI content & design has, for me, been interesting, informative and enlightening - thanks to all those that have contributed to my ongoing education

 

[Peteski]

The thing that bugs me the most about the Tesla UI is that there is masses of display space and loads of processing capability, so it could be so much better than it is. I can't understand why a very low importance feature, like visualisation (adds zero real value when driving the car most of the time, IMHO) takes up most of the driver information display area, and why some information that is either essential, or very useful to see at a glance, is relegated to the edges and made too small to be useful.

The displays in any car that I tend to look at the most are speed, state of charge, some of the lighting icons and the time. I also like to be able to see what tracks are playing, or the programme info from the radio. All of those items seem to be sized, formatted and positioned so as to be harder to read than something like the daft wheelie bin visualisation.

The design could still look as good, perhaps better, if more emphasis was given to displaying key information the driver needs to see, and less emphasis given to information that is either secondary, or pointless. If the visualisation stuff came up only when needed, for example when reversing, manoeuvring at low speed, or if the systems detect a threat, then that would be fine. I don't need to have the red proximity warnings on all the time, as they are when driving around here most of the time, not do I need to see a large image of the car - I know what it looks like now.

It's almost as if there have been two different design teams working on the interior, that don't talk to each other. One team has come up with that great minimalist look, and put a great deal of careful thought into getting the details right, the other team have chosen to throw stuff on to the screen with little regard for what's needed, or even any sort of coherent design theme. The mix of tiny fonts and icons along the top, larger fonts and icons at the bottom and the haphazard arrangement of the icons down the right hand side, just doesn't look at all "designed" to me. It probably wouldn't take much to turn the display into a really eye catching and functional thing. Perhaps they need to stop the gamers playing with it and get someone with real design flair to give it a makeover.

I think you make some good points here. I completely agree about how the FSD visualisation has practically taken over the M3 display. It's a lot more subtle on the S/X dash and I definitely prefer it that way. The battery icon is also better sized on the S/X dash, however the speed limit signs and lighting indicators etc are all a bit too small. In that respect I do prefer the M3 display, but I agree it could all be better.

Not that it's any excuse to be complacent but I do think the Tesla UI, despite all its quirks and faults, is still the best I've seen in a car. At least it is pretty intuitive to operate (at least for me) and the touchscreen is very responsive. I've experienced a few other modern touchscreen/hybrid UIs (e.g. Volvo, Nissan, BMW) and found them all to be less effective for various reasons. The Volvo UI had way too many embedded menus requiring swipe gestures to access and the screen was a bit unresponsive. Also had lots of small icons and text fonts. Similar story with BMW. Plus they all have relatively small screens.

Quick question: How fast are these Volvos going? Did you read the dial or the number in the middle first?

 

[Peteski]

I'll take Tesla's UI over Audis virtual cockpit mash-up mess any time!