R²B
All Star
Say what? If you can, you do. See every product on the planet that has a mechanism for being updated. Every software product, every phone that's been made in the last 10 years etc etc
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Firmware 7.0 Beta Discussion
- Thread starter ThreadAbort
- Start date
Say what? If you can, you do. See every product on the planet that has a mechanism for being updated. Every software product, every phone that's been made in the last 10 years etc etc
I accepted Windows 95 with open arms. The UI was significantly different, but just about everything done was such an improvement over 3.1, it was worth the effort to take the trouble to learn it. I'm still using Windows 7 and every install gets the UI regressed as much as possible to the Windows 95 era. I do use the quick launch (which came along after Windows 95) and a few other features newer than the mid-90s, but I prefer the look and feel of the Win 95 vintage to newer Windows. With Windows 7 they broke Windows Explorer and really changed Control Panel dramatically. I used Windows Explorer extensively and like the simple way I could manage the file system with it. Windows 7 WE is unusable for what I need and I had to get a third party replacement which does 80 times what XP's WE did, but I don't like it because it does too much and I have to hunt around for the control to do what I want. Using Control Panel in Win 7 is significantly slower than previous versions of Windows because nothing it where it used to be.
I've had to use Windows 8/8.1 a little on some computers, but quickly erased it and went back to 7. People say 10 is a bit better, but it's still broken IMO. I haven't tried to use it yet though.
I am more a numbers person than something like that. With numbers and letters, you can figure out how close you are in a parking garage. With animals that would be difficult. Though I have pictures of things in my mind, so once I got close, I could probably zero in on the car quickly because I would remember how close I was to the symbol.
Where I'm more symbolic, I carry around pictures of things in my mind rather than the name of it. To tell someone else, I have to make the effort to associate the name with the object I can see in my mind's eye. It gets worse when I'm tired and I forget the names of common things. It's very frustrating when it comes time to document my software. I have to describe to someone else these things that I created, but never named. Some I had to name as I went along, creating the UI, but some other things that hadn't needed a name up to this point can stump me a bit. I call it all "noun challenged". It frustrates my SO who is so fantastic at language she can submit a first draft of her briefs to the court (she's an attorney) and they are better written than 90% of the legal work out there. When she was doing appeals, she won several with first drafts.
I paraphrased earlier, but to clarify... you do not change aspects of an existing product to match the target audience for a future product that is still under development, and which is aimed at a different target audience, i.e., you don't change the UI of the Model S to something you think Model 3 buyers will enjoy. This isn't the Model 3. The interface look and feel can be the unifying force across multiple models, but I would think that Model S owners have different wants and needs for information display than a Model 3 customer.
These are two very different products aimed at two very different buyer audiences.
Last edited:
vdiv
Chief Grump
Agree with you that the change appears to be peculiar at best. Then again Apple changed the Mac OS X UI to match that of iOS 7 on two "totally different" products... Let's not even mention what Microsoft did.
What Apple did was add some features to OS X, such as Launch Pad, to give iOS users a more familiar paradigm on the desktop. Apple also flattened the UI and standardized on some common icons between the two platforms. However, Apple took nothing away from the desktop OSX because iOS users don't like complexity. That's the only difference I'm trying to point out.
Last edited:
Getting OT here, but while OS X functionality may not have suffered, many of their other apps (Numbers, Pages, Aperture, Final Cut Pro...etc) have suffered dramatically in favor of "dumbing down" for the masses.
gizmoboy
Member
That presumes that Tesla would want to let its users pick the UI, rather than have an opinion themselves as to what the best UI for their product is.
- - - Updated - - -
That's a legitimate point.
I think that one likely way this change makes sense is if Tesla is sitting on data (or a strongly-held opinion) that there are a lot of potential MS buyers sitting on their hands because the 6.2 interface is "too busy" for them.
Doing it for M3 buyers does seem premature.
- - - Updated - - -
The power users of those apps certainly suffered. The more interesting question is whether net usage/revenue/whatever-metric-Apple-cared-about increased after these changes. I think that is the salient factor to consider in this 7.0 change: not whether it will piss off power users, but whether the net effect is more MS buyers/happy users.
This forum is very likely highly skewed toward power users (as are many internet forums) and may well be unrepresentative of MS owners as a whole (and especially potential MS owners).
perkiset
... this one goes to 11
And thank you, point made. Looking at your posts, I am pretty certain that I'd not want *you* creating the UI for *me*. But equally, I'm pretty certain that *you*'d not want *me* creating the UI for you. Neither, does Tesla want *you* definining their future by saying "I like the way things were, I don't want to change." Your notion comes from the position that what you see, whether is's the old world or the new, is correct - ergo, you want an option to always be able to select that.
That's the problem. Nothing grows and gets better by staying in love with the ways things were, and Tesla is doing its best to grow the car, the interface - the entire platform. Amped Realtor comments that "he didn't buy the MS so that [he'd] be an experimentation platform for Model 3. I'd argue that Tesla is doing its best to try to find the best formula for the digital dash that it can, and will extend it to all models. And our experience will help it get there.
I didn't purchase a Tesla thinking that it was all done. I purchased it, missing AutoPilot and all, knowing that it was a work in progress - a grand experiment. IMO, to have purchased it thinking that it was settled science is a bit head-in-the-sand. One of the earlier posters said that we're all part of the experiment - I completely agree. And BTW - this is not exclusive to Tesla. This is virtually every product in almost every niche and every sector. The consumer is ALWAYS the lab for future products. V7, in all its glory and horribleness, is on its way. So one can either fight it and prolong the agony or try to see what the Tesla engineers were getting at and get in with that rhythm. It's up to you, but it's a train you can't stop.
HankLloydRight
No Roads
I'm sorry to everyone else that I have to reply again to this, but no, that's not my point. Simply put, I'm all for progress and change (I really am), but NOT at the expense of removing or sidetracking vital information in the interface. There are many other ways to convey the same TACC/AP/LC/BS information than having a huge video game console in the instrument cluster at the expense of other features that are just as, or more, important.
I agree with you completely. So why not have a dumbed down *cough* I mean, "simple" interface for those who want it and have a more detailed interface for those who appreciate a bit more detail about the car's parameters and other useful information. After all, isn't being able to customize the information you see one of the benefits of having a glass cockpit?
Especially considering the asinine way they have currently implemented the blind spot alerts (tinsy winsy gradient on the speedometer) and now the leaked v 7.0 screen captures, I hope this is not a trends with someone at Tesla pushing display interfaces with little basis on practical usefulness for someone actually driving a car.
Maybe they hired someone from Apple who is a great designer but this person has never really driven a car to realize the different information that is useful when driving a Model S. Whenever I drive a Model S, I find the energy meter almost as useful as the speedometer. I've always considered the current speedometer/energy meter interface to be brilliant and I hope they make it better than dismantle it. I suspect I am not alone.
HankLloydRight
No Roads
Thanks.
I also found this blurb on Wikipedia about skeuomorphism. Looks like this entire trend was started when Steve Jobs died and Jonny Ives took over. I find that pretty depressing that the entire UI world has flipped due to essentially one man's preference.
Also on the Wikipedia page about "flat design" this was interesting:
One thing I find interesting is that one of the biggest "pros" of flat design is it's adaptability to deliver a consistent user interface across thousands of devices, platforms, and screen sizes (which is a good thing). But it's also something that Tesla does not have to actually worry about.
I also found this blurb on Wikipedia about skeuomorphism. Looks like this entire trend was started when Steve Jobs died and Jonny Ives took over. I find that pretty depressing that the entire UI world has flipped due to essentially one man's preference.
Also on the Wikipedia page about "flat design" this was interesting:
One thing I find interesting is that one of the biggest "pros" of flat design is it's adaptability to deliver a consistent user interface across thousands of devices, platforms, and screen sizes (which is a good thing). But it's also something that Tesla does not have to actually worry about.
This is inaccurate. This link includes a decent overview of the chronology and reasoning.
Even if you want to argue one man, I'll tell you that I was very much OVER skeuomorphism by the time Apple finally switched. So add another man to that list. :biggrin:
That is great. I had forgotten about the importance of flat design for HiDPI and responsive, resolution independent UIs.
HankLloydRight
No Roads
One could argue (and many people have) that the extreme, knee-jerk reaction to eschew everything and anything even remotely skeuomorphic wouldn't have happened if Apple didn't take the lead. That certainly didn't happen when Microsoft released the ZUNE, Metro, or Windows 8.
Last edited:
SomeJoe7777
Marginally-Known Member
You're arguing for change just for change's sake. That's the wrong approach.
Since we're all essentially early adopters, I don't think anyone here has any problem with change, so long as the change improves the product and makes it more functional. The debate throughout this thread is whether these 7.0 screen shots represent an improved, more functional product or not.
Let's be clear on a couple of high-level points that I don't think have been touched on in this thread:
1. There's a lot of mention and use of the phrase "user interface" here. But there's some distinctions. The 17" main screen (MS) is a true user interface. It's purpose is to enable interactive command and control of the vehicle. Users use the touch screen to change displays, issue commands, change settings. The instrument cluster (IC) is different. This is a display/indication/instrumentation device. The purpose is not interactive or command/control -- the purpose is to deliver information required to drive the vehicle.
2. The two displays are physically separate and should be self-contained. Information coming to the driver from the IC should never require or prompt the user to have to interact with the MS. Driver reaction to information from the IC should prompt input or change only to the driving controls -- steering wheel, accelerator, brakes/regen, or steering wheel mounted controls e.g. turn signals, TACC control, etc.
3. The look and design of a display that's purely for one-way communication (information from car -> driver via indicators and instrumentation) is a very different design concept from the look and feel of an interactive display. Many people here are applying interactive user interface design (that you would use for a web page, tablet, phone, or operating system) to the IC, and that's an incorrect design philosophy. The IC is fundamentally different.
4. The IC's display should be designed to deliver information to the driver as quickly as possible. The driver should be able to gain all important information that is applicable for the task at hand by glancing at the IC for no more than 1/5 of a second. 1/5 of a second is enough time to focus the eye on one spot, gather static information within the peripheral space around the focused spot, and gather very brief dynamic information (such as movement of an indicator). The quantity of information can be relatively high if it's properly laid out and succinct.
5. The type of information displayed should be important to the task at hand. It should fall into categories:
- Information that the driver MUST have for accomplishing the task (tier 1).
- Information that the driver SHOULD have to augment the efficiency of the task (tier 2).
- Information that the driver might WANT to have for other purposes (tier 3).
What indications and instrument readings fall into those categories is dynamic. It changes based on what task is underway. A prime example is what we're seeing in the screenshots -- the information you need when Autopilot is in control of the car is different from the information you need when driving the car manually. The IC should reflect this.
I object to a change that does not take all of these factors into account. It is possible (not yet certain) that this is the case by looking at these v7 beta screen shots. Perhaps we're wrong, it remains to be seen.
A short anecdote on indications and instrumentation:
In 1979, the US was gripped with the fear of nuclear catastrophe as the Three Mile Island accident was occurring. Later analysis of why the accident occurred was telling. The initial events that caused the accident were minor, but the situation was made far worse by the incorrect actions of the operators in the control room. A primary problem that prevented them from performing the correct actions was the lack of clear indications and instrumentation showing what was happening to the reactor plant.
Of prime concern:
- The sheer number of indicators, instruments, and annuciators, with dozens to hundreds in an alarm state.
- The lack of grouping of related indicators and instruments meant that an abnormal condition could not be identified by looking in only one place.
- The layout of the instruments was such that there was no assistance from the design of the displays to place more important information and indications front-and-center. This resulted in an incorrect focus on less important indications, and delayed analysis of the true problem.
Instrumentation design philosophy must focus on bringing the most important information that is required for the task at hand to the operator in the quickest most fluid way possible. Anything that gets in the way of that goal does not belong in the IC. This is not a video game, web page, or phone app. The IC is it's own breed and should be treated as such.
mknox
Well-Known Member
That's a really good point, and it probably does make sense when software developers are trying to get their systems to run on everything fro TVs to phones. But as you say, this is not a concern for Tesla.
Gizmotoy
Active Member
And, arguably, it already is: we have phone apps for control, and they use the same graphical style as the vehicle itself.
jgs
Active Member
Funny, but it seems unlikely to put it mildly that Tesla will opt to fit the Model X with displays either much bigger, much smaller, or with a much different pixel pitch than the ones in the Model S. (Actually with pixel pitch, an issue would only arise if they fitted it with an inferior pitch, since there's generally no issue with scaling onto a sharper display.)
Similar threads
