JM. Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 Autocar: Jag's next XJ On the inside Autocar’s sources reserved their greatest praise for the XJ’s interior, which one eyewitness described as “space age”. According to our information, the car’s interior design theme is close to that seen in the C-XF concept, but with addition of some hi-tech fixtures and fittings. One of the cabin’s most radical ideas are ‘proximity switches’. Also due to appear on a future version of the iPod, proximity switches do not require physical contact between the driver and the electrical switching mechanism. Sources say much of the XJ’s switchgear is nothing more than symbols etched onto glass sheets suspended clear of the dashboard architecture. Touching the symbol activates the switch, and the glass sheets are elegantly back-lit at night, so interior lighting can be activated by the occupant simply moving his hand in the vicinity of the lighting units. Ford does have a deal with Microsoft right... Microsoft: Surface Maybe something similar to the Surface will make its way into cars?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted May 30, 2007 Share Posted May 30, 2007 Autocar: Jag's next XJFord does have a deal with Microsoft right... Microsoft: Surface Maybe something similar to the Surface will make its way into cars?? THAT just sounds cool.....watch jaguar...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g48150 Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 No, No, No, you've got it all wrong... Microsoft is in bed with Ford with the Sync system, its called the Multimedia Gateway Module (MGM). This multi-touchscreen system is just sour grapes because Apple has a multi-touch iPhone coming out next month. You guys are mixing industries, bad people! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igor Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 I doubt it uses the Surface interface, but will probably use the multi touch technology. The Surface uses a lot of added technology OUTSiDE the table itself to work tight - and I cannot imagine it in a car - besides it is a fresh platform originally being rolled out only to select business partners .. with limited applications - it will grow gradually from there. Igor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guesswhoscomingtodinner Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 I doubt it uses the Surface interface, but will probably use the multi touch technology. The Surface uses a lot of added technology OUTSiDE the table itself to work tight - and I cannot imagine it in a car - besides it is a fresh platform originally being rolled out only to select business partners .. with limited applications - it will grow gradually from there. Igor Can you imagine the reliablilty nightmares? British wiring and grounding issues combined with Micro$oft glitches and bugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WingBender Posted May 31, 2007 Share Posted May 31, 2007 (edited) British wiring and grounding issues combined with Micro$oft glitches and bugs. I was once chatting with a group of Microsofties when the subject of jetliner avionics came up. It was noted that Microsoft has never gotten into writing aircraft control software. I remarked that when you're cruising at 35,000 feet and the software locks up, you can't exactly invoke the Microsoft fix by shutting the airplane off and turning it back on again. I was met with icy glares. Edited May 31, 2007 by WingBender Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retro-man Posted June 3, 2007 Share Posted June 3, 2007 It was noted that Microsoft has never gotten into writing aircraft control software. THANK GOD!! I was just posting on a thread about the Escapes flaky "drive-by-wire" steering that I have to fly next week. I don't like any of it. Look, this forum's cool, and I love e-mail and Google - but this whole computer thing is a load of crap for the most part. We are working more hours per year and earning less in real terms than before it all started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted June 4, 2007 Share Posted June 4, 2007 THANK GOD!! I was just posting on a thread about the Escapes flaky "drive-by-wire" steering that I have to fly next week. I don't like any of it. Look, this forum's cool, and I love e-mail and Google - but this whole computer thing is a load of crap for the most part. We are working more hours per year and earning less in real terms than before it all started. Thats because they make you do more work because it makes tasks easier! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 Look, what I had to say about the JaguarDrive gadget pales in comparison to my opinions on the quality of software design. You don't want me started on the horrible, ghastly, awful, miserable, rotten, abysmal, disgraceful state of software interface design. Just try this out: Go to AutoTrader.com and count how many clicks it takes you to get to a 1999 Ford F150 listing. Count individual keystrokes, mouse clicks and page loads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one2gamble Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 Look, what I had to say about the JaguarDrive gadget pales in comparison to my opinions on the quality of software design. You don't want me started on the horrible, ghastly, awful, miserable, rotten, abysmal, disgraceful state of software interface design. Just try this out: Go to AutoTrader.com and count how many clicks it takes you to get to a 1999 Ford F150 listing. Count individual keystrokes, mouse clicks and page loads. before you bitch designing with that large a database isnt easy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 before you bitch designing with that large a database isnt easy. what about google...or wikipedia....there are ways. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 Is Autotrader the most fluid site? Not really, but it IS ridiculously simple to use. Takes awhile to find what you're looking for, but unless you're a complete idiot, you WILL find what you are looking for. People like to point and click instead of typing in search terms for the most part, so they designed the site around that premise. I don't think there's anything all that bad about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one2gamble Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 what about google...or wikipedia....there are ways. a search box isnt a user interface Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 6, 2007 Share Posted June 6, 2007 (edited) a search box isnt a user interface they are both much more than search boxes...and that would count as a type of interface. Edited June 6, 2007 by suv_guy_19 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 7, 2007 Share Posted June 7, 2007 Is Autotrader the most fluid site? Not really, but it IS ridiculously simple to use. No, not really. It works, if you start with an assumption that everything needs to be in a drop down box, and that all aspects of the search need to be equally weighted, visually. If, for instance, the year (range, usually) of a vehicle is of equal importance as the make, or the vehicle type, yeah, the Auto Trader site is just a blast. However, in the real world, the way people 'phrase' their search is often quite at odds with the search interface they're using. Also, I manage a database that, while not as large as the Auto Trader database, is every bit as complex. Our websites do not have a search interface with as many search options as the Auto Trader website in large part because we work with individual dealers, and therefore inventories are small enough to make year range searches (or price range) searches impractical. http://www.dodgetownusa.com is a site that we built--it's a little too 'Old West' for my tastes (and a little too over-designed), but it's what the customer wanted. It's one of our portfolio pieces because these guys went with the payment calculator. We eliminated the make and model drop down boxes, instead we present the makes and models in a nested list on the right. We also simplified the drop down boxes into the categories and the order in which most people describe the car they're looking for. People will generally have a price in mind and a certain vehicle type or they'll known exactly the make and model they're looking for. We designed our interface to work this way. We also kept the search boxes on the vehicle detail pages. Compare this interface with any other dealership website out there. This kind of interface would need some adjustment to adapt to a database the size of Auto Trader's. We have toyed around with the best layouts for a more detailed search interface, and have already built a ZIP code search radius tool, but the client we're building this for isn't quite at a point where these tools are necessary. There is every basis for incorporating a serious and thoughtful approach to interface design, for asking "How is this going to be used?" over and over again. It is not enough to apply a few PhotoShop effects and call it good, nor is it enough to throw on the screen all conceivable options, and leave it to the end user to sort them out (in this, Linux mavens manage to outdo the uselessness of Windows). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted June 7, 2007 Share Posted June 7, 2007 No, not really. It works, if you start with an assumption that everything needs to be in a drop down box, and that all aspects of the search need to be equally weighted, visually. If, for instance, the year (range, usually) of a vehicle is of equal importance as the make, or the vehicle type, yeah, the Auto Trader site is just a blast. However, in the real world, the way people 'phrase' their search is often quite at odds with the search interface they're using. Also, I manage a database that, while not as large as the Auto Trader database, is every bit as complex. Our websites do not have a search interface with as many search options as the Auto Trader website in large part because we work with individual dealers, and therefore inventories are small enough to make year range searches (or price range) searches impractical. http://www.dodgetownusa.com is a site that we built--it's a little too 'Old West' for my tastes (and a little too over-designed), but it's what the customer wanted. It's one of our portfolio pieces because these guys went with the payment calculator. We eliminated the make and model drop down boxes, instead we present the makes and models in a nested list on the right. We also simplified the drop down boxes into the categories and the order in which most people describe the car they're looking for. People will generally have a price in mind and a certain vehicle type or they'll known exactly the make and model they're looking for. We designed our interface to work this way. We also kept the search boxes on the vehicle detail pages. Compare this interface with any other dealership website out there. This kind of interface would need some adjustment to adapt to a database the size of Auto Trader's. We have toyed around with the best layouts for a more detailed search interface, and have already built a ZIP code search radius tool, but the client we're building this for isn't quite at a point where these tools are necessary. There is every basis for incorporating a serious and thoughtful approach to interface design, for asking "How is this going to be used?" over and over again. It is not enough to apply a few PhotoShop effects and call it good, nor is it enough to throw on the screen all conceivable options, and leave it to the end user to sort them out (in this, Linux mavens manage to outdo the uselessness of Windows). You can search Autotrader by vehicle type too if I'm not mistaken. Can't say I've used the site much though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one2gamble Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 "How is this going to be used?" you have to ask "who is going to use it" also, it could differ in your "design" and "functionality" depending on the user. Either way, pm your companies site if you may. We may be "shopping" in the next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biker16 Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 I was once chatting with a group of Microsofties when the subject of jetliner avionics came up. It was noted that Microsoft has never gotten into writing aircraft control software. I remarked that when you're cruising at 35,000 feet and the software locks up, you can't exactly invoke the Microsoft fix by shutting the airplane off and turning it back on again. I was met with icy glares. our new Air dominince Fighter the F22. has had many many issues with it avionics, which is the most complex ever used. it would freeze up all the time, and no planes were lost because of it. but it was common for the pilot to reboot the computer during flight, during testing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted June 14, 2007 Share Posted June 14, 2007 our new Air dominince Fighter the F22. has had many many issues with it avionics, which is the most complex ever used. it would freeze up all the time, and no planes were lost because of it. but it was common for the pilot to reboot the computer during flight, during testing. Thrust Vectoring rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.