If they have custromer feedback and focus groups like they mention how did it happen in the first place? Some overoptimistic head-of-something? Really curious. I own previous -2021 mb and had to drive the upgrade (touch buttons) once as a replacement car. UX is terrible. Period. I even checked then in the dealership what they did to S-class and mybachs - and yes, same crappy wheel, etc. Anyways, I was mostly surprised that they didn’t know this before. Something is wrong with their research / decision making.
It could be the Pepsi sip test problem. Pepsi does well in sip testing, better than coke, but most people report liking coke better. Why? Pepsi is slightly sweeter, which means it tastes better for the first sip or two. But, in the long run, coke wins out because it's a bit less sweet and therefore more tolerable for a whole drink.
It's possible they tested touch screens with people using prototypes and whatnot but did not do their due diligence to test it long-term. On first impression, touch screens seem cool, futuristic, and flashy. It's really only when you try to daily drive the car that you realize they're annoying and a regression from physical buttons.
But, they present very well on sales room floors and car shows.
I guess it is possible that customers - the ones that they asked anyway - were also caught up in the touchscreen hype. There was a lot of hype in the first few years of iPhone and iPad.
Oh yes, there was an enormous hype. Things like tablets are going to displace all PC-type computers and such. I like to point out this article as an example of the mindless enthusiasm - I was rolling my eyes very hard at the time: https://www.techeblog.com/worlds-first-ipad-dj/
I bet if you showed a room of people a car with a big iPad thing a couple of decades ago, they'd ooh and ah, without necessarily thinking that deeply about what it would actually be like to use. Users are bad at knowing what they actually want on brief exposure; the thing that does well in focus groups may not be the thing that actually works.
You don’t know what the group was presented and how.
Remember you have the stupid stuff that Tesla pushed hard during the peak Elon reality distortion field time. I regularly are in a Toyota, BMW and Honda, and all of these have well thought out touch/knob implementations.
It's pretty straightforward to structure and conduct a focus group to give you the feedback that you want to hear. If the money guys told you "touchscreens save us 1% on the BOM, make it happen," then you could design your demos and question wording to ensure that your report said "customers love this shit."
Oh totally. I’m just saying when this stuff was at its peak, everyone was excited about the future bullshit. I remember my father in law was legit excited about it, until he drove his new car for a few weeks!
>If they have custromer feedback and focus groups like they mention how did it happen in the first place?
This is part of the modern UI paradox. Never before has UI and UX gotten so much attention, and logging, and tracking, and research, etc. But of course with all that additional attention UI and UX is generally getting worse over time. I have my theories why, but I'd bet they're paying for decent talent here and are coming to the wrong conclusions.
They aren't doing all that research to make their product better for you, they're doing it to make their product better for them. Those metrics help them design to keep you on [platform] for as long as possible, consuming as much [product] from [company] as possible. It benefits them to be easy to do the things they want (buy something or view ads) and hard to do things they don't want you to do (leave, change settings, generally take any kind of control)
