The comments here sound like they're from people who don't work in tech or at large companies...
The Volvo software design team isn't responsible for fixing electronics bugs, and maybe not even responsible for the presence or lack of physical buttons. They didn't even make the font - it was contracted to a design studio. I seriously doubt this effort distracted too much from fixing the other things people care about. Big companies do multiple things at once.
> The comments here sound like they're from people who don't work in tech or at large companies...
Or they're from people that read the headline/article.
It editorializes the motivation for this being "Safety" and thus, a lot of users are pointing out how hollow that rings or how misguided it seems when there's ways we'd much prefer they take to improve safety. For example, lack of physical buttons and the consolidation of everything into the touchscreen, which the article also acknowledges (and in turn, acknowledges that Volvo is aware people are growing more disgruntled with it).
This isn't a lack of understanding that big corporations are capable of having multiple people doing multiple things, this is us questioning if Volvo's reputation for actually caring about safety still holds true, or if their new owners with the final say in these matters (Geely) is just riding on that reputation by ignoring the much more pressing safety concerns yet knowingly cashing in on that reputation-capital by pandering to those same concerns with a font.
Does the font improve safety and is that the motivation, or not?
There are comments here like "They should instead focus on their overall software stability and usability", and spankalee is correctly pointing out that it's a false dichotomy.
> The work of London-based type design studio Dalton Maag, the new typeface is designed ‘to improve readability, sharpen attention, and promote a calmer, safety-focused driving experience.’
That's a quote from either Volvo or the designer. You're right -- it doesn't explicitly say that this was a quote from Volvo; but I'd be a bit surprised if a well-known designer was just making that up without it being part of the shared vision around the work.
And if that's true, the critics are correct. Volvo should be putting in physical buttons to make safer cars. Instead, they are claiming some bullshit "early adopter" status and putting in large amounts of control and information on an unsafe touchscreen to save money.
Casually window dressing this designer work as a "safe" typeface smacks of trying to cover up shoddy mistakes, and they need to be called out for that obfuscation specifically.
I have a Volvo with Android Automotive. And I think touchscreens in cars are trash, and Android particularly so; the latency is horrendous, the rear-view camera only works 50% of the time, everything just feels like the cheapest trash Android tablet from a decade ago.
I really wish this car just had physical controls and a double-din Carplay deck from Pioneer or whatever, the experience would be so much better.
I honestly believe I'm going to get into an accident in a parking lot due to the horrendous sight lines and unreliable camera.
Looks nice but nothing outstanding or particularly legible, compared to the many fonts developed for this purpose already. I think they wanted their own identity and there's nothing wrong with that. But the "designed for safety" part feels like a gimmick to tie into their branding.
Car manufacturers change their logo or font occasionally to send a message, solidify a brand identity, of course it won't be in any way related to any of the engineering of the car.
> Android Automotive. And I think touchscreens in cars are trash, and Android particularly so; the latency is horrendous
I don't own a Volvo but I've seen the infotainment system in action on their premium cars (XC60/XC90/EX90). If I were to be in the market for a new car in that category, the infotainment and "Volvo's close relationship with Google", to quote the article, would single handedly cross Volvo out from my list.
You wrote about the font and about stability. I commented about the font and my experiences with the product in question's actual observed stability in the field. Not sure what you missed.
Which is why my comment also specifically went to pains to acknowledge that volvo shared/echo that sentiment, which it absolutely does.
And Indeed. It's not a dichotomy at all, because...
> Does the font improve safety and is that the motivation, or not?
This is the actual false dichotomy.
If the issue with usability/safety/accessibility/ergonomics/etc regarding touch screens was "I can't read the font" then maybe this POV would be on to something. But that's not the issue, and no one is confused about that. This is like putting a bandaid on your arm when your leg is broken and then acting confused when the patient asks, justifiably, "Are you even listening to me? That's not the Problem!"
This is not how it works though: a product team shouldn't spend time working on this kind of details while big parts of the product are not good enough.
This is a bit ridiculous in practice. The reality is that products have many, many vectors of experience. Like a house does. If you have a broken window and a leaky pipe, you can hire 2 different people to fix both of those things separately...
Sure it's different teams, but the management at some level is common to the whole house, and if you choose to perfect the paint before fixing the pipes, it means something
The Volvo software design team isn't responsible for fixing electronics bugs, and maybe not even responsible for the presence or lack of physical buttons. They didn't even make the font - it was contracted to a design studio. I seriously doubt this effort distracted too much from fixing the other things people care about. Big companies do multiple things at once.