Re:"In every study that considered the question"
by TeMPOraL on Saturday October 17, 2026 @04:00AM
(#50128946)
Yeah, I was wondering about it, the car example feels like from some kind of bizarro reality.
"Driving" or "Parking" lights make no sense conceptually. Over this side of the pond, we just call these symbols by what they actually represent - tail lights, short lights, anti-fog lights, etc.
Which I guess kind of is a problem happening in UX right now. It's my firm belief that the buttons for operating equipment should be labeled by what the button does, not when to use it. In domain of illumination, "headlights" and "tail lights" are real concepts; "parking" and "driving" are category errors.
Re:"In every study that considered the question"
by esseph on Saturday October 17, 2026 @04:53AM
(#50129187)
> "Driving" or "Parking" lights make no sense conceptually
You're pulled into a parking spot and you want you're waiting with corner markers on for safety and illumination, bit you don't need or want your headlights blasting.
Re:"In every study that considered the question"
by TeMPOraL on Saturday October 17, 2026 @06:45AM
(#50129857)
You pull to the side during fog or severe rain. Which one you want? You drive slowly onto the ramp to a shuttle. Which one you want?
Re:"In every study that considered the question"
by esseph on Saturday October 17, 2026 @02:15PM
(#50133552)
Idk those are two different scenarios with no other context, should I want something?
Re:"In every study that considered the question"
by vrighter on Saturday October 17, 2026 @02:24AM
(#50128486)
since daytime running lights have been proven to have a positive effect on accident rates, some cars just turn them on and just don't give the option of turning them off anymore. Mine does that and so does my wife's, for example. You can't run the car with zero lights
> “parking,” which activates only front lights, at half brightness, and (for some reason) leaves the tail lights off.
I've also just double checked the manual for my car to be sure I'm not talking out of my ass here: the symbol he calls "parking" activates the tail lights. From the manual:
> “[double headlights, one left one right symbol]” position:
> Instrument panel illumination, parking lights, front side marker lights, rear side marker lights, tail lights and license plate lights are on.
(My manual does not ascribe a name to it.)
Now, I suppose this could be an unexpected thing that differs between cars, but it also shouldn't really matter that much. The intro example is in the rain; you should be using the symbol he calls "park" in the rain, you should be using the "low beams" setting, and then your tail lights are definitely on. Or … just let "Auto" handle it?
(I've always called this symbol "daytime running lights". Wikipedia says that's a different symbol (a single headlight with stippled lines emitting from it), one I've definitely never seen before & isn't in TFA; Wikipedia claims it to be the ISO symbol, however, I've found the relevant ISO standard¹, but it seems to lack the symbol Wikipedia calls "daytime running lights". The symbol I call DRL is called "position" or "side" lights, and the term DRL is not used by ISO AFAICT, despite what Wikipedia claims. What a mess.)
(from TFA:)
> Many cars have an AUTO option now, but would you trust it to choose the right thing?
… yes? Absolutely yes. The car can just do the right thing for me, without me having to remember. Sensing ambient light is not complicated.
> pull on the stalk for high beams (another mode), or rotate the stalk left or right for turn signals.
There is absolutely no way whatever car this is a photograph of is rotating the stalk for turn signals. Turn signals are pull up or down, universally.
¹ISO-2575:2021, though technically a draft since ISO standards are not open. But this symbol has been around since forever, so unless it's changed recently…