From working at XM Satellite Radio to leading Rhapsody’s music service and later launching the Internet-connected GPS device Dash, I have spent most of my career in pursuit of one goal: to deliver the connected information and entertainment content people want to their driver’s seat. In my my current role leading Aha by Harman, I believe the “connected car” industry’s biggest challenge is to provide the mobile apps and services that consumers want in a way that makes safety the top priority. To do that, we have to look beyond interface design and consider human behavior.

Automobile makers understand people’s desire to be connected. As a result, some of their newer, more technically advanced automotive infotainment systems are starting to resemble smartphones and tablets on wheels, featuring large capacitive touch-screen displays. The problem, of course, is that a car is neither a phone nor a tablet. It’s a two-ton hunk of steel and glass that has to be maneuvered safely through traffic.

Two schools of thought have emerged. One is to ban or severely restrict the use of distractive technology while driving. We all know how well that works. A recent survey found that nearly 40 percent of young drivers admit to texting while driving, and laws requiring drivers to use hands-free mobile phone headsets don’t seem to have had much effect, based on casual observation of cars driving past my office in Palo Alto, Calif.

The other approach is to design new user interfaces — the modern, digital versions of buttons and knobs and dials — that provide the same general functions of smartphones and tablets while minimizing distractions for the driver. There have been promising advances in voice recognition and controls — Apple’s Siri is one emerging example, Dragon from Nuance is another — but the technology is still in the training-wheel stage.

There’s also a huge challenge: If the controls for these new dashboard information centers are either too complex or fail to quickly deliver the information one wants, drivers will simply skip the car’s built-in systems and go back to using their handheld phones and tablets while driving. We’ve got to make the automobile interfaces compelling enough to persuade drivers to put aside their smartphones, but not so compelling as to divert attention away from the road ahead.

Adding to the challenge, the technology in our pockets is advancing faster than a Ferrari down Highway 101. Apple comes out with a new and improved and more alluring iPhone every year, while the information system built into your dashboard is locked in for as long as you own the car, which today is an average of six years. Even if your new car comes with today’s latest whiz-bang technology features, it will seem outdated a few years from now when your new iPhone 10 has a 3D holographic display and a mind-reading interface.

We know what won’t work: millions of drivers hurtling down the road while poking, swiping and typing on touch screens for email, text messages, podcasts, driving directions, global streaming radio, restaurant reservations, social media feeds and the like.

But we also know what has worked in the past. Generations of drivers have managed to stay relatively safe while reaching for the volume knob on a car radio, or pushing a preset button or switching from AM to FM to CD to Sirius/XM satellite radio. Current physical dashboard commands — up arrow, down arrow, right arrow forward, left arrow back and so on — are familiar and easy to operate, and certainly less distracting than a touch-screen display whose user interface requires the driver to slide a finger precisely along a path. The key will be to map a diverse array of new digital services and applications to familiar human behaviors that minimize the distractions for the driver. It’s been exciting to see major car makers such as Acura, Honda and Subaru (disclosure: all are Aha partners) move in this direction with their infotainment systems in 2013 model year vehicles.

Paradoxically, the solution might be to go back to dedicated buttons that don’t require taking one’s eyes off the road. Video game developers learned long ago that when aliens are attacking, a single “Fire!” button works much better than a sequence of CTRL-ALT-whatever keystrokes.

Another design strategy might be to eliminate, or at least limit, interface elements that require the driver to respond immediately, or to retain sequences of information that are cognitively demanding. When the user is sitting at his desk at work, he has no problem tapping out sequences like “Show me reviews for all the three-star Chinese restaurants within five miles,” and “Make a reservation.” “How many people?” “Four.” “What time? Your options are 6:30, 7:15 and 7:45.” When the user is driving in rush hour traffic, such extended interactions are a recipe for an accident.

Above all, the goal of interface design in automobile-based services must be safety. A decade ago, researchers at Harvard estimated that drivers talking on cellphones caused 2,600 fatal accidents and 570,000 other injury accidents the previous year. That was before the iPhone and iPad, before Facebook, before just about all the mobile apps we now can’t imagine living without. The question now is, can we live with them in the car?

In the car of the future, these concerns might not matter. The biggest advance in automobile safety will come from replacing human drivers with radar, LIDAR, GPS, computer vision and robotic chauffeurs. At that point, we’ll all be passengers, free to sit back and touch, swipe and immerse ourselves from here to Grandma’s house. But these are far-off concepts.

Until then, we have to figure out how to design compelling apps that are safe for human drivers to use. We don’t have the answer yet, but we do have a huge opportunity.

Robert Acker has been an entrepreneur in the connected car space for more than 14 years. In his current role with global infotainment company, Harman, Acker and his team are developing and launching Aha, which turns Web content into on-demand radio stations. 

Robert Acker will be discussing the connected-car experience onstage at GigaOM’s Mobilize conference on September 20.

Image courtesy of Flickr user digitaljournal.com.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

In addition to the always-attached keyboard, the Eee Pad Slider adds a full-sized USB port and microSD card slot for memory expansion. Adding these ports and the keyboard adds some bulk and weight, however, two things I’d say actually reduce the portability of the tablet. The slider is larger overall than the iPad or Galaxy Tab 10.1, for example, and at 31.3 ounces, weighs just under two pounds.

Yes, that’s still lighter than a notebook or netbook computer, but it is noticeably heavier than comparable tablets. From a design standpoint, Ritchie says the sliding mechanism on the tablet works well. It’s a spring-loaded design that Ritchie claims is “very smooth action.” The screen angle is a fixed position, however; don’t expect to tilt the screen at different angles.

Maybe I’ll feel differently once I get an Eee Pad Slider to look at, but I’m not sold on the design for my personal needs. Honeycomb is a touch-driven interface, so your hands will be moving back and forth between the keyboard. Even though the distance looks small, it’s not ideal from a usability standpoint. With either the USB port or Bluetooth radio, you could add a mouse to address that problem, but that’s more to carry, which reduces portability even more. And the added weight of the keyboard and sliding mechanism is something buyers will be carrying the whole time, although they do gain a stand out of the design.

Again, perhaps the heavy slate will impress me when I see it for myself. And I’m not suggesting the Eee Pad Slider is a nonstarter: It will surely appeal to some who don’t mind carrying a larger device in order to gain an integrated keyboard. My concern is that I’d be “carrying” the extra weight and size for the keyboard all the time, yet I’d likely be using the keyboard for a very limited amount of time. Folks that are supplementing a true slate with some type of wired or wireless keyboard would likely feel the opposite and for them, the Eee Pad Slider might press all the right buttons, assuming Google Android is their platform of choice.

Keyboard or not, I haven’t been impressed enough by any Android Honeycomb tablet to buy one for myself. I actually still prefer Android 2.3, or Gingerbread, on my lighter 7-inch Samsung Galaxy Tab. And that’s a problem that no keyboard will fix.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Bluetooth to Feel Blue as Personal Area Network Battles Loom
• Survey: How apps can solve photo management
• Sector RoadMap: Social customer service in 2013

“If ease of use were the only requirement, we would all be riding tricycles” — Douglas Engelbart

Have you noticed that many web-based services advertise themselves with the premise of “less,” or being “simple?” They say their programs reduce the time and energy that your team exerts using unecessary and distracting features, functions and options, letting them focus instead on just doing their work.

Many people appreciate the loose structure of these tools. We use terms like “agile” and “flexible,” and for a lot of use cases this sort of framework can indeed be very appealing.

For example, let’s look at the typical web-based project management tools. Most are essentially designed to be warehouses for all data pertaining to a project. They integrate basic to-do lists, messaging and milestones and provide a framework to hang our project upon and to make sure nothing gets lost. Their open nature and lack of structure make them capable of accommodating a wide array of projects, and you can essentially make them work for just about anything or anyone.

Conversely though, and what concerns me, is that often the lack of features and perceived overhead can actually introduce more real overhead to your process. At what point does their simple nature become a hindrance to the work that actually needs to be done?

Yes, incorporating something like dependent task assignment adds complexity. Yes, introducing advanced message routing can require some thought and set up time. But these features provide value and are worth it in some instances, because working around the lack of some useful functionality causes users additional real — and ongoing — overhead.

The concept of overhead in this context was introduced to me in a recent chat I had with Hamid Shojaee of Axosoft, developers of bug tracking/project management tool OnTime, which I’ll be reviewing in the next day or so. His comments really got me thinking about the way that web applications are developed and marketed.

I certainly recognize and accept that some products and services naturally offer too much or too little functionality and that a single application won’t work for everyone. Needs, goals and requirements vary across the board and I’m glad that there are the multitude of options available to us. Being mindful of our decisions when choosing these applications and accepting the trade-off that “simple” may bring with it other consequences down the road when your needs change.

I always say the best thing about doing what I do is having the chance to interact with smart people, and talking with Hamid and others is always a fascinating and enlightening process. It is my pleasure to also have occasional chats with self-proclaimed “interface radical” Amy Hoy, designer for the Freckle time tracking service. We rant about the state of user interface and interaction design, and I always appreciate her candid comments.

In our most recent chat we talked about the concept of “simplicity,” and how as a mantra it provides a nice warm fuzzy feeling and a compelling argument for use, but is “less” or “simple” really the issue? She says an application can be complex, or introduce complexity and still be powerful, enjoyable and surprising. “Way too much of the usability talk on the web focuses on first run experience, says everything should be obvious, but that’s oversimplifying the issue.”

So what concerns me is if this quest for creating simple software is hurting us. Are we creating a culture of users that require a dumbed down experience, at the expense of the increased efficiencies and productivity gains we can realize with more complex tools? Are we also stifling the creativity of the designers and developers who are afraid to provide useful features because of the fear that they may be complex or not immediately obvious?

Hoy says, “A tool you use a lot should offer opportunities to grow and learn,” and I love this concept. We as business owners, entrepreneurs, web workers and freelancers are smart, naturally inquisative, resourceful and creative. We are capable of using software that challenges us; in fact, I believe we could benefit from it.

Are you afraid of your software doing less?

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Connected consumer first-quarter 2013: Analysis and outlook
• Personal tools lead to practical business
• Millennials in the enterprise, part 1: strategies for supporting the new digital workforce