Physical controls aren't just ipso facto better, there's decades of studies to support that. Especially in situations where you need to use touch to maintain visual focus elsewhere.
> Physical controls aren't just ipso facto better...
I'm not sure what you are trying to say with the 'just' there - if they were ipso facto better, that would be about as strong an affirmation of their superiority as one could make.
Nothing I wrote contradicts the claim that a well-designed manual control is better than a touch control, and that is, in fact, a view that I agree with. The fact, however, that I have increasingly come across manual controls having the very vice that you seem to be alluding to - one needs to visually find them, operate them, or check their status, taking one's eyes off the road - shows that they are not ipso facto better.
Are you perhaps mistaking ipso facto for prima facie?
> I'm not sure what you are trying to say with the 'just' there
It's a very common pattern in English. "Not just X, Y" means that X is true, Y is true, and Y is a stronger claim than X.
He's saying that not only is it the case that physical controls are superior by virtue of being physical controls, it's also the case that that fact is amply documented by "decades of studies".
I am well aware of that, but, as I pointed out in my previous post, when X is ipso facto true, X is already affirmed as strongly and as unconditionally as is possible.
What groby_p wrote is this: "Physical controls aren't just ipso facto better, there's decades of studies to support that." In the first (independent) clause, groby_p asserts that physical controls are superior as a direct consequence of being physical controls (when one says something is 'not just' true, one is saying (ipso facto!) that it is true.) This, however, is empirically false - a badly-designed physical control can be at least as bad as a touch control (and for an example of how it could be dangerously worse than a touch control, take the fuel selector valve in the airplane John Denver crashed, which was difficult to operate in flight without accidentally applying full rudder.) [1]
The dependent clause claims that decades of studies justify the ipso facto claim, but they do not: they strongly support the somewhat lesser (but highly significant) claim that well-designed physical controls are superior (at least in most cases.) This is something I agree with, and nothing I have written suggests otherwise.
As I have pointed out ways in which some physical controls on today's cars are so poorly designed as to have the same significant problems as touch controls, I don't think this is a pedantic point.
