| ▲ | Car touchscreens are cheap, not good(ben.stolovitz.com) |
| 66 points by citelao 2 hours ago | 65 comments |
| |
|
| ▲ | jmward01 15 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| I realize the article is pro buttons. I think a huge thing missing from the button discussion (well, maybe lightly touched on in the article) is that physical buttons and controls help guide without looking. Other buttons give feedback that your hand is in the right place. Sure, at first contact that (very bad) reference radio is worse than the touch screen but within a few days of using that I would not need to look to make sure I was hitting the button I wanted because I could feel the face of it with my hand and know I was hitting the right button. So basically, even though the paper picked essentially the worst radio on the planet, it would likely be better than a well designed touch screen after just a few days of use. First day though? That thing is a nightmare. |
| |
| ▲ | bs7280 a minute ago | parent | next [-] | | A while ago I was driving a loaner car - a brand new top tier Accura rdx and the infotainment system was truly the worst and most dangerously designed I had ever witnessed. It was essentially a lenovo thinkpad type touchpad by the cup holder, and the screen was far away. The first time I tried to use it, it was so distracting that I would of crashed the car if it weren't for the safety features. My car is a 2018 with car play and physical scroll knobs and buttons, while awkward, I can operate it with my eyes on the road (realistically I can do everything I need from the steering wheel). This weird middle ground carplay was somehow the worst combo of buttons and touchscreen. | |
| ▲ | citelao 5 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Totally agree; I had to cut a few sentences about that :). (I also tried to steel-man the paper as much as possible). Oddly enough, it seems like, although the value of "blind operation" is well-understood, it's not super well researched. As one of the papers I cite puts it: > Little research deals with the optimal design of haptic features and how haptic feedback can support the user in searching for control elements. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6676796/ |
|
|
| ▲ | aftbit 28 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They're getting better though. The first gen touchscreens were tiny and unreliable. The one in my 2024 Ioniq 5 is pretty decent. I am really glad I still have physical AC controls though, even if they're capacitive. Touchscreens are modal. If I want to control the climate, I first have to press the Climate capacitive button or scroll through the screen to find climate. That takes my hands off the wheel and my eyes off the road for longer than just tapping the fan-up button. As for the cost, I will _happily_ pay the $100 more to have a more premium and tuned interior. Heck, I chose to step up an entire trim model to the top of the line trim just for the fancy LCD screen mirror. I'd happily pay extra for better buttons. IMO touch screens are great for rarely used features, but anything that gets clicked on most drives should be a dedicated touch point (capacitive button, physical button, steering wheel control, whatever). Give me multifunction displays from aviation. Touch screen in the middle, rows of modal buttons along the bottom and left side. You can use muscle memory to find the button. |
| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 15 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > I will _happily_ pay the $100 more to have a more premium and tuned interior I'm guessing the cost difference is greater than this. Which means the end-user price difference would be north of $1k. Would be interesting to see if customers would pay $2 to 5k extra for a mostly-tactile interior. (I think back-up camera requirements make some screen unavoidable.) | | |
| ▲ | MostlyStable 3 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I'm somewhat skeptical that the cost difference would really be that high, but honestly...yeah I probably would. If what I was getting was fully physical (not capacitive) media and AC controls, including pause/play, skip/tune, volume control, temp control, fan speed control, zone selection, etc? I interact with those systems multiple times every single time I get into a vehicle, which is essentially multiple times every day, for years. Improving the quality of those interactions even a little bit (and in my opinion the difference between good physical buttons and even a very good touchscreen, let alone a shitty one, is massive), is worth thousands of dollars. While I was not presented with the option on a given model to go with buttons or touchscreens, when I was shopping for cars, I did eliminate models based on their interface options. The models I was willing to consider were probably cut in half because I wouldn't get anything that was entirely touch screen or capacitive for both AC and media. |
| |
| ▲ | scottyah 9 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Do you not have muscle memory for screens too? I find my brain has an easier time visualizing all the touchscreen controls I use semi-often over buttons. Perhaps it's a generational thing. |
|
|
| ▲ | advisedwang 21 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I have heard (but have no insider knowledge) that it's not just the cost of parts, but what parts do to the development lifecycle. With physical parts, the development process is highly sequential. Pick the look, design how it fits, engineer what parts are used, manufacture tooling etc etc in a waterfall. If a revision needs to be made, the whole process needs to be re-started adding a huge amount of delays. With a touchscreen, the physical touchscreen and the software that runs on it are parallel threads. You can make most UI changes without impacting the manufacturing/design pipeline at all. You don't even need to have planned what the interface looks like before you finalize the parts needed. |
|
| ▲ | sedatk 32 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| More importantly, car touchscreens are dangerous. It’s impossible to operate a touchscreen without moving your attention from the road to the touchscreen itself. That’s why I think it must be a legal requirement for any car with touchscreen controls to operate car functions must have driver assistance features enabled, no exceptions. |
| |
| ▲ | scottyah 14 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Just like the article mentioned, you can't just say that touchscreens are dangerous without bringing up how many buttons do not make it better UX. There are plenty of touchscreen designs that are way better than buttons. The only metric that matters is how fast you can get attention back on the road. | |
| ▲ | agloe_dreams 10 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > It’s impossible to operate a touchscreen without moving your attention from the road to the touchscreen itself. The article directly links to a study that shows this is also true of physical buttons. Regardless of the fact that buttons are tactile, people don't go feeling up their radio without looking, even if they can. Furthermore, the vast majority of infotainment input today is into phone mirroring systems like carplay. This whole thing is compounded by the fact that Mazda's knob solution was actually worse while being marketed as better. While a touchscreen needs to be looked at to find a button, a cursor controlled by a knob needs to be watched in whole to navigate to the button. Your fine motor skills as a human allows you to directly press a button, physical or not, without looking at your arm to get near it. | | |
| ▲ | SoftTalker 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | You're right in that with a physical control you still probably glance at it as you're reaching for it, but you don't have to keep your eyes on it the whole time unlike a touch screen. With a touch-screen there's no feedback that your finger is on the button and that you have actually pressed it. With a physical control, button, knob, or slider once you have your hand on it you can manipulate it without looking. They demand momentary glances, not seconds of constant focus. | |
| ▲ | PunchyHamster a minute ago | parent | prev [-] | | Well, it depends on button and function. Rarely used functions will require looking, common ones (assuming button placement is sensible) will not, but even ones that require looking are still better because you skip going thru the menu to find it. |
| |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 15 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | > car touchscreens are dangerous. It’s impossible to operate a touchscreen without moving your attention from the road to the touchscreen itself They're dangerous for controls the driver would reasonably need to operate while driving the car. They're fine for more-complex at-rest configuration, or stuff a passener would care about. |
|
|
| ▲ | iamdamian 33 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There has been more pushback on car screens over the past couple of years, and the optimist in me hopes this leads to change. With enough pushback, manufacturers will have to listen to the market, cost savings be damned. A concrete step I take to push this along: I mention physical buttons as a dealbreaker to car dealerships when I shop. Of course, I'm only speaking to dealer reps and not the decision makers at $CAR_CO, but if enough people do this, it does get back to the them and will make a difference. |
| |
| ▲ | SoftTalker 8 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | That works as long as you actually stick to your guns and keep them as deal-breakers. If you accept them with some grumbling, that's still a sale and that provides no backpressure to the manufacturer. | |
| ▲ | oblio 27 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | In Europe it's done through EuroNCAP: https://etsc.eu/cars-will-need-buttons-not-just-touchscreens... It has already started asking for physical buttons for key functions to give manufacturers the top safety rating, and it's working. Buttons are coming back. |
|
|
| ▲ | citelao 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| OP here: I always disliked touchscreens in cars, so I didn't understand why automakers kept shoving them in. I always assumed I was weird in some way, and that most consumers preferred touchscreens or something (Reddit seems to argue this in circles all the time). I planned to keep buying Mazdas, with their lovely buttons and stuff. But when Mazda unveiled their button-lite 2026 CX-5 about a year ago, I started investigating. I'm pretty convinced that touchscreens today are primarily a cost-saving measure, and every other justification is secondary. I hope I can convince you, too! |
| |
| ▲ | MisterTea 33 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > I'm pretty convinced that touchscreens today are primarily a cost-saving measure, and every other justification is secondary. I hope I can convince you, too! It amuses me that back in the 90's LCD color screens were magical fairy dust that cost about the same as what magical fairy dust would cost. Laptops with color LCD screens were like $6000 in the 90's, I think $3k over a greyscale. That's like $13k today. Whereas the little plastic buttons and knobs were cheaper to pump out of an injection molding machine and assembled. Now screens are cheaper to make than little plastic baubles. | |
| ▲ | nicce an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > I'm pretty convinced that touchscreens today are primarily a cost-saving measure, and every other justification is secondary. I hope I can convince you, too! I thought this is a pretty well-known thing already? For almost decade. | | |
| ▲ | dieselgate 33 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I figured it was the most reasonable conclusion via Occam's Razor. Economical and the illusion of futurism |
| |
| ▲ | pwg an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > so I didn't understand why automakers kept shoving them in. The article explained why. Since 2018 in the US, due to the proliferation of giant trucks being used as passenger vehicles (SUV's) backup cameras have been mandatory safety equipment. A backup camera requires a screen. So the automakers have to install a screen in the dashboard. It is only a few dollars more to install a "touch screen" vs. a "basic display screen", and with the addition of those few dollars to the screen, that touch screen can now replace hundreds of dollars of physical buttons and their necessary wiring. Net result, the BOM cost of the car drops by several hundred dollars, and the cost to assemble drops by some measurable amount as well. So they why is: "because they save the automakers BOM and assembly costs". | | |
| ▲ | birdostrich an hour ago | parent [-] | | They're aware. You're replying to the OP of the article, lol. | | |
| ▲ | nkozyra 30 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Obviously they read it, but it's 2026 and entirely possible to publish an article without having read a word of it :) All that said, I think initially it was a mix of a few things coming together. Yes, auto mfgs always want to reduce parts for cost and supply chain control. But there was also this moment of New Wow where the impractical nature of touchscreens was overshadowed by the holy crap I've got a tablet in my car. It implied a break with the last generation of cars, where you might have gotten a 4-inch screen (touch or not), and it became desirable at a surface level to users. Although I greatly dislike touchscreens for the obvious usability issues in a motor vehicle, I still kind of widen my eyes when I'm in a car with some new, ridiculous multi-screen dashboard setup. Mazda was mentioned in this thread, and I think they do a great job of separating the concerns here; you've got a big buttons of various sizes that do different things that can be memorized without sight. |
|
| |
| ▲ | gumby271 31 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I love the click-wheel on my Mazda3 and I love that it allows the screen to sit out of arms length up on the dashboard. Its a very nice interior. What I don't love is how Android Auto is slowly breaking since it assumes more and more that you have a touchscreen. It used to be that it would focus buttons in notifications, making it easy to interact with. Now the focus doesn't seem to change at all (or only sometimes) making it a nightmare to do simple things. I dare not use the new Gemini assistant since the last time I was completely unable to navigate to the buttons in its panel at all. I really hope they don't phase out the wheel just because Google sucks at supporting it. I know they have both touch and the wheel in newer models now. | | |
| ▲ | aiisjustanif 24 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I cried when Mercedes go rid of the click wheel. Research in this article be damned, I’d argue that rotary knobs with directional shifting like Mercedes paired with great software are the best car infotainment interface in recent history for screens in cars. |
| |
| ▲ | prmoustache an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The reality is they want to serve us ads in the future. But they first need adoption. | | |
| ▲ | jasonjayr 15 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | (a) cars have forward-facing cameras/computer vision for lane tracking (b) infotainment systems have always-on cellular internet connections (c) billboard impression counts can be tied to the vehicle IIRC infotainment systems are already showing ads in some form. And location + driving performance is being captured + monetized and shared with insurance companies. Unless this results in an EV car that I can rent for less than $100/mo, this really needs to be stopped. | |
| ▲ | nkozyra 28 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | > But they first need adoption. I think they've got that. Short of budget stuff or the Slate truck, most new cars have some big dumb screen in them at all times. But advertising poses a new problem for both advertisers and mfgs not unlike the mid-90s ad sale issue. There was no consolidated ad server, so everyone was trying to build their own agency and advertisers had to navigate that. Which probably means some sort of Google or Google-like player in the space. |
| |
| ▲ | Gualdrapo an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I think that nowadays people value "technological features", and how better to show "technological advancement" like a giant ass touchscreen and not some "old" XX century knobs. | | |
| ▲ | cuu508 41 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I hope that changes and people start valuing simplicity and robustness over electric gimmicks (I know many people already do, but we need critical mass). |
| |
| ▲ | guessbest an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | It is so much easier to add internationalization to a touchscreen over physical buttons | | |
| ▲ | ilinx an hour ago | parent [-] | | How much is that needed? There was very little text on those buttons to begin with. Are there significant cultural differences in the iconography associated with them? |
|
|
|
| ▲ | AceJohnny2 9 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I want to cheer (again) for my 2020 Ford Escape. Its infotainment design was a significant differentiator that led to my selection after testing a dozen different models across all US manufacturers. It has Carplay/Android Auto, naturally, but it also has physical buttons for play/pause/previous/next and volume, and physical buttons for A/C control. All buttons have a single (sometimes dual) fixed purpose, they don't change purpose depending on whatever mode something is. It is, in my mind, an ideal amount of buttons compared to, say, the Honda CRV or Toyota RAV4 at the time that had extra buttons around the screen for flexible features, meaning those buttons had no fixed purpose. I hear the Escape was actually designed for the European market (as the Kuga), which may explain its design sensibility. Unfortunately, the Escape has not been a roaring success, and Ford will discontinue it in the US market in favor of the Bronco Sport which has, you guessed it, a huge touchscreen and few physical buttons. |
|
| ▲ | cs702 12 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Sure, touchscreens are cheap, but high-quality touchscreen software is most def NOT CHEAP! Apple and Google have spent untold amounts of money developing iOS and Android. CarPlay and Android Auto are really nice. Tesla has spent gobs of money on its touchscreen software too. It's the only native car touchscreen UI I've tried that feels smooth, snappy, responsive, simple. I've tried the native touchscreen UI of quite a few US and European carmakers. All of them fall short. They feel janky, clunky, obtuse. Physical buttons are much, MUCH cheaper than high-quality touchscreen software. |
| |
| ▲ | shapefrog 10 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I think the reality is that it is harder to sell a subscription to a button than it is to software. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | bryanlarsen an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The $6,000 profit per car referenced in the article is gross profit, not net profit. Net profit is considerably lower, around 5% for the mass manufacturers. So a $100 cost savings is very significant against a ~$3,000 net profit on a Bolt. |
|
| ▲ | urbsgpw 23 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I gotta say, the one redeeming feature of Ferrari Luce, for me at least, was the interior. I don't dislike screens, I just hate the tesla-esque obsession (where, for them with FSD - for all the hate they get about it up here - it might actually make sense since u are gonna have a FSD+Grok car) with no buttons. I know buttons add cost, but going back to the Luce example again: you have a healthy sized screen (so u don't go to the pre-tesla days), but you also have wonderful buttons across the board. Now, I know it's not a very representative car. But nobody said the buttons need to be as flashy or as numerous. |
| |
| ▲ | wilg 18 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Tesla arguably has better, more useful, and more obvious physical buttons than most cars. Most car manufacturers spray confusing physical buttons everywhere with esoteric icons and insane UX. Everything you'd want to do as a driver in a Tesla has a physical button or a set it and forget it "auto" mode. | | |
| ▲ | estearum 14 minutes ago | parent [-] | | That's why Lyft/Uber drivers who use Teslas need to cover them in stickers explaining how to do such esoteric behaviors as "open door" |
|
|
|
| ▲ | proee 35 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| For touchscreens, I think there is an opportunity to make larger touch targets. For example, when you want to adjust HVAC controls, the UI should take over the ENTIRE screen with ridiculously huge targets. Something in the range of 1-4 square inches in size for a core button should allow your for reduced cognitive overhead. This is critical for safe driving. |
|
| ▲ | exabrial 11 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Car touchscreens are a safety hazzard. Everyone hates them (except tesla owners), they need to largely banned |
|
| ▲ | helterskelter 34 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There was a study from a few years ago that associated almost all increase in traffic deaths in the past decade or so with in car displays. Almost all deaths were pedestrians being struck at or after twilight. The thinking is that infotainment systems are making drivers take their eyes off the road to adjust anything in their vehicles, and also ruining their nightvision. Not sure how they were able to separate this from smartphones. |
|
| ▲ | deuplonicus an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| As an engineer in R&D, I've always known if I needed a cheap but amazing part, to look at automotive replacements from third parties for parts to build an MVP with. Those rear hatch motors are amazing and most have indexing. |
|
| ▲ | BorisMelnik 23 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| car touchescreens are in the same category of most laptop webcams/cams: just make it good enough, and make it fit (and they both suck, most of the time) |
|
| ▲ | kleiba2 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I think there is a real market for modding news cars to have physical buttons again. Whenever this discussion pops up on the internet, there's plenty if people who prefer them (they're called "old folks" ;-)) so why not mod your dashboard to feature a - wait for it - volume button for your music! |
| |
| ▲ | logancbrown an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | The volume button (dial) broke on my Ford Maverick in summer. Moving to a touchscreen car felt like a sigh of relief that I no longer had to worry about buttons and dials breaking when I need to use them, and don't have to worry about a trip to a dealer or tearing apart a dash to replace them.
I will say a button "feels" nicer, but the added risk to me wasn't worth it. To each their own | | |
| ▲ | hatefulheart an hour ago | parent [-] | | Yeah, wait until the whole thing is unresponsive due to heat or a bug, you’ll be wishing only your volume button was affected. The fact you can rip open the dashboard and fix something is great and what I call a feature, not a bug. | | |
| ▲ | jjulius an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Or you reach for a certain area of the screen out of muscle memory, but the UI changed "just because" and now you're very distracted. | |
| ▲ | vel0city 34 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | > wait until the whole thing is unresponsive due to heat or a bug Chances are if the whole thing is unresponsive due to heat or a bug the volume knob isn't going to actually change the volume as well. Its not like the knob is the actual pot directly changing the circuitry in the amp these days, its a digital input. | | |
| ▲ | hatefulheart 19 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Not convinced that is true. | | |
| ▲ | vel0city 12 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I've personally experienced it on at least six different car infotainment systems by four different manufacturers where the stereo will start playing whatever was left on, you turn the volume knob but the whole thing is still loading so it doesn't react for a few seconds. Even outside of OEM head units, I've owned a few after market head unit stereos where the volume knob was technically a digital input and if the system was lagging hard the volume input could be delayed a good bit. A number of these systems will have a different volume level for things like phone calls than for the music, but both volume levels are controlled by the knob. It'll also do things like automatically lower the volume level for notifications or have dynamic volume levels based on acceleration. The knob is rarely directly controlling the actual output of the system. Here's a good question: if you press the volume buttons on the steering wheel controls, does the volume knob on the radio move? |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | wat10000 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | This company sells buttons for Teslas: https://www.enhauto.com/pages/buttons The "cloud features included" line amuses me greatly given the low-tech theme. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | hackityhack 40 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| If we ever get flying cars, I hope they have real buttons. I imagine it's too late for land cars to ever go all the way back to buttons. |
|
| ▲ | dayyan an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Just ask the car, unfortunately, asking rarely works unless you're in a Tesla. |
|
| ▲ | Whatarethese 18 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Maybe people should stop buying cars with crappy touch screens then? The touchscreens in my Model 3 has been amazing. Ever since I took delivery of it in 2019. Manufactures need to do better. |
|
| ▲ | jms703 23 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I hate the way climate controls take over the whole screen, causing me to lose my map screen. |
|
| ▲ | bijowo1676 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Voice interface is the future, just have voice assistant do everything without relying on knobs nor touch screen same way people just talk to claude code via whisper |
| |
| ▲ | drakythe an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Lordy I hope not. Cannot imagine having to childproof my car's entertainment system, or make sure I don't sing a trigger word, or try to turn on the defroster to dehumidify the windshield during an intense rain storm where I can barely hear myself think. Also: I don't want a microphone in my car at all times. Thank you. | | |
| ▲ | _flux an hour ago | parent [-] | | It could use array microphone to detect that the sound originates from the driver's seat (in addition to using it for filtering out not-from-driver's-seat sounds). | | |
| ▲ | recursive 26 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I mean that's cool, if it actually works reliably. Automation tech enthusiasts are willing to be impressed by 99% reliability. To get buy-in from regular people, it needs to just work better. To be clear, I don't know how reliable this actually is now, but I'd be willing to bet that it's not reliable enough. |
|
| |
| ▲ | nancyminusone an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Hell no. I'd sooner tear out my own vocal cords than accept this future. | |
| ▲ | macintux an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | No. No, please, no. I won't buy a car that relies on voice for anything, and I really don't want to rent one either. Wildly inefficient, slow, unpredictable. |
|