[landcruiser123]

If I can control volume, playback, voice assistant, media sources, phone calls, and HVAC without touch controls, I'm not bothered about rest of the stuff. Everything else is secondary. Can stop and fiddle with it/get a passenger to do it.

I'd appreciate manufacturers getting OLED screens with deep blacks. Maps (on dark mode) on such screens will be completely distraction free.

[GTO]

I think many manufacturers are realising that "full touch" is not the way to go. Buttons for the crucial controls are a much-needed safety move.

Some like MG & Audi really take it too far though. When I was driving the Audi E-Tron, it was a royal pain to adjust anything while driving. Take a look at the center fascia - forget the climate control, even stuff like the parking lights, TC off etc. is touch

Originally Posted by abhishek46

I have noticed 2 distinct patterns of modernization in passenger vehicles, with respect to buttons & screens.

I have tried to enlist them along with their merits/de-merits, as per my experience.

Great post! Thanks.

[Vid6639]

I am not at all a fan of those large touch screens that replace all buttons on the dash. The Ac controls or critical media controls should be proper physical buttons IMO.

I am also not a big fan of these virtual cockpits. While they look cool initially they serve the same purpose more or less. Only difference being the ability to see maps on the cluster and changing the layout of speedo / tacho based on driving mode. However these are also novelties initially. The problem with these are they are so generic. You just slap on a LCD screen and you are done. There is no design element to them. No chrome ring around the dials, no fancy looking needle or the font of the text on the speed and tacho. Putting on a LCD screen is cheaper and easier but manufacturers charge more for it.

[vb-saan]

Originally Posted by abhishek46

I have noticed 2 distinct patterns of modernization in passenger vehicles, with respect to buttons & screens.

I have tried to enlist them along with their merits/de-merits, as per my experience.

The Touch Screen 'only' approach:

This is my single most gripe about the Tesla. While the minimalist approach looks cool with a large centre screen, constant glancing away from the straight-line view took some time to get used to.

Originally Posted by abhishek46

The 'Hybrid' Approach:

The best option indeed. For example touch screen is of great use especially to set the maps before the start of the journey, or just checking on alternate routes while stationary. I find the scribble pad pretty useless pretty useless especially in RHD cars.

[srishiva]

There is a big advantage for the car makers with touch screens. They dont have to worry with dials, buttons and their shape, size etc.

It also makes it easier for them to place them dynamically and style them how they want. Atleast they should make it so for the user to place frequently used functions the way they want

Also, there is no analog control even on the back end and its double the effort to convert analog dials to carry digital. With touch screen everything is simpler. So its a overhead for them and they might just continue the touch screen actions.

[sam_babushka]

Touchscreen systems in a medium that is by nature shaking, moving, jerking and not usually steady, is illogical. Apart from the front passenger benefiting from it, I don't see any value to the driver.

Buttons support safe and comparatively distraction-free driving as against touchscreen controls. Just my tuppence though, and I would love to hear other opinions

[iamahunter]

I think the question here is incorrect.

Touch screen are wonderful, especially the ones with android auto and apple carplay. I would don't want to use a physical button to use these. or a entire keypad to type things.

Offcourse I want nice screen on my dash.

What I don't want is all the controls on the screen.

So I believe the question here should be : Do you think car-makers should ditch the physical buttons for touch-screens?

[Heart_Revs]

Only reason why 5/6/7 inch screen is indispensable is because they display the feed from reverse camera. Otherwise I would suggest to abandon any screen at all. Casio calculator size screen with similar casio fonts should work fine for every other need.

[NiInJa]

Personally, I feel an integrated music player with navigation and call features with a touch screen is a bit irritating to use, all at the same time and on a single screen. I realized this when I did a 9 hour long road trip which required using google maps and fiddling with songs folders in my phone as I had to cater to everyone's need, switching between FM radio, spotify, google music player and dad's pen-drive

Frustrated with constant need to fiddle with the screen and poking fingers at the right spots while driving, I stopped using Android Auto on the touchscreen system and switched to wife's phone for Navigation, and connected my phone via bluetooth and gave it to her so that she would be the disc jockey in the rear seat. Missed my Brio's simple but effective music system which was very easy to navigate through folders etc. Plus the mobile holder which I could use for navigation so they both remained independant.

I think this is how it should be (and might be the case with high end cars): Navigation, phone and music should have separate dedicated screens/sections with physical buttons as needed.

[Slowjet]

I am not a fan of touchscreens but unfortunately cars are sold on the basis of touch screens and mobile phones on the basis of camera and customers get simply delighted with these features.

[Stribog]

Am just wondering, how often do people actually need to access the console, HU etc? In all my drives, when I start up, I set the temperature control, destination (if am using nav) and link up bluetooth.

That's it.

Except for the odd tweaking of the Aircon, which requires less than a second and also relies a lot on muscle memory and can be done in a signal or toll (if on a highway), or just at a slower speed without risk, I never need to touch the HU.

Radio channel changing, track changing, calls, messages (though I personally disable this function and never use it), volume control is all done via the steering controls.

Even in my previous cars with tactile buttons, I rarely if ever used it.

Why is this such a big thing? Do people constantly keep fiddling with controls? Touch or no, that's risky by itself.

[evil_grin]

I love touchscreens on my phone. And absolutely detest them on my cars. They require you to take your eyes off the road too long. And jerks from even less than excellent roads ensure it's hard to touch at the right place.

In fact when I was upgrading the sound system on my Honda City, I wanted to keep the stock head unit just because of ease of use. Unfortunately I couldn't because it's sound quality didn't do justice to the rest of the parts I had installed.

[mvadg]

No to touchscreens. I have poor eyesight, I have to concentrate harder on the road because that, and a touchscreen means I have to take a look at the screen which means focusing on the screen - again a difficult task that takes longer for me. You can imagine the combined effect on my driving. That also means I'm stuck listening to something I don't like for the entire duration of the trip (If I can, I just mute the system).

I have also noticed that software does not provide a consistent response - this is because engineers have sacrificed or ignored some basic principles to provide "features". You can notice this even with equipment that have knobs and buttons (you can experience this in slower phones). Those "upgrades" to the software/firmware tend to make such issues worse.

Give me those old hardware controlled systems anyday! Except, there is no consistency among them too! I fumble around with even the next/prev buttons on my wife's car. These are like the pre-Windows menu systems on graphic user interfaces - horrendous. Microsoft's design team (we really don't hear about them much) and user testing really made a sea change to how user interfaces were designed. I wish Microsoft designers would work with accessories designers and create a world with boring, but consistent and safe user interfaces.

[ABHI_1512]

I have not voted here because there are folks who absolutely love their screens and which I somewhat find not that plausible while driving. That’s the reason that I find my old gen Ecosport’s minimalistic screen absolutely handy for the basic informations it provides. No fiddling of controls and eyes firmly on the road without the distraction of a large colourful screen which magnifies in the night. Of course the new gen Ecosport came with an upgrade of 8 inch touchscreen which in all fairness is a gadget one can live without but that of course is my personal view. Navigation is one aspect that comes embedded with touchscreens these days and may be that’s one area which will find support for the touchscreens but that’s about it. Even that requires your eyes to be in sync with the screen, now something tells me I am getting old

[Chai]

Voted Yes, Personally i prefer dials and buttons which makes things intuitive.

Touchscreen design made popular by Tesla works in developed countries allowing autopilot's to work effectively thereby allowing drivers to use the touchscreen.

And since everything Tesla does is cool other automakers for whom these are major markets are following upon and thrusting it in the rest of the markets.But as in the case of Mazda and Honda they have other markets to worry about and hence view it as a safety hazard and rightly so.