Are carmakers collectively moving back to physical buttons? Which one should we actually choose, touchscreens or physical buttons?
Over the years, with the popularization of intelligent cockpits in new energy vehicles, replacing physical buttons with large central control screens has become an irresistible trend led by Tesla. However, when this trend has been widely accepted by the public, many automakers have begun to announce the return of physical buttons. Which one on earth should we choose, the touch screen or the physical button?
1. Automakers are collectively returning to physical buttons
According to reports from National Business Daily, physical buttons in automobiles are gradually "making a comeback". Ruben Mauer, Audi's Chief Technology Officer, stated recently that Audi's brand-new "Radical Next" design system will no longer allow giant screens to dominate the cockpit vision. On the basis of retaining in-vehicle displays, it will reintroduce physical structures that support blind operation such as physical buttons.
Ola Källenius, Chairman of the Board of Management of Mercedes-Benz Group AG, also publicly stated that in recent years, many car designs have fully embraced touch operation and completely eliminated physical buttons inside the vehicle in order to highlight a sense of technology and intelligence, and this approach "went too far".
In fact, as early as March this year, Andreas Mindt, Director of Design at Volkswagen, stated that all Volkswagen models in the future will be equipped with physical buttons to control the most important functions. In addition, looking at domestic automakers, Geely, BYD, Changan, Chery and other brands have successively restored physical buttons for some key functions in their new models. From "large-screen orientation" to "return of buttons", the cockpit interaction design of automakers is undergoing a new round of adjustment.
According to the mandatory national standard "Marks of Controls, Indicators and Tell-Tales of Motor Vehicles" (Draft for Comment), with the increasingly widespread application of virtual controls in automobiles, some controls that are closely related to driving safety, including turn signal on/off, window lifting, and activation of combined driving assistance systems, need to retain physical forms to ensure the accessibility and blind operability for drivers during operation, and reduce the risk of driving distraction caused by operating the screen.
2. Which one on earth should we choose, the touch screen or the physical button?
Once upon a time, many new car models removed all physical buttons inside the vehicle, and one oversized central control screen took over almost all operations in the car, as if physical buttons were synonymous with backwardness. But recently the market trend has changed significantly, and many automakers have begun to reinstall physical buttons on new cars. What on earth is going on?
First of all, the removal of physical buttons by automakers is not just to follow in Tesla's footsteps. On the surface, this seems to be an intelligent cockpit trend set off by Tesla. After all, Tesla's minimalist center console has indeed brought a huge visual impact to the market. However, if we analyze this matter calmly, we will find that the logic behind it is far more substantial than the three words "sense of technology". Physical buttons, which seem inconspicuous, are absolutely "big cost generators" in the cost ledger of whole vehicle manufacturing.
The existence of each physical button means an independent industrial process. You need to open a separate mold and design supporting wiring harnesses, which is not all. The most critical point is that it must pass strict vehicle-level tests. High and low temperature resistance, dust and water resistance, and vibration resistance, none of these standards can be taken lightly. This brings huge material cost and R&D cost.
In contrast, the touch control solution is much simpler. A large screen plus a set of UI interaction logic, to a certain extent, is a typical cost advantage of "software defining hardware". Automakers can achieve seemingly more high-end intelligent upgrades at lower marginal costs. Coupled with the natural so-called "high-tech sense" visual presentation of large screens, this is simply a highly lucrative deal. Therefore, the de-buttonization in previous years is not so much a technological progress as a tacit collective carnival of capital under cost pressure.
Secondly, although the full touch screen is eye-catching, it also has very obvious shortcomings. The inherent defects exposed by full touch screens in practical applications are becoming a stumbling block for the continuous advancement of this technical route. We often say that the design of industrial products must conform to "ergonomics", which means being people-oriented. The biggest problem with touch screens is that they lack physical tactile feedback. This may not be a big problem on mobile phones, but in the high-speed moving enclosed space of a car, it is a big trouble. When the driver takes his eyes off the front for even one second to look for the virtual air conditioning button on the screen, the safety risk will rise exponentially.
Not to mention the problem of operational reliability in extreme environments. Every product has its adaptability and limitations. The reliability of the mechanical structure of physical buttons has been verified by the development of the automobile industry for decades, while the helplessness when the touch screen fails at low temperature, responds sluggishly or even crashes, is a real pain point for many car owners.
When an industry enters the mature popularization period from the early concept introduction period, users' tolerance for products will drop significantly. At this time, the "sense of advancement" brought by full touch control cannot offset the "sense of frustration" in actual operation. That's why many high-end models insist on retaining some key physical buttons. This is not for retro, but for the last safety redundancy.
Third, the two-way combination may be the best choice. The truly feasible development path for intelligent cockpits is neither to completely replace physical buttons with touch screens, nor to fully return to the old era of all physical buttons, but to integrate the two and match them with voice control to form a diversified operation system. We need to distinguish the attributes of functions and process functions in layers. For basic operations that are high-frequency, rigidly needed and closely related to driving safety during driving, such as air conditioning adjustment, volume control, and defogging, they should be completed by physical buttons. These functions pursue stability and quickness, which can be completed as soon as you reach out, no system loading is required, and they will not fail directly due to screen failure.
As for those low-frequency functions that tend to be immersive entertainment, such as in-vehicle navigation, audio and video entertainment, and personalized vehicle settings, they are realized by large touch screens. The advantage of the screen is that it can carry a huge number of variable functions, continuously update the interface through OTA, and expand new ways of playing, which is difficult for physical buttons to achieve. At the same time, voice control acts as a supplement to the two, and in some scenarios where manual operation is inconvenient, you can directly give instructions by voice. The three operation methods back up each other, instead of putting all eggs in the basket of the screen. This combined mode takes into account cost, safety and intelligent expansion capability, and is also a more practical solution precipitated after the industry's trial and error.
Fourth, the return to physical buttons is not a regression but a progress. The development of any emerging industry will go through a "pendulum effect". At first, in order to pursue differentiation and subversion, we will swing from one extreme to the other, which is a rebellion against the traditional fuel vehicle era. However, when the market calms down and users begin to vote with their feet, the industry will return to the most reasonable and balanced middle point.
This is actually the embodiment of the dialectics of industrial development. We have experienced the cumbersomeness of physical buttons and the nihility of full touch control, and now we have finally found a balance point. This balance point is the respect for the century-old accumulation of the automobile industry, and also the acceptance of new intelligent connected technologies. The future intelligent cockpit will no longer be a cold stack of large screens, but an interactive space with temperature, feedback and human-centered design. This action of automakers just shows that the automobile industry is shifting from "concept-driven" to "value-driven", which is the truly gratifying progress.
Therefore, in the final analysis, there is no winner or loser in the debate between touch screens and physical buttons. The previous wave of "de-buttonization" was a bold attempt by the industry driven by cost and concept, and the current "return to physical buttons" is the rational return of the whole industry after trial and error, which is the real essence.
This article is from the WeChat official account "Jiang Han's Vision Observation", and is authorized for release by 36Kr.