Hyundai Promises To Keep Buttons in Cars Because Touchscreen Controls Are Dangerous For Now

[VLAN]

Summary

 Sang Yup Lee, Hyundai's head of design said that the company's commitment to keep physical buttons in the car is rooted in safety concerns.

Quote

“We have used the physical buttons quite significantly the last few years. For me, the safety-related buttons have to be a hard key,” said Lee.

 

In some modern vehicles like Tesla, adjusting things such as the volume or climate control settings require the driver to dive into menus on a touch screen that can be to distracting for the driver and can cause an accident as your eyes are now looking at the screen more than the road. With physical buttons, the tactile feedback of buttons, dials and switches let the drivers keep their eyes on the road. Lee did hint that at the moment this is a priority for Hyundai today, but things may change in the future.

Quote

"When it comes to Level 4 autonomous driving, then we’ll have everything soft key," said Lee.

Touchscreens and touch controls did offer some compactness to the design of modern cars and it can also be cheaper and easier to implement than populating buttons everywhere, but for the past decade touch controls are less responsive and less practical than simple buttons.

 

My thoughts

Personally I think this is a great move by Hyundai. I've seen videos from LMG that even bring up this issue and while some touch controls are nice, the basic things need to stay as physical buttons such as road hazard, climate controls and volume controls. From personal experience with family members who own a Tesla or other newer cars, a lot of them loved the "coolness" of it, but once the initial excitement of something new and shiny became an every day thing, they started to tell the rest of the family how much they miss the physical buttons. I think a lot of other car manufactures are going to take note of this and it might even cut down on cost overall as rare earth metals to create touch screens is becoming more expensive and at the end of the day it can break and become e-waste.

 

Sources

https://www.thedrive.com/news/hyundai-promises-to-keep-buttons-in-cars-because-touchscreen-controls-are-dangerous

https://www.carsguide.com.au/car-news/hallelujah-hyundai-vows-to-resist-modern-trend-for-all-digital-cabins-and-keep-using

[Arika]

i care less about buttons in cars, i just don't want every single car to be internet connected in the future.

[Somerandomtechyboi]

i can understand a radio that has a touchscreen, maybe makes scrolling through menus easier

 

But having essential stuff like hazard lights, climate control, etc. only be controllable by touchscreen is just idiotic, especially if you have to dive through menus to get to them

 

31 minutes ago, Arika S said:

i care less about buttons in cars, i just don't want every single car to be internet connected in the future.

Also when the hell did this internet connected garbage even happen? i mean theres even yt videos of ppl hacking head units and shutting off your car remotely while you are driving

 

 

Oh well i dont gotta worry about this nonsense cause im gonna be buying an old 70s car (currently debating on what to buy, probs a corolla) where basically everything is analog with no ridicolous computer controls, besides anti hotwiring is simply a matter of putting a hidden killswitch or 2.

 

but a normie doesnt need to go that far back, even something from the early 2010s or 2000s will still have all the essentials and creature comforts without having ridicolous touchscreen on everything or internet connected car that can be controlled remotely and data harvested, and the only computer would be the ecu

[Vishera]

An image of a 2023 Hyundai Kona driver cockpit:

[BiotechBen]

Love my Mk7 Jetta. (2019 Jetta S)

Critical controls are physical. Infotainment is touchscreen.

Has steering wheel controls for volume, radio, gauge cluster, voice control for Android auto/carplay, cruise control.

The only button that is not as easy to press as I'd like is the eco toggle button: it's further back that you expect, and so frequently I press the stop/start defeat button instead.

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

I'll just stick with Mazdas for now. Having more buttons is not always the solution because you'll end up with so many that you're going to need to look down at what you're pressing anyways. 

[StDragon]

LCDs for status info, touch screen for menu settings navigation (while parked), buttons, knobs, switches, and levers for tactile feedback while driving.

 

The absolute worst is any UI that forces a driver to take their eyes off the road to fumble with their index finger on a screen. BAD! DON'T DO THAT!

[Spindel]

5 hours ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

I'll just stick with Mazdas for now. Having more buttons is not always the solution because you'll end up with so many that you're going to need to look down at what you're pressing anyways. 

I love mazdas take on no touch screens. 

 

While you have a point regarding physical buttons it is still better than touchscreen in most cases when you are familiar with the car since you will learn where the button is and feel your way towards it without looking down. 

 

Also a thing I've noticed on touchscreens is that if you go on an uneven road it's much harder to hit the correct spot, resulting in doing something you did't intend to do, when trying to do something while driving (even when looking at the screen) while with a button you can feel when you have the finger in the correct spot before actually pressing it preforming the action. 

[Heliian]

9 hours ago, BlueChinchillaEatingDorito said:

Mazdas

They don't need either with their garbage products. 

 

Mazda had a good idea, I liked the layout.  It's too bad they used they absolute lowest tier of components available and produced non functioning pos's. 

 

In any case, automated climate controls require very little input to bother having physical buttons.  Voice commands are working well now too.  There really isn't much need today for anything physical off the wheel. 

 

[WereCat]

57 minutes ago, Heliian said:

They don't need either with their garbage products. 

 

Mazda had a good idea, I liked the layout.  It's too bad they used they absolute lowest tier of components available and produced non functioning pos's. 

 

In any case, automated climate controls require very little input to bother having physical buttons.  Voice commands are working well now too.  There really isn't much need today for anything physical off the wheel. 

 

Voice controls only works kinda well in the most used languages and are absolutely unusable in many other ones.

[OhYou_]

I think it is incorrect to assume that touch screen controls cost less than buttons.

When you break things down, the touch screen system requires costly development and testing, updates, revisions, feature additions, ect ect. 
meanwhile the buttons require one guy to set up a stm32 about 10 years ago and just keep using that code over and over well into the future.
 

many OEMs actually just farm out the infotainment junk to other companies, so the less development costs is directly a benefit to them with little downsides. 

 

[BiotechBen]

12 hours ago, StDragon said:

LCDs for status info, touch screen for menu settings navigation (while parked), buttons, knobs, switches, and levers for tactile feedback while driving.

 

The absolute worst is any UI that forces a driver to take their eyes off the road to fumble with their index finger on a screen. BAD! DON'T DO THAT!

One of the things I really like with my Jetta's infotainment system is that it allows inputs while moving, but does a 10 sec lockout if it detects too many in too short a time. It's also angled about 10-15° toward the driver to reduce glare and make it easier to quickly glance at.

[wanderingfool2]

I agree and disagree.

 

I think some things buttons are a lot more necessary (e.g. Tesla's capacitive touch left/right blinkers should be physical buttons).  With that said, sometimes the locations/designs of the buttons can be so silly that it doesn't make sense.  The example I always go with is the puck shifters some vehicles have that's nearby the volume puck.

 

There is also a bit of disconnect from what they are saying.  They talk about HVAC and wanting physical buttons...yet on things such as Ioniq 5 they have a capacitive touch for it.

 

A note as well, Tesla's have a volume scroll wheel on the steering wheel...and admittedly it's also comical being able to click the voice button and saying "Set my seat heat to 3 bacons" to adjust things

[CommanderAlex]

It's great that they're doing this as infotainment touchscreens can be quite distracting while driving trying to navigate menus. 

 

Now if only Hyundai/KIA can handle other problems on their hands involving their cars such as engines blowing up and no immobilizers in cars from them in the last decade. 

[Holmes108]

I don't think a touchscreen is inherently more dangerous, it just often times is lol. I mean if you can have all the info available at all times, not nested in menus (so a very large screen) and it's very responsive and just 'works' when you touch it, it's probably fine. But those are a few "ifs" that are definitely rarely a given.

[Avocado Diaboli]

36 minutes ago, Holmes108 said:

I don't think a touchscreen is inherently more dangerous, it just often times is lol. I mean if you can have all the info available at all times, not nested in menus (so a very large screen) and it's very responsive and just 'works' when you touch it, it's probably fine. But those are a few "ifs" that are definitely rarely a given.

It is inherently more dangerous because you can operate physical buttons by touch alone and leave your eyes where they belong: On the road.

 

I'm bewildered that this is even a point of contention for people. There's a reason airplane cockpits are maximalist wet dreams where every function has a button or switch and not some sort of nested nonsense or touchscreens, you can memorize their location and operate them blind and that maxim should be true for cars as well. The perfect ideal for a car should be that even a blind person can operate all the functions inside of it (minus the actual driving, obviously) just based on touch, then it's fit for purpose. Anything less than that is a step backwards for no reason other than doing shit differently because of some egocentric dumbass who likes to enter industries he knows nothing about loves making bold claims about revolutionizing stuff but only manages to make things worse.

[wanderingfool2]

2 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

It is inherently more dangerous because you can operate physical buttons by touch alone and leave your eyes where they belong: On the road.

That's going to greatly depend on the design and interface really.

 

Touchscreens if designed correctly where the software buttons are placed in fixed places could be just as adequate...but a lot of the time things like esthetics and just bad UI design gets in the way.  I think a good example is Tesla's swiping of the left side of the touchscreen for drive/reverse functionality...bad design is Tesla's capacitive touch for blinkers/windshield wipers.

 

A note, you cannot always operate physical buttons by touch alone if it's designed poorly.  The example I always give is the puck shifter knob...it might be nice just turning a knob to shift but when it's placed next to the volume knob it becomes dangerous.  Or as an example my old vehicle had a manual slider for front defrost...the slider would get stuck so I'd have to wiggle it.  Then you have it when a button gets pressed too hard and get "stuck" pressed in...that can be an expensive repair and sometimes necessary repair.

 

Actually, what would be good is the mix of voice + a physical button (with scroll wheel).  Like it would be good hitting a button, saying "heat" and just scrolling the "volume" wheel.  Or "wipers" and scrolling for fine-tuned speed. 

 

In general though, I think a well designed touchscreen could lend to equally safe driving but in general it's not done correctly (as it's less visually appealing)

[Holmes108]

22 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

It is inherently more dangerous because you can operate physical buttons by touch alone and leave your eyes where they belong: On the road.

 

I'm bewildered that this is even a point of contention for people. There's a reason airplane cockpits are maximalist wet dreams where every function has a button or switch and not some sort of nested nonsense or touchscreens, you can memorize their location and operate them blind and that maxim should be true for cars as well. The perfect ideal for a car should be that even a blind person can operate all the functions inside of it (minus the actual driving, obviously) just based on touch, then it's fit for purpose. Anything less than that is a step backwards for no reason other than doing shit differently because of some egocentric dumbass who likes to enter industries he knows nothing about loves making bold claims about revolutionizing stuff but only manages to make things worse.

 

I think the difference can be negligible, if done well. 

[Avocado Diaboli]

18 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

A note, you cannot always operate physical buttons by touch alone if it's designed poorly.  The example I always give is the puck shifter knob...it might be nice just turning a knob to shift but when it's placed next to the volume knob it becomes dangerous.  Or as an example my old vehicle had a manual slider for front defrost...the slider would get stuck so I'd have to wiggle it.  Then you have it when a button gets pressed too hard and get "stuck" pressed in...that can be an expensive repair and sometimes necessary repair.

That's why the rest of my comment, which you didn't quote, pointed out what the ideal should be. Comparing the worst brain farts of physical interfaces to the best touch interfaces have to offer is the pinnacle of bad faith arguing. You can implement everything poorly, that's not a valid criticism of the concept itself. But you cannot implement touch interfaces for literally blind operation as well as tactile buttons, not before we invent displays that can actively change their shape to suit whatever they're displaying.

[wanderingfool2]

10 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

That's why the rest of my comment, which you didn't quote, pointed out what the ideal should be. Comparing the worst brain farts of physical interfaces to the best touch interfaces have to offer is the pinnacle of bad faith arguing. You can implement everything poorly, that's not a valid criticism of the concept itself. But you cannot implement touch interfaces for literally blind operation as well as tactile buttons, not before we invent displays that can actively change their shape to suit whatever they're displaying.

When you are saying that touchscreens are inherently worse it is a valid argument to point out that different design choices changes whether or not use of it is worse.

 

You can actually implement touch interfaces to be able to be used though.  As the example, on a Tesla you can easily switch between reverse and drive without looking.  Or in the more general case, I can open my phone, type in my passcode and open up the messenger without looking at it.

 

Saying it's inherently more dangerous in my opinion just means you haven't experienced ones that were well designed before.

[Holmes108]

30 minutes ago, Avocado Diaboli said:

That's why the rest of my comment, which you didn't quote, pointed out what the ideal should be. Comparing the worst brain farts of physical interfaces to the best touch interfaces have to offer is the pinnacle of bad faith arguing. You can implement everything poorly, that's not a valid criticism of the concept itself. But you cannot implement touch interfaces for literally blind operation as well as tactile buttons, not before we invent displays that can actively change their shape to suit whatever they're displaying.

 

Buttons on a touch screen can potentially be bigger than a physical button, and can be potentially easier to read/see at a glance. You could potentially customize it so it's more comfortable and useful for your own usage scenarios (remove the radio controls if you don't use the radio, increase font size,  etc.)

 

There are pros and cons to both. Being able to operate completely blindly is a benefit to physical controls. However I also firmly believe this isn't how the majority of people interact with physical buttons the majority of the time. People eyes are still going to quickly dart over to the console and back, like we've done for decades. A well optimized touch screen would be no different, and wouldn't take your eyes off the road for any longer than checking your blind spot would. Quite a bit less, in fact.

[HenrySalayne]

5 minutes ago, wanderingfool2 said:

You can actually implement touch interfaces to be able to be used though.  As the example, on a Tesla you can easily switch between reverse and drive without looking.  Or in the more general case, I can open my phone, type in my passcode and open up the messenger without looking at it.

 

Saying it's inherently more dangerous in my opinion just means you haven't experienced ones that were well designed before.

You can only enter your passcode without looking because

- you have the device in your hand and thus a physical point of reference AND

- your "muscle memory" knows where the buttons are AND

- you are interacting with the screen consciously AND

- you know that the touchscreen is currently displaying something to enter your passcode.

 

To use a touchscreen you need to know:

- where is my hand relative to the screen?

- where are the elements on the screen?

- what is the screen currently displaying?

 

To use a button / mechanical switch you need to know:

- where is the button / mechanical switch?

 

And if your wiper setting are burried four sub-menus deep, they are only accessible via the touchscreen and it starts to rain. you are f***ed.

Vital functionality still needs mechanical controls and delicate operations need haptic feedback. Touchscreens have inherent risks.

 

And guess what? You can do both! A complimentary touchscreen is much better than any touch-only solution.

[Holmes108]

Don't think anyone is disagreeing that having wiper functions in a sub menu is terrible. There's no reason to do that on a touch screen though. So if that scenario exists, blame the manufacturer, not the technology.

 

Edit: I agree though, hybrid is best.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Holmes108 said:

So if that scenario exists, blame the manufacturer, not the technology.

Tesla, it's not an if.

[wanderingfool2]

8 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

You can only enter your passcode without looking because

- you have the device in your hand and thus a physical point of reference AND

- your "muscle memory" knows where the buttons are AND

- you are interacting with the screen consciously AND

- you know that the touchscreen is currently displaying something to enter your passcode.

Like I've also used in other threads like this, I am also able to operate the touchscreen on my car without looking at it to do things like change audio mode etc.

 

While driving you still have use of peripheral vision even while maintaining eyes on the road.  It's the same way you can actually reach for a button and still grab it in relative space.  Its because you know approximately where it is in the space and your peripheral vision is making up for additional data.

 

I still stand by what I said, a well designed touch screen interface doesn't really cause additional dangers...it's just a lot of them aren't.

 

It's actually what they used to teach in UI design courses.  Edges of screens are where important elements should be and corners are the most optimal areas...but that sort of user driven component these days seems to be superseded by the esthetics.

 

8 hours ago, HenrySalayne said:

And if your wiper setting are burried four sub-menus deep, they are only accessible via the touchscreen and it starts to rain. you are f***ed.

And if you have a physical shifter knob that is closely placed to a volume knob that changes to park/drive/etc you can get in trouble as well.  I'm actually not sure any automotive has it buried that deep.

 

7 hours ago, leadeater said:

Tesla, it's not an if.

yes and no.  I don't like the way Tesla handles wipers, but pressing the button and you get it wiping and the wiper menu appears on screen.  You can also leave it on auto, which handles most of the rain scenarios (at least where I'm at and in the model I got to drive for a bit).  Fine grain controls are done on the touch screen if you don't like what auto is doing, but again, when you click the wiper button it starts a windshield wipe and then in 2 clicks (without looking you can change the speed).  Or it can also be done with voice  (my preferred implementation that I think should be done but isn't is when the button is pressed using the scroll wheel to adjust).

 

It is more cumbersome than just the stock itself, and I don't want to really defend the wiper practice because I don't like it, but for the time I got to try it auto does pretty much handle it all...and if you do find that it needs immediate clearing it's just a single button press away.