Volkswagen reintroducing physical controls for vital functions

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Preference for Physical Controls

  • Many commenters welcome VW’s move, saying almost all frequently used functions (climate, volume, wipers, lights, hazards, demist, gear selection) should have tactile controls.
  • Physical buttons/knobs are praised for:
    • Eyes-free operation and muscle memory.
    • Usability with gloves or in cold weather.
    • Robustness when the screen glitches or breaks.
  • Flat, undifferentiated buttons and capacitive “pseudo-buttons” are criticized as only marginally better than pure touch UIs.

Touchscreens, Safety, and Distraction

  • Touchscreens are widely viewed as unsafe for driving tasks: more taps, deeper menus, small targets, and shifting layouts after software updates.
  • Several anecdotes describe dangerous moments (fogged windshields, trying to find defoggers or vent controls on screens, climate brightness controls that become invisible).
  • Some argue that in genuine emergencies you should stop rather than fiddle with controls, but others respond that stopping is itself risky in dense or high‑speed traffic; better design reduces this dilemma.
  • There’s concern about digitalizing critical systems (doors, windows) without robust manual overrides.

Economics and Motives

  • Debate over cost:
    • One side: screens reduce hardware complexity and per‑unit cost (no need for many different button assemblies across trim/option combinations).
    • Other side: initial addition of large screens was expensive; lack of buttons is mainly cost‑cutting and upsell/”software defined vehicle” strategy, not user benefit.
  • Some note that price ≠ cost; manufacturers can charge more while still shaving production costs.

Tesla and Industry Influence

  • Many see Tesla as having popularized extreme touchscreen‑centric design and nonstandard controls (stalk removal, touch indicators, screen shifters).
  • Strong criticism: “designed in California” mentality, perceived arrogance, cost‑cutting, and safety tradeoffs; some mention crashes linked to electronic doors/windows and aggressive driver‑assist behavior.
  • Counterpoints:
    • Some Tesla owners in the thread report being comfortable with the UI, relying on HVAC “auto” modes, voice control, and remaining physical controls.
    • They argue critics may be unfamiliar with the system, and that overall crash data is not clearly attributable to UI choices (claims are contested in the thread).

Regulation, Standards, and Trends

  • Euro NCAP’s move to penalize overuse of screens is cited as a driver for the return to buttons; some see VW as responding to regulation more than pure consumer demand.
  • Several propose stricter rules limiting what may be relegated to screens and capping allowed interaction time while driving.

Other Brands, Nostalgia, and “Peak” Car UX

  • Hyundai, Kia, Mazda, Skoda, Ford, and older VW/Audi/Saab/Porsche dashboards with rich, well‑grouped physical controls get repeated praise.
  • Many feel dashboard UX “peaked” in the late 1990s–early 2000s and has regressed under the guise of innovation and “Apple‑style” minimalism.