Haptic Certainty vs. Digital Temptation: The Battle for the Best Controls in Cars

Haptic certainty vs. digital temptation: the battle for the best controls in carsLooking at comments on social media, one thing seems clear: drivers sorely miss their haptic buttons in cars. This perceived "touch fatigue" prompted our colleagues Jan Panhoff and Maffee Peng Hui Wan to address the topic in depth in their presentation at UXMC 2025.

Since the introduction of the first touchscreen in the centre console, a fundamental debate has been raging among car manufacturers, UX designers and drivers: is it about safety, aesthetics or simply habit? The evolution of the human-machine interface (HMI) in cars is in full swing - and it brings us back to the question: what exactly does trust mean in the digital era of driving?

From haptics to hyper-digitalisation: a brief history of control

Remember the classic cockpit? Every knob and switch had its fixed, learned position. Operation was blind and intuitive. The hand found the volume control or climate control, while the driver's gaze remained where it belonged: on the road. This is what we call "tactile certainty".

With the advent of large, high-resolution displays (driven by the so-called "Tesla effect"), the transformation began. Inspired by the smartphone, manufacturers introduced the "complete digital control" concept into vehicles. The temptation was great: a screen is flexible, can be dynamically adjusted and allows the cockpit to be personalised. The car became a digital life management device, as we have already explained in this blog article.

Hard facts: ‘Blind flying’ on the motorway

As elegant as digital cockpits may seem, the reality of driving presents them with a serious dilemma: distraction.

Operating a touchscreen while driving ties up valuable visual and cognitive resources. Numerous studies confirm the dramatic potential for distraction:

• The Vi Bilägare study (2022): A Swedish car magazine tested the time drivers needed to perform simple tasks (e.g. turning up the temperature, tuning the radio) in different cars. The result was clear: in the best case (an older Volvo with physical buttons), the driver needed around 10 seconds and covered about 300 metres at 110 km/h. In the worst case (a modern electric car with touch-centred controls), the driver needed over 44 seconds, during which time they drove blind for over 1.3 kilometres. (Source: Physical buttons outperform touchscreens in new cars, test finds - Vi Bilägare)

• Allianz Centre for Technology (AZT): Studies show that using the on-board computer increases the risk of accidents by around 50 per cent. Operating the touchscreen increases reaction time by up to 57 per cent, a figure comparable to using a mobile phone while driving. (Source: Modern means of communication distract drivers too much | springerprofessional.de)

  
  

The reason is simple: physical buttons allow operation via muscle memory. The touchscreen forces the driver to take their eyes off the road.

The manufacturers' arguments: the fallacy of the end of buttons

Despite safety concerns, touchscreens remain attractive to manufacturers (cost, design flexibility, updatability). However, the direction of development seems to be correcting itself.

The WELT newspaper summed it up: "Car cockpit: The fallacy of the end of buttons and levers in cars" (Source: Car cockpit: The fallacy of the end of buttons and levers in cars - WELT).

Manufacturers such as Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz and Hyundai are responding to massive customer criticism and proven usability disadvantages. They are planning or already introducing a return to more physical switches and buttons in new models. The trend is moving away from pure aesthetics towards ergonomic necessity.

Trust is not universal: cultural differences in the HMI experience

The assumption that the migration from physical to digital controls, known as universal trust migration, is progressing at the same pace in all markets is a fallacy. Trust in a technology is not only a question of usability, but is also deeply cultural and historical.

• Driver structure and habits: In Germany, the vehicle fleet is significantly older than in China. According to the Federal Motor Transport Authority, the average age of German cars at the beginning of 2024 was 10.3 years: a historic high. In China, on the other hand, the average age of vehicles is only around 6.6 years. This means that many German drivers have been interacting with classic, haptic controls on a daily basis for years. These deeply ingrained habits make it more difficult to build trust in purely digital operating concepts. Tactile certainty is not just a preference here, but a behaviour learned over decades. In addition, many German drivers became familiar with voice control years ago, when the technology was still immature and prone to errors. This early disappointment has left many with a fundamentally sceptical attitude towards voice-based systems to this day.

• Speed of innovation: In markets with more rapid digitalisation (such as China), the acceptance of new technologies is higher. Users here often expect hyper-digitalisation and see touchscreens as a symbol of modernity and a premium experience.

  
  

This insightful cross-cultural study by our colleagues Jan Panhoff and Maffee Peng Hui Wan shows that perceptions of reliability, control and how to deal with potential errors in the interface differ significantly. Design strategies must therefore be adapted locally.

Haptic feedback: the digital lifeline?

To close the security gap, the industry is relying on active haptic feedback. Highly specialised actuators in the display generate a tactile "click" or "tap"that is intended to relieve strain on the eyes. But this approach falls short.

The problem: haptic feedback alone does not solve the underlying problem. If controls only appear on the screen in a context-dependent manner, the driver must first search for them visually before they can be operated. Even with fixed touch elements, practical experience has revealed weaknesses: the climate control in the VW ID.3, for example, is always available in the same place, but provides so little haptic feedback that users have problems operating it.

The solution lies in a combination of factors: controls must be blindly detectable, provide clear haptic feedback and be permanently available in a consistent position. If any of these components are missing, the safety benefits are lost. And despite all the design arguments, it should not be forgotten that the main driver for large touchscreens is often simply the cost savings compared to physical switches.

Lessons from aviation and the Euro NCAP requirement

When it comes to critical operation and safety, there is a clear mixed concept that has long been practised in aviation: displays for information and complex configuration, buttons for immediate control.

This approach is also confirmed by the Euro NCAP regulation: From 2026, a five-star rating will only be awarded if the most important safety-related functions (indicators, horn, windscreen wipers, eCall) can be controlled via physical controls. (Source: Poor Automotive HMI Design to Impact Euro NCAP Safety Rating - EE Times Europe)

The way forward: intelligent design instead of dogmatism

The future lies not in either/or, but in the intelligent fusion of touch, haptics and mechanics. UX designers must weigh up which functions require tactile certainty and which require the flexibility of a digital menu.

The key to acceptance is answering the most fundamental question: "Can I trust this system when it matters?" This trust can only be established if the interface consistently reduces the cognitive load on the driver instead of increasing it.

💌 Not enough? Then read on – in our newsletter. It comes four times a year. Sticks in your mind longer. To subscribe: https://www.uintent.com/newsletter

Jan Panhoff and Maffee Peng Hui Wan presented the profound insights and research findings that show how cultural differences measurably influence trust in touch systems in their presentation "Touch, Trust and Transformation" at UXMC 2025.