I don't think we can expect manufacturers to lean into this. They care about sales. It seems like regular folks are more impressed by whiz-bang, "wow, this new Bronco played a video of beautiful scenery on its HD screen when I got in" than, "hey, this car's button layout is just like my last couple of cars, there won't be any learning curve". The automakers know which trims and options have sold best and presumably they're competent at interpreting this data and catering to the whims of the market.
It may make more sense for regulators to get involved. "Include physical buttons for commonly-used controls" is a clear common-sense goal, although I'm not sure which things would qualify as commonly-used. And of course automakers could maliciously comply - maybe Tesla would bury tiny controls in the bottom of the center console or something and just keep focusing on touch-screen controls and minimalist dashboards.
> The automakers know which trims and options have sold best and presumably they're competent at interpreting this data and catering to the whims of the market.
Based on conversations I've had with people involved, I think presuming competence is too generous. The huge number of variables and gigantic bureaucracy involved is highly stifling to legitimate improvements and ends up making terrible decisions. They do try to make data-driven decisions, but they're quite incompetent at it. And, most of the decisions they do are to comply with regulations and protect their asses from lawyers. Much better (from their perspective) to have an enraging user experience for navigation than to have a person crash because they were plugging in an address while driving.
Definitely don’t want government involved in car UI design. Imagine if government dictated that phones must have BlackBerry-style keyboards. Even the FAA doesn’t go that far. Speaking of aviation, avionics is where UI gets really good for the most part. The Garmin G1000 is nearly perfect in my opinion — powerful tech with great hardware controls that are easily to use when task saturated in difficult flying conditions. Car makers could learn a lot from Cirrus, Garmin, and Embraer.
I guess you might say that you don't want government further involved in car UI design. They're certainly involved already with plenty of regulations around speedometers, the familiar "PRNDL" shift order, etc.
Just a thought, incentive-wise. Could part of the motivation for automakers to use touch-screens involve regulatory risk? It is one challenge to freeze requirements within a companies own process well enough in advance. It is a risk to have those requirements changed from outside. And what if regulators start to assume touchscreens and lower cost of implementation.
Regulators, at least in the US, have not made last minute changes to motor vehicle regulations. NHTSA usually gives multiple years of advanced notice and a phase-in period.
It may make more sense for regulators to get involved. "Include physical buttons for commonly-used controls" is a clear common-sense goal, although I'm not sure which things would qualify as commonly-used. And of course automakers could maliciously comply - maybe Tesla would bury tiny controls in the bottom of the center console or something and just keep focusing on touch-screen controls and minimalist dashboards.