Whether it is hidden door handles or physical buttons, automotive industry regulators are beginning to correct previous innovations for safety reasons.
Unlike China's mandatory GB standards, the EU's primary tool for safety is Euro NCAP. By updating its scoring rules, it mandates that five critical functions—turn signals, windshield wipers, hazard lights, horn, and eCall emergency calls—must retain physical buttons or stalks.
Vehicles failing to meet these standards will lose stars, effectively ruling them out of a five-star rating. Given consumers' high expectations for five-star ratings today, this essentially forces automakers to systematically correct their previous 'all-in on touchscreens' approach.
This shift has evolved from the design aesthetic differences between feature phones and smartphones to redrawing the boundaries of automotive functional safety. Over the past decade since Tesla emerged, the automotive interior has experienced a wave of 'de-buttonization,' with large screens becoming the symbol of intelligence.
In 2025-2026, the automotive industry seems to have awakened, re-evaluating a fundamental question: in the driving scenario, what exactly is the first principle of interaction?
Part 1: Historical Timeline from Physical Buttons to Touchscreens: From Physical Control to Software Interfaces
The initial control logic of automobiles was extremely simple—mechanical levers, knobs, and paddles. This design relied on human tactile feedback and supported blind operation.
In 1986, the Buick Riviera became the first to feature an in-car touchscreen, marking a forward-looking attempt. However, it was the 2012 Tesla Model S that truly influenced this trend. Its 17-inch central control screen became synonymous with smart cars at the time, leading many consumers to view physical buttons as outdated.
Driven by this trend, brands like Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz accelerated their follow-up. Large screens became the vehicle for digital transformation, bundling digital design, OTA (Over-The-Air) software updates, and changes in the electrical/electronic (E/E) architecture.
The advantages of touch interfaces are clear: simplified structure, OTA upgradability, scalable functions, and amortized costs. A single screen can replace dozens of independent control modules. This wave was somewhat like a sweeping storm; who could oppose the pursuit of advancement?
As a massive number of models were launched, issues gradually emerged in China, the US, and Europe during this phase. Touch operations require visual confirmation, multi-level menus increase cognitive load, and high-frequency functions are buried in sub-menus. Actions that originally took one second were stretched to several seconds.
◎ For design, this represents an increase in the degrees of freedom for HMI (Human-Machine Interface) architecture;
◎ For drivers, the reliance on buttons varies across different age groups and driving habits, while the attention resources required to search for digital buttons are continuously occupied.
During this process, consumer feedback also played a crucial role. In 2022, Volkswagen explicitly reflected on its 'full touch-control' approach.
In October 2022, Thomas Schäfer, then CEO of the Volkswagen brand, publicly stated on LinkedIn that they would adjust the touch-control design on the steering wheel and restore physical buttons, stating bluntly, 'This is what customers want.'
The eighth-generation Golf Mk8 and ID. series models extensively adopted touch buttons and slider designs, sparking continuous criticism from users regarding accidental touches and difficulties in blind operation. The company officially acknowledged that its previous HMI direction was flawed.
Automotive product development cycles are long, so policy shifts do not immediately manifest in mass-produced vehicles. The ID. 2all concept car released in 2023 was the first to showcase a new design philosophy returning to physical buttons, which was gradually implemented in the facelifted models launched sequentially from 2025 to 2026.
During this process, many automakers have been reflecting, with some advancing and some retreating. The primary trend is that global automakers are making this change, whereas in China, from new forces to traditional brands, the focus remains on touchscreen designs, with 10 screens now considered standard configuration.
Part 2: Regulations and Evaluation Systems: The Swing Back to Safety First
Currently, Euro NCAP's new regulations differ from mandatory laws. Unlike China's mandatory regulations that are linked to new vehicle announcements, in the European market, a five-star rating is almost a commercial entry threshold, effectively steering design directions toward safety scores.
Studies show that relying on touchscreens for critical functions increases the time drivers spend with their eyes off the road by 2 to 3 times and extends reaction times by 0.5 to 1 second.
Of course, many people also use voice control. If it fails or errors occur, it can also cause distraction. In high-speed scenarios, this corresponds to tens of meters of additional travel distance.
The risk is not merely theoretical deduction but a matter of probability.
◎ China is also making synchronous adjustments. The Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) is revising the mandatory national standard GB7258 'Marks for Controls, Indicators and Tell-Tales of Motor Vehicles.' It specifically emphasizes that critical functions such as turn signals, horns, defrosters, and windows must retain physical buttons and sets minimum size requirements
◎ The Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) announced that from 2026, it will require manufacturers to 'bring back buttons.'
◎ The US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reiterated multiple times in 2024–2025: touchscreens themselves are not non-compliant, but if critical functions rely solely on touchscreens, causing excessive eyes-off-road time and unreliable operation, they do not meet safety standards.
From Europe and China to the US, regulatory signals are highly consistent: critical safety functions must have intuitive, low-cognitive-load physical access points.
The previous 'full touch-control' logic was a technology-driven design. Because physical buttons were eliminated in the mobile phone sector and large screens dominated, automakers subconsciously adopted similar thinking.
Automotive screens are powerful enough, and combined with voice and various other interactions, the design philosophy became how to design the UI and integrate functions as much as possible.
◎ Hyundai's design team publicly stated that the goal is to keep drivers' eyes on the road more often. Screens will remain, but their sizes may shrink, with critical functions returning to physical controls.
◎ BMW adopts a compromise strategy: retaining digital interfaces while setting up physical control entry points for high-frequency and emergency functions.
◎ Porsche has reintroduced knobs and physical buttons in its new models.
◎ Volvo, in its new-generation models, reinforces a hybrid structure of 'physical + touch.'
We can also understand that touchscreen design is an integrated approach, with safety as a fundamental consideration. The underlying design principles are gradually becoming clear:
◎ Layering principle: Safety and high-frequency functions must have low-level, direct-access entry points.
◎ Feedback principle: Critical operations require tactile confirmation to reduce visual reliance.
◎ Redundancy principle: Emergency functions should not rely solely on a single interaction channel.
◎ Scenario principle: For interaction during driving, minimizing attention occupation is the priority.
Physical buttons are a highly reliable, low-latency human-machine interface. Touchscreens are suitable for information display and complex settings, while physical controls are ideal for instant response.
Of course, many believe that with the popularization of L3 autonomous driving and L4 Robotaxis, driving distraction issues will naturally disappear. However, with the implementation of GB assisted driving standards in 2026, the vast majority of current L2 vehicles remain in the human-machine co-driving stage, where the driver is still the responsible entity.
Shifting interaction complexity to users is essentially transferring risk. Designing an L4 Robotaxi, similar to Tesla's L4 autonomous driving design, involves too large a leap and is not the design trend for conventional vehicles. Interaction design must serve real-world driving conditions, not ideal states.
Conclusion
The return of physical buttons is an adjustment to the previous a design leap. Mature design finds a balance between technological capabilities and human cognitive boundaries. Future interiors will not return to an era full of knobs, nor is the stage where large screens dominate everything the answer. When it comes to driving, reducing cognitive load is, in itself, safety.