From Chery and BYD to Geely, automakers are rediscovering a basic principle of good design: the most advanced interface is not always the one with the fewest physical controls.
How the dashboard became a smartphone
For much of the past decade, a large touchscreen became a symbol of automotive modernity. The bigger the display and the fewer the physical buttons, the more futuristic a vehicle appeared.
Chinese automakers embraced this approach as they competed aggressively in electric vehicles and connected-car technology. Large displays, voice assistants, digital dashboards and software-rich interiors helped distinguish their products from traditional competitors.
The strategy also made manufacturing sense. A touchscreen can consolidate numerous functions into one interface, reduce the need for separate physical controls and allow certain features to change through software updates.
But the pursuit of a cleaner dashboard created a new problem: some basic functions became harder to use.
Adjusting air conditioning, changing the volume or operating other frequently used features could require navigating menus instead of reaching for a familiar dial. A cabin might look sophisticated in a showroom while becoming frustrating during an ordinary drive.
Now, several Chinese manufacturers are reintroducing physical controls.
When Chery unveiled its Omoda X SUV in October 2026, it highlighted switches for functions such as air conditioning and seat ventilation. BYD has brought back buttons for frequently used functions in its latest Tang SUV, while Geely has increased the number of physical dials in its Galaxy TT sedan.
The change is more than a styling preference. It reflects a reassessment of what drivers actually need from a vehicle's interface.
The problem with putting everything behind glass
A touchscreen is effective when drivers need to interact with information visually. Navigation maps, reversing-camera feeds, vehicle-energy displays and complex entertainment systems benefit from a large, flexible screen.
The problem emerges when functions that require quick, repeated adjustments are hidden inside digital menus.
A physical dial can often be operated by feel. Drivers can learn its position and adjust it without having to locate a small icon on a display. A touchscreen usually requires more visual attention, particularly when the desired function is buried in a submenu or the interface changes between software versions.
This matters because driving already demands continuous attention to traffic, road conditions, pedestrians and other vehicles.
Research and safety discussions surrounding touchscreen-heavy interiors have repeatedly highlighted the risks of visual distraction. A widely discussed Financial Times analysis of the issue described how some basic tasks could take substantially longer on modern touchscreen interfaces than on older cars with physical controls.
The precise results depend on the task, vehicle and testing conditions. But the underlying design concern is straightforward: every additional moment spent looking for a control is a moment when the driver's attention is diverted from the road.
The answer is not to eliminate screens. It is to stop treating every physical control as an outdated obstacle to technological progress.
China is moving beyond consumer preference
The return of buttons is also taking place alongside regulatory changes in China.
In July 2026, China finalised requirements calling for physical controls for 19 vehicle functions, including certain safety-related operations. The rules are scheduled to take effect in July 2027 and are intended to reduce the risks associated with relying exclusively on digital interfaces for essential controls.
The requirements place pressure on manufacturers that have moved functions such as gear selection and other key operations into touchscreen systems. They also establish a clearer regulatory boundary between features that can be managed digitally and functions that need readily accessible physical controls.
This is significant because the touchscreen trend was not driven by consumer preferences alone. Manufacturers made design decisions based on production costs, visual appeal, software flexibility and competitive positioning.
Regulation changes that calculation. A manufacturer can no longer assume that a screen-based solution is appropriate for every function simply because it looks modern or simplifies the dashboard.
The wider regulatory direction suggests that vehicle safety and usability are becoming more important considerations in how digital cabins are designed.
The business logic behind the reversal
Physical controls can increase manufacturing complexity. Individual buttons and switches require components, wiring, assembly and space. A unified digital interface can reduce some of these requirements and make it easier to standardise features across different models.
Software also offers manufacturers opportunities to introduce new functions, adjust interfaces and support connected services after a vehicle has been sold.
Yet the apparent savings of a screen-first design must be weighed against the customer experience.
If drivers find a vehicle frustrating to operate, that dissatisfaction can affect brand perception, customer loyalty and purchasing decisions. A sophisticated display is not much of an advantage if a basic adjustment becomes unnecessarily complicated.
Chinese automakers also face a market in which technological novelty is no longer sufficient on its own. As connected features become more common across brands, manufacturers need other ways to distinguish their products. Comfort, ergonomics, reliability and ease of use become more important once the novelty of a giant screen wears off.
The return of buttons therefore reflects a broader maturation of automotive technology. Companies are beginning to reconsider not just what their cars can do, but how easily people can use those capabilities.
The industry is learning that cars are not smartphones
The comparison between cars and smartphones has always had limits.
Smartphones are designed for direct, close-range interaction. Users can stop, focus on the display and navigate through applications. Driving is different: the user must operate the interface while performing a safety-critical task.
A smartphone can place rarely used functions inside menus without creating the same risks as hiding a frequently used vehicle control behind several taps.
Cars also operate in conditions that phones generally do not face in the same way: vibration, changing light, road shocks and situations in which a control may need to be found immediately.
This is why physical controls remain useful even as vehicles become more software-driven.
A well-designed car can combine a large touchscreen with tactile controls for functions such as climate adjustment, audio volume, hazard lights and essential visibility systems. Digital interfaces can handle navigation, entertainment and more complex settings, while frequently used controls remain accessible.
That hybrid approach does not represent a retreat from innovation. It is a more deliberate application of it.
What this means for the future of electric vehicles
The reversal is unlikely to mean that large screens disappear from Chinese cars. Manufacturers have invested heavily in digital platforms, connected services and software ecosystems, and consumers continue to value many of these features.
Instead, the likely direction is a more selective division of responsibilities between hardware and software.
Functions that benefit from flexibility and visual information can remain on screens. Functions that require quick, predictable operation can return to buttons, switches and dials.
Voice controls may also help, particularly when drivers can make adjustments without taking their hands off the steering wheel. But voice interfaces are not a universal replacement for physical controls: they can misunderstand commands, behave differently in noisy environments or require drivers to remember specific phrases.
No single interface is ideal for every task. Good design matches the control to the function.
For buyers, this means evaluating a vehicle's cabin by more than display size, graphics or the number of digital features advertised. It is worth asking whether the functions used every day can be operated intuitively, whether essential controls remain accessible and whether the interface is easy to use without unnecessary visual distraction.
The lesson for technology companies
The return of physical controls offers a lesson that extends beyond the automotive industry.
Technology companies often equate progress with removing friction through automation, consolidation and software. But simplifying a product's appearance does not necessarily simplify its use.
A dashboard with fewer buttons may look cleaner while demanding more attention. A business application with fewer visible controls may require additional menus. An automated system may reduce manual work but make it harder for users to understand what is happening.
The distinction is between reducing components and reducing effort.
Good design does not simply minimise the number of controls. It makes the right actions easy to find, understand and perform.
Chinese automakers helped popularise the vision of the car as a connected digital device. Their renewed interest in knobs and buttons suggests that the next stage of competition may depend less on how futuristic a cabin looks and more on how naturally it works.
The most advanced car is not necessarily the one that puts everything on a screen.
It is the one that gives drivers the technology they want without making simple tasks harder than they need to be.
Comments
Post a Comment