The Physical Button is Here to Stay

Content including text and images © Aditya Mohan. All Rights Reserved. Robometircs, Amelia, Living Interface and Skive it are trademarks of Skive it, Inc. The content is meant for human readers only under 17 U.S. Code § 106. Access, learning, analysis or reproduction by Artificial Intelligence (AI) of any form directly or indirectly, including but not limited to AI Agents, LLMs, Foundation Models, content scrapers is prohibited. These views are not legal advice but business opinion based on reading some English text written by a set of intelligent people.

The automotive and aviation industries are evolving rapidly, with a notable shift from traditional controls to modern interfaces, such as touch displays and voice control. A prominent point of discussion is the role of physical buttons versus large touch displays in controlling critical functions. This change is particularly evident in new models of vehicles and aircraft, where we see a blend of these technologies depending on the nature of use. While physical buttons offer direct tactile feedback, large touch displays provide a more versatile and often sleeker interface. But which system works best, and under what circumstances? Let's explore this question by examining specific examples of popular vehicles like the Tesla Cybertruck, Tesla Model 3, Rivian R1S, Aston Martin DBX707, and aircraft like the Cessna 182 and Daher TBM 960.

Pilot's hand interacting with a specific button in the cockpit, capturing the detail and importance of tactile controls in flight.

Physical Buttons vs. Touch Displays: The Interaction Experience

Physical buttons have long been synonymous with user control, providing distinct tactile feedback that makes them easy to operate without needing to look away from the road or dashboard. This tactile certainty is crucial, particularly when precise inputs are needed, such as adjusting altitude in an aircraft or activating an emergency feature in a vehicle. With physical buttons, users can feel the feedback and know that an action has been executed, allowing them to operate controls by touch alone once they are familiar with the layout. This means that drivers or pilots do not need to divert their attention to visually confirm that an action has been taken, which is a significant advantage when safety and focus are paramount.

Aircraft like the Cessna 182 and Daher TBM 960 are good examples of how physical buttons and switches are irreplaceable in certain situations. These aircraft still maintain many physical controls because pilots need that certainty—knowing with complete confidence that a switch has been flipped or a button pressed without diverting their attention from flying.

In contrast, modern electric vehicles like the Tesla Model 3, Rivian R1S, and Rivian R1T have embraced large, centralized touch displays. This trend towards touch displays appeals to automakers due to cost savings, reduced mechanical complexity, and the ability to easily update software features. The Tesla Model 3 is an iconic example, where almost all interactions are conducted through a single, tablet-sized central display. Climate control, navigation, entertainment, and even nuanced driving modes are all embedded into this single interface. The result is a clean, uncluttered cabin design—minimalist and futuristic. However, the lack of physical buttons can sometimes become a drawback, especially when driving conditions demand fast, non-distracting actions. Imagine needing to adjust the cabin temperature or windshield wipers during heavy rain; navigating through a screen interface can be slower and less intuitive compared to simply turning a physical knob. With touch screens, users must look at the display every time they want to operate a function, which removes their attention from driving, making the operation potentially more hazardous in critical situations.

Voice interfaces are increasingly being used for non-critical functions in vehicles, such as obtaining driving directions or adjusting music volume. This approach minimizes the need to interact with physical controls or touch screens, allowing drivers to keep their focus on the road. However, for essential driving and operational tasks—such as adjusting vehicle speed, engaging off-road modes, or activating emergency functions—physical buttons remain the optimal choice. Their tactile feedback and certainty ensure that these critical actions can be performed without visual distraction, contributing significantly to a safer driving experience.

The visual presents a car interior focused on usability, with a streamlined dashboard featuring minimal physical buttons and sleek holographic displays for even the critical driving elements such as speedometer. These displays project crucial information, balancing modern tech with some traditional control elements. The clean, natural design complements the open road view through the windshield, reinforcing the advanced yet practical layout.

Tesla Cybertruck and the Risk of Over-Reliance on Displays

The Tesla Cybertruck takes the trend even further, boasting an interior that is almost devoid of buttons altogether. This design choice emphasizes simplicity and a futuristic aesthetic, aligning with Tesla's vision of streamlined and innovative vehicle experiences. While this fits well with Tesla's image of innovation, it also raises concerns. The large touch display, though capable of integrating multiple features, acts as a single point of failure. If that display malfunctions, many of the vehicle's primary functions become inaccessible. Comparatively, traditional designs with physical buttons distribute the risk—failure of one button does not affect the entire system, making compartmentalization of controls a distinct advantage.

Aston Martin's Refined Integration of Controls

Aston Martin, known for its luxury and performance vehicles, offers a nuanced approach by integrating both physical controls and touch interfaces. The 2025 Aston Martin DBX707, for example, features an advanced interior design with a state-of-the-art infotainment system. This system includes a 12.3-inch driver information screen and a central touchscreen, which provides high-definition displays and responsive touch controls. Despite the modern digital interfaces, Aston Martin retains physical buttons for essential functions, ensuring that drivers have immediate access to critical controls without needing to navigate multiple screen menus. This blend of tactile and touch inputs caters to both modern aesthetics and practical usability, acknowledging the importance of physical feedback in enhancing driver focus and safety.

The Rivian Approach: Striking a Balance

During TechCrunch Disrupt 2024, Rivian’s chief software officer Wassym Bensaid remarked that in-car buttons are 'an anomaly.' According to Bensaid, 'It’s a bug. It’s not a feature.' He elaborated that ideally, the primary interaction with the vehicle should be through voice, but current voice assistants are inadequate. Bensaid mentioned that his ultimate goal is to make voice controls the primary means of interacting with the vehicle. However, due to the complexity and feature-rich nature of modern vehicles, certain functions are still embedded deeper within menus on the touch display.

Bensaid also expressed confidence in the potential of AI-powered voice controls to manage more complex requests. For instance, if a driver says, 'I’m hungry,' the in-car assistant should be able to identify and direct them to a nearby restaurant they might prefer. This vision reflects Rivian's emphasis on reducing physical interaction in favor of advanced software and voice-based solutions, though for now, they continue to include some physical controls to ensure safety and convenience, especially in challenging driving conditions.

Rivian's electric vehicles, like the R1S and R1T, utilize a combination of physical buttons and touch displays. For functions requiring frequent adjustments or those essential during off-road adventures, physical controls are still available. The gear selector and specific off-road modes, for instance, can be activated using physical dials, allowing drivers to maintain focus without having to look at a screen. Rivian seems to understand that in certain circumstances—particularly when driving off-road—tactile feedback is irreplaceable.

Aviation: The Continued Importance of Physical Controls

Flight training for aviators places a strong emphasis on looking outside the aircraft rather than fixating on the screens or even the physical instruments inside the cockpit. As student pilots, we are taught to constantly scan the sky and our surroundings, ensuring situational awareness and safety. Certified Flight Instructors (CFIs) often go to the extent of covering physical instruments or displays during training to ensure that student pilots develop the habit of looking outside. This practice reinforces the importance of visual cues, horizon scanning, and maintaining awareness of other air traffic or environmental factors. Even in aircraft equipped with advanced screens and instruments, the fundamental training remains focused on looking outwards, underscoring that external visual awareness is critical for safe flying.

In aviation, safety and reliability are paramount, which explains why many aircraft continue to feature traditional buttons, switches, and knobs. Take the Cessna 182, for example, a workhorse in general aviation. The cockpit may have digital screens displaying navigation and flight data, but the primary flight controls and many other essential functions are still operated through physical switches. This configuration ensures that even if a display were to fail, the pilot retains control over critical functions. Similarly, the Daher TBM 960, a sleek, high-performance turboprop, integrates digital avionics but retains a host of physical toggles and dials to ensure redundancy and reliability. The compartmentalization of failure here means that a pilot isn’t overly reliant on one system—something crucial during complex flight conditions.

Mean Time Before Failure (MTBF): Physical Buttons vs. Touch Displays

Another critical aspect to consider when comparing physical buttons to touch displays is reliability. The mean time before failure (MTBF) for physical buttons tends to be significantly longer compared to modern LCD screens. Physical buttons are typically designed to withstand thousands of press cycles under various conditions—dust, temperature changes, and humidity—making them robust and reliable. On the other hand, LCD screens are more susceptible to failure due to the complexity of the underlying technology and the sensitivity of touch sensors. For critical functions, especially in safety-sensitive industries like aviation, the robustness of physical switches provides an additional layer of confidence.

Compartmentalization of Failure: Spreading the Risk

The compartmentalization of failure is another crucial aspect of this debate. In a car or aircraft filled with physical buttons and switches, the malfunction of one control does not necessarily impact the others. This decentralized control approach is crucial for maintaining functionality even when one part fails. On the contrary, a large touch display integrates numerous functions into a single interface, and the failure of that interface means a loss of access to all of those functions simultaneously. In the Tesla Model 3 or Cybertruck, for example, a malfunction in the central touchscreen would severely limit the driver's ability to control essential systems—from HVAC to navigation. In an aircraft like the Daher TBM 960, having physical backups to digital systems ensures that essential functions remain operable even in case of partial system failures.

Financial Considerations and the Subscription Economy

Another factor driving the shift towards touch displays is the financial model underpinning the automotive industry today. The subscription economy allows automakers to cut production costs and shift resources from hardware to software, ultimately impacting consumers in significant ways. Consumers are now required to subscribe to features that were once included in the base price, which leads to higher ongoing costs and less flexibility. This model also raises concerns about ownership, as drivers may lose access to features if they choose not to renew a subscription. Electric vehicles, such as the Tesla Model 3 and Rivian R1T, are already heavily software-oriented, and moving to a software-focused approach allows manufacturers more flexibility. By centralizing controls in a touch display, automakers can add new functionality, features, and even refresh the appearance of the vehicle through software updates—often marketed as "mid-cycle newness." This approach is much more cost-effective compared to the high expenses involved in re-engineering and re-tooling for hardware production. UI and software changes can be prototyped, tested, and implemented in a shorter time frame, and features can be enabled or disabled remotely based on subscription status. For automakers, this is an attractive proposition as it not only reduces costs but also opens up new revenue streams.

However, from the consumer's perspective, this shift is not always beneficial. Consumers have less flexibility, face more risks, and are subject to higher long-term costs. Features that were once part of the vehicle's base package may now require ongoing subscriptions to access, effectively reducing ownership rights. Additionally, over-the-air updates can sometimes reduce the availability of features if a subscription ends, which can be frustrating or even unsafe if critical functions are impacted. The over-reliance on software also implies that more parts of the vehicle are at risk of failure if the software crashes, which could compromise the overall safety of the vehicle.

Upgraded physical button with holographic display overlay: The visual showcases an upgraded physical button, enhanced with a holographic display overlay. This design marries the reliability of tactile controls with the advanced functionality of digital projections, ensuring essential information is readily visible. The holographic overlay enriches user interaction by providing quick, dynamic data access while maintaining simplicity and ease of use of a physical button.

The Future: Convergence or Divergence?

The automotive and aviation industries may be moving towards convergence or divergence in their approach to control systems, depending on user needs and safety requirements. For vehicles like the Tesla Cybertruck and the Rivian R1T, where style, integration, and innovation drive the design, touch displays seem here to stay, despite the trade-offs related to reliability and ease of use in emergency situations. On the other hand, aircraft like the Cessna 182 and Daher TBM 960 demonstrate that physical buttons and tactile feedback are irreplaceable when it comes to safety and precision.

Ultimately, whether a system should rely on physical buttons or touch displays depends heavily on the use case. For situations requiring immediate, precise actions, physical buttons are likely to remain essential. For non-critical systems and in contexts where aesthetic, customization, and versatility are prioritized, touch displays provide a futuristic and flexible solution. The balance between the two lies in understanding the strengths and limitations of each—and ensuring that the design meets both safety and user experience standards.

The visual highlights a car interior featuring simplified physical buttons and strategically placed holographic displays. These elements offer an intuitive blend of tactile reliability and digital feedback, providing a seamless user experience. The holographic overlays project essential information without clutter, enhancing usability while maintaining a clean, modern design. The interface balances functionality and simplicity, ensuring quick and efficient control access for the driver.

Conclusion

Aston Martin, with its DBX707, exemplifies a refined balance between digital and physical interfaces, combining advanced touchscreens with essential physical controls to ensure immediate and safe access to critical functions. This approach provides drivers with both the modern convenience of digital interfaces and the reliability of physical buttons when it matters most.

Voice interfaces are increasingly seen as a solution for non-critical functions in vehicles, such as obtaining driving directions or setting up entertainment options. For instance, asking the car's assistant to provide directions to the nearest gas station or to adjust music volume can be accomplished seamlessly through voice commands, minimizing the need to interact with physical controls or touch screens. However, for important driving and operational tasks—such as adjusting vehicle speed, engaging specific off-road modes, or activating emergency functions—physical buttons remain the best option. The tactile feedback and certainty provided by physical buttons ensure that these critical actions can be performed without distraction, ultimately contributing to a safer driving experience.

The debate between physical buttons and touch displays is not just about aesthetics or modernizing the user interface—it is about safety, reliability, and practicality. Vehicles like the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3 represent the push towards minimalism with touch screens, where many features are combined into a single interface. While this provides a sleek and unified experience, it also introduces risks, such as a lack of tactile feedback and potential single points of failure. On the other hand, Rivian's balanced approach, which retains some physical buttons alongside a touch display, acknowledges the need for flexibility and tactile response in certain situations, particularly during off-road driving. In aviation, examples like the Cessna 182 and Daher TBM 960 illustrate why physical buttons and switches remain essential—ensuring that pilots can control essential functions even if digital displays fail.

Touch-screen-only vehicles or aircraft may seem futuristic, but they come with significant drawbacks for the consumer. The reliance on a single interface reduces flexibility and increases risks, especially in emergency situations. Furthermore, the shift towards a subscription economy means that consumers may face higher costs and limited access to features that were once standard. Safety can also be compromised if critical functions are integrated into a touch display that could malfunction or if software glitches occur. In contexts where reliability, safety, and precise control are crucial, physical buttons remain an indispensable aspect of design. Ultimately, a balanced approach that incorporates both physical and digital interfaces is likely to provide the best experience for consumers, balancing innovation with reliability and safety.

Further read

LLM, Us and Neuroplasticity

"Are you sure?": Unveiling the Quest for Human-Like Artificial Intelligence

Designers, creativity and AI

A LLM as a reflection of our inner most desires

Should AGI be a she, he, or a it?