Tesla, the company that helps popularize the all-touch interface, has added physical buttons back to their interfaces. This marks a shift in the way companies are thinking about the user experience with the need for tactile interfaces.
And it isn't isolated to Tesla. Across industries, major technology companies are quietly reintroducing physical buttons, knobs, and switches to their products. This shift represents a fundamental course correction in how we think about human-computer interaction. As companies gather more user feedback and safety data, they're discovering that the sleek aesthetics of touch-only interfaces often come at the cost of usability, safety, and accessibility.
The pendulum swing back toward physical controls suggests that interface design relies on a hybrid of physical and digital interfaces.
When Apple unveiled the original iPhone in 2007, it fundamentally altered our relationship with technology. The device's intuitive touch interface made traditional keypads and styluses feel instantly obsolete. Within years, touchscreens spread beyond phones into tablets, car infotainment systems, appliances, and industrial equipment.
Touchscreens offered interface flexibility, cleaner aesthetics, and the perception of technological sophistication. Software updates could completely reimagine an interface without hardware changes. Manufacturers could reduce production costs by replacing multiple physical components with a single screen. Perhaps most importantly, touchscreens became synonymous with innovation—a visual shorthand for "cutting-edge" design.
Research has shown that touch-only interfaces often increase cognitive load, the mental effort required to operate a device. Drivers using touchscreen controls take longer to complete simple tasks compared to physical controls since they have their eyes off the road for dangerously long periods.
Unlike physical buttons, touchscreens provide no inherent physical confirmation of activation. Users can't develop muscle memory for touch controls, which can be dangerous in scenarios where visual attention should be elsewhere, such as driving or operating machinery.
For users with visual impairments, tremors, or limited motor control, touch-only interfaces can be challenging or impossible to use effectively. Plus touchscreens can become unreliable when wet, require glove removal in cold conditions, and are often difficult to use in bright sunlight.
The professional sector has faced its own set of challenges. In medical environments, where split-second actions can be critical, healthcare workers report higher error rates with touch interfaces compared to physical controls. Similar feedback has emerged from industrial settings, where operators working with heavy machinery need absolute certainty in their control inputs.
Recent UX research has provided compelling evidence for the reintegration of physical controls. Users complete common tasks, such as adjusting the volume and changing the temperature, faster with physical controls compared to touchscreen interfaces.
In tasks requiring precise adjustments—such as setting specific values or making selections while in motion—physical controls showed error rates of less than 2%, compared to 15-20% for touchscreen interfaces. Overwhelmingly, users prefer physical controls for frequently accessed functions.
Safety concerns have become a primary driver for the return to physical controls, particularly in the automotive sector. Drivers using touchscreen-based controls spend anywhere from 4 to 16 seconds with their eyes off the road—that's much longer than they would with physical controls. Industrial equipment operators have reported similar safety concerns that could lead to operational delays or near-miss incidents.
The aging global population often struggles with touchscreen interfaces due to reduced finger sensitivity, arthritis, and tremors. Physical controls, with their tactile feedback and defined activation points, provide a more reliable interaction method.
Vision-impaired users face particular challenges with touch-only interfaces. While screen readers and voice controls offer some assistance, the lack of tactile reference points makes independent device operation difficult.
Environmental factors have also highlighted accessibility needs. Healthcare workers wearing medical gloves, industrial workers with protective equipment, and consumers using devices in wet or cold conditions all report significantly better usability with physical controls.
The automotive sector has led the way in reconsidering touch-only interfaces. Tesla's 2024 Model 3 refresh notably reintroduced physical controls for core driving functions, including steering wheel buttons for turn signals and drive modes. This reversal from their previous minimalist approach signals a significant shift in industry thinking about in-vehicle interfaces.
Volkswagen's response to criticism of their ID.3 electric vehicle further illustrates this trend. After widespread user complaints about the touch-sensitive climate controls, the company announced a return to physical buttons and knobs in their 2024 models. CEO Thomas Schäfer publicly acknowledged that the company "went too far" with relying on the sense of touch, stating that "customers want physical buttons, and we're going to give them physical buttons."
Other manufacturers have taken note. BMW's latest iDrive system retains its signature physical control wheel while adding a customizable Curved Display. Mercedes-Benz's 2024 E-Class combines its expansive Hyperscreen with traditional physical controls for critical functions. These hybrid approaches demonstrate a growing understanding that different interface types serve different purposes.
Smart home device manufacturers, initially enthusiastic about touch-only interfaces, are increasingly incorporating physical controls. Google's Nest thermostats now have physical rotating bezels for temperature adjustment—a direct response to user feedback about the impracticality of touch-only controls for frequent adjustments.
Audio equipment manufacturers have been particularly receptive to the return of physical controls. After experimenting with touch-sensitive interfaces, companies like Sony and Bose have reintroduced physical buttons and dials in their premium headphones and speakers. The widely praised Sony WH-1000XM5 headphones feature physical buttons for essential functions, abandoning the touch-sensitive ear cup controls of previous models that users found unreliable in wet conditions or while wearing gloves.
Digital audio workstations (DAWs) and mixing consoles increasingly pair their touchscreens with physical faders, knobs, and buttons. Industry leaders like Solid State Logic and Avid have invested heavily in developing hybrid interfaces that combine the flexibility of touch displays with the precision of physical controls.
Modern medical equipment typically maintains physical controls for critical functions, even when incorporating touchscreens for information display and secondary functions. Philips Healthcare's latest patient monitors feature physical emergency buttons and rotary controls for critical parameters while using touchscreens for data visualization and less time-sensitive functions.
Industrial control systems have followed a similar pattern. Siemens' latest manufacturing control panels combine touchscreens with physical emergency stops, joysticks, and keypads.
In aviation, where reliability and safety are paramount, physical controls have never fully disappeared. The latest Boeing and Airbus aircraft maintain physical throttles, switches, and backup controls while incorporating touchscreens for information management and secondary systems.
After brief experiments with touch-only systems, maritime navigation manufacturers like Raymarine and Garmin now offer multifunction displays that combine touchscreens with physical rotary controllers and keypads, acknowledging the challenges of using touch interfaces in wet conditions and rough seas.
The future of interface design lies not in choosing between touch and physical controls, but in understanding when and how to use each.
Physical controls prove most valuable for:
Touchscreens excel at:
Rather than treating physical and touch interfaces as separate systems, designers should consider them as complementary tools within a unified interface ecosystem. Here are a few hybrid solutions UX designers should consider:
Advanced haptic feedback systems are bridging the gap between physical and touch interfaces. New technologies like ultrasonic haptics and piezoelectric pumps can create the sensation of texture and resistance on flat surfaces.
The best implementations use haptics to enhance touch interactions while maintaining physical controls for critical functions. For example, modern aircraft throttles combine traditional mechanical movement with haptic feedback to provide additional information about engine status and system limits.
Smart physical controls represent another promising development. These controls maintain the benefits of tactile feedback while adding the flexibility of digital interfaces. For instance, rotary encoders adjust their resistance based on context, and buttons with built-in displays show current function.
BMW's latest iDrive system exemplifies this approach, with physical controllers that change their behavior and feedback based on the selected function, while maintaining consistent tactile response for critical operations.
Modern hybrid interfaces increasingly use context awareness to optimize the balance between physical and touch controls. These systems can automatically adjust control sensitivity based on vehicle speed or operating conditions, prioritize physical controls in adverse conditions (rain, turbulence, etc.), and switch between touch and physical control modes based on user preference or task requirements.
Mercedes-Benz's latest MBUX system automatically adjusts its interface based on driving conditions, user behavior patterns, and environmental factors. When the system detects adverse conditions or rapid vehicle movement, it prioritizes physical controls and simplifies touch interfaces to reduce distraction.
New technologies often follow a cycle: rapid adoption, recognition of limitations, and finally, thoughtful integration with existing solutions. The interface design community has now developed more nuanced approaches that recognize the power and limitations of different interface types.
Successful interface design isn't about choosing the newest technology, but about choosing the right technology for each specific interaction. As we move forward, the most successful designs will be those that seamlessly blend the intuitiveness of physical controls with the flexibility of digital interfaces.