[jonathanberger]

I think this is one place where this debate goes off the rails. People don't switch cars frequently and haven't experienced or studied deeply both sets of interfaces. I completely understand why because I was the same.

I only recently switched from a 20 year old car. Wipers was one of my main concerns.

Tesla, contrary to popular belief, actually has a physical button for activating the wipers. It's one I rarely use because the automatic functionality for this works so well. There's a physical control to mute sound too.

Would you acknowledge that touchscreen controls have some benefits, such as adaptability?

[fukawi2]

Yes, being able to dynamically update and contextually change what is displayed is a benefit of a touchscreen.

I don't believe that should be relevant to mechanical features of a 2 ton weapon though. Entertainment/Nav system that aren't key features for operating the vehicle, sure, have at it.

The hardware isn't being updated remotely to add new features or functionality, so I don't see why the interface for controlling those things should need the benefit of being able to be changed.

"Keep It Simple, Stupid" has been an adage for a long time for a reason.

[MattPalmer1086]

I don't own a car. I rent one when I need one, which isn't often. So I'm not used to any particular method or interface.

I absolutely hate touch screen controls in cars. They are unsafe to use when driving, and they control things like air con you need to operate. They are also really poorly designed in most cases. I've often given up trying to figure out how to how to change something. Pretty much never have a problem with physical controls.