I think it's simpler than that, in this case. What OP is describing is essentially a *control panel* (a small interface of grouped inputs for common tasks). Thi

I think it's simpler than that, in this case. What OP is describing is essentially a *control panel* (a small interface of grouped inputs for common tasks). This is an artifact of engineering design, where physical space and materials are usually at a premium, both in construction and usage. Once you've designed and built your controls, that's it; there's no spiriting a secondary interface out of thin air. However, with dynamic display-based interfaces, you can do just that. Much as I tend to loathe Apple's design, the way they handle iPad shutdowns is quite good: first, you press a button; then, the entire display changes to focus on this task. If you want to shutdown, you then have to perform an entirely different gesture to confirm. This layering of visual feedback and input types escapes the control panel paradigm and correctly takes advantage of the freedom that act lends to better communicate with the user. Unfortunately, doing so often means eschewing standards and best practices to find a solution that should work better for users. That is extremely difficult to get right; it's not very surprising that designers would purposely decide to use a flawed but known model instead. We need to get it out of our heads that designers only do things because they're visually satisfying. They are making purposeful and critical decisions to meet a design objective.