> Functionality that might be needed when you drive...should have physical interface. I generally agree. Safety critical features need physical control options

> Functionality that might be needed when you drive...should have physical interface. I generally agree. Safety critical features need physical control options close to the driver's normal inputs. > But I feel like we already had it with early screens and infotainment. I have two cars. One with a big screen and few physical buttons, and one with a small screen with lots of physical buttons. Because of all the physical buttons, the screen had to be a lot smaller. The vast majority of those buttons relate to actions I really shouldn't be messing with when driving or are connected to the auto AC system which as mentioned doesn't really get used. So it is a ton of wasted space on the center console. On the other car, the screen is very large. There's still important physical controls related to driving and defogging and adjusting media and what not, but they're all immediately around the driver's area not the center console. This allows for the maps for navigation to be very large and easier to glance at. The interface for changing media a lot easier to use when stopped and wanting to actually look at what choices I have or have my passenger make changes. At least to me, I'd much rather have the center console be filled with the map and actually used input surface rather than just have it filled with tons of buttons which generally still shouldn't be used when driving.