Touchscreen driver distraction: why EV interfaces frustrate more than they help
Modern cars are digital, sleek, and ambitious. They promise clean dashboards, futuristic aesthetics, and intuitive interfaces. Yet ambition sometimes gets in the way of usability. Touchscreens were meant to streamline control, but in practice, they often demand more attention than they save. Drivers shouldn’t need a PhD to adjust temperature, switch driving modes, or change media. Yet, in many modern vehicles, they do.
Bridge Studio has spent years testing EV and automotive interfaces. Here’s what we’ve learned about common sources of touchscreen driver distraction, the problems they create, and how car manufacturers can address them.
1. Too distracting
A car is not a smartphone. Drivers cannot glance down at 70 mph to swipe through nested menus without risking safety. Yet many modern EVs demand it. A Swedish study found that changing the temperature in an MG Marvel R via touchscreen took 45 seconds, compared to just 10 seconds on a 2005 Volvo with physical buttons¹. That is 35 seconds of eyes off the road, enough time for disaster.
Imagine your driving the MG Marvel R. (Image below) How would you decrease the temperature? Got it yet, no? Need more time? Now look up and tell me if temperature is your most pressing concern or a big lorry coming your way.
The problem is not limited to entry-level EVs. Volkswagen’s ID.4 and BMW iX both feature large, ambitious digital dashboards. Despite the slick graphics, drivers frequently struggle to locate basic controls². Time-on-task rises, frustration rises, and safety decreases³. What manufacturers often miss is that every second a driver spends hunting for a function is a second they are not scanning the road. Minor visual distractions become major safety hazards.
Why it happens: designers aim for sleek minimalism. Controls vanish behind digital layers, menus, and nested pages. The interface looks modern, but the cognitive load on the driver skyrockets. Humans are not wired for complex menu navigation while maintaining situational awareness.
The fix:
Keep essential controls physical: temperature, defrost, volume, hazard lights. Simple, tactile, glanceable.
Make touchscreens glanceable for secondary functions: one tap, one look, no hunting.
Design predictive context: collapse deep menus while driving, highlight urgent tasks, and anticipate likely interactions.
Principle: If a driver has to think twice about where to tap, the interface is already too far. Minimalism without usability is just a liability.
2. Feedback and feel: the missing dimension
Physical buttons succeed because they provide certainty: press, click, done. Touchscreens remove that reassurance. Drivers tap, wait, tap again. Mis-taps are common. Frustration builds⁴. In some cases, repeated attempts at a single input can lead to abrupt or unsafe manoeuvres. The result is not just annoyance—it is distraction that could result in accidents.
Even haptic feedback is rarely sufficient. On bumpy roads, fingers drift. Gloves prevent input entirely. Bright sunlight reflects off glossy surfaces, washing out indicators and making precision nearly impossible⁵. Drivers are forced to guess, tap, and confirm visually, turning simple adjustments into cognitively demanding tasks.
Touchscreen driver distraction examples:
Tesla’s central screen may look futuristic, but at speed adjusting climate or media becomes a guessing game⁶. Drivers report that “tapping the wrong button” is a frequent source of frustration.
BMW iX’s capacitive controls require precise finger placement; on rough roads, even experienced drivers make errors². Minor errors compound cognitive load and increase the time the driver is distracted.
The fix:
- Introduce tactile cues: knobs, ridges, detents, subtle vibration. Physical confirmation reduces mistakes.
- Use steering wheel controls, many are already doing this.
- Use larger touch targets, well spaced, to reduce mis-taps, especially on functions that require frequent access.
- Adjust touch responsiveness for gloves, cold, or vibration to maintain reliable input across environments.
Principle: Beauty counts for nothing if you can’t use it in motion. Good design communicates certainty; poor design demands second-guessing.
3. Too complicated, important things hidden in menus
Minimalism has gone too far. Heating, lights, wipers, driver modes—sometimes all live in nested digital mazes⁷. What should be a 1-second adjustment becomes a 10-second search. Drivers are forced to remember menu paths, increasing cognitive load. These are tasks that should require minimal attention, yet they are hidden behind layers of abstraction.
Why it happens: software developers often assume digital equals better. Flat interfaces look modern but hide critical controls. Even tech-savvy drivers are slowed by the requirement to navigate menus while driving. When basic operations require multi-step gestures or sub-menus, glance time increases, and distraction becomes inevitable.
The fix:
Keep frequent tasks on the home screen or physical buttons. Glanceable controls are essential.
Limit menu depth to two levels for critical functions. Don’t hide urgent functions behind aesthetic choices.
Provide persistent “quick access” rows or favourites, allowing drivers to customise based on their priorities.
Use clear iconography; avoid pretty-but-ambiguous symbols that require cognitive interpretation.
Principle: Minimalism isn’t removing buttons. It’s removing friction. Removing friction requires understanding what tasks are truly critical.
4. Cognitive overload
Modern EV interfaces combine media, climate, driving modes, navigation, and vehicle stats onto one screen. Each additional feature increases cognitive load. Mistakes become more frequent, glance times increase, and the likelihood of distraction rises⁸. Drivers report that even tasks they’ve performed hundreds of times feel taxing because the interface demands visual attention for confirmation.
Why it happens: the drive to consolidate information conflicts with the brain’s limits. Interfaces may be logical on paper, but in real-world driving conditions, the mental model required to navigate them is too complex.
Fix:
Progressive disclosure: show only what’s needed now, hide advanced settings behind “more” options.
Default intelligently: anticipate the function most drivers want at that moment.
Test in real driving conditions, not just labs⁸, ensuring glance times are appropriate.
Principle: Good design helps you drive. Bad design asks you to think about it. Every unnecessary thought diverted to the screen is a second of risk.
5. Responsiveness and reliability
Lag erodes trust. A slow interface can transform a simple adjustment into repeated attempts. Drivers tap, nothing happens, tap again, and by the time the system responds, overshooting, under-adjusting, or abandoning the function becomes inevitable⁴.
Why it happens: touchscreens are often overloaded with complex animations, connectivity tasks, or background processes. Even a fraction of a second lag can frustrate the driver and increase glance time.
Fix:
Optimise touch response: under 100ms latency is ideal⁴.
Provide haptic or visual confirmation for every input⁴.
Maintain mechanically redundant controls for critical functions.
Principle: Reliability is the design feature you never notice—until it fails.
6. Environmental and physical challenges
Cars are not controlled environments. Sun glare, cold, gloves, dust, and vibration all expose touchscreen limitations⁹. An interface that works perfectly in a lab or showroom may become unusable under real-world conditions.
Why it happens: designers often optimise for “normal” scenarios—hands bare, cabin clean, sunlight moderate. They fail to account for gloves, snow, rain, or direct sunlight.
Fix:
Anti-reflective coatings and adaptive contrast⁹.
Larger targets for high-use or safety-critical functions².
Glove/cold modes for touch sensitivity⁵.
Physical controls for weather-sensitive tasks¹.
Principle: If it only works on a sunny, smooth motorway in June, it doesn’t work. Interfaces must survive the environment.
7. The human cost of touchscreen driver distraction
Poorly designed touchscreens frustrate drivers, erode trust, and cause cognitive fatigue. Drivers may delay adjustments, ignore warnings, or reach for a phone⁴. Frustration has measurable safety implications.
Why it happens: interfaces that prioritise aesthetics over usability fail to respect the cognitive limits of the driver. Repeated failure to accomplish simple tasks increases stress and reduces focus on the road.
Fix:
Maintain consistent UI design across updates⁴.
Include onboarding and guided tours⁹ to reduce the learning curve.
Be transparent about hardware/software limitations⁴.
Principle: A car interface should never make you doubt yourself. Confidence and clarity reduce risk.
8. Recommendations from Bridge Studio
EV UX isn’t just about screens; it’s how humans interact with machines in motion. Our approach combines safety, clarity, and minimal cognitive load:
Critical functions first
Design for glance, not just aesthetics
Hybrid layouts (touch + physical controls)
Responsive, condition-aware touch
Progressive disclosure
Redundant, fail-safe controls
Real-world testing
Stable, predictable UI updates
User-centred philosophy
References 1–9 underpin these principles.
What to know more about Bridge Studio?
Find out here →
Take-away for touchscreen driver distraction
Touchscreens promise a sleek cockpit. Often, they deliver distraction, uncertainty, and frustration. The best UX balances digital flexibility with physical certainty, minimalism with clarity, aesthetics with safety. Bridge Studio helps car makers build interfaces that respect both the driver and the road: one glance, one tap, done.
References
Vi Bilägare, ‘Physical Buttons Outperform Touchscreens in New Cars, Test Finds’, Vi Bilägare, 20 January 2023, https://www.vibilagare.se/english/physical-buttons-outperform-touchscreens-new-cars-test-finds
SBD Automotive, ‘BMW iX UX & HMI Evaluation Report Preview’, 2021, https://insight.sbdautomotive.com/rs/164-IYW-366/images/635%2821g%29%20Preview%20BMW%20iX%20HMI%20UX%20Evaluation%20Report.pdf
Nielsen Norman Group, ‘Tesla’s Touchscreen UI: A Case Study of Car-Dashboard Interaction’, 19 May 2019, https://www.nngroup.com/articles/tesla-big-touchscreen/
Ergonomics Society, ‘Drivers’ Screen Time’, 19 January 2023, https://ergonomics.org.uk/resource/drivers-screen-time.html
The Times, ‘Car Touchscreens Too Distracting as Simple Tasks Take 22 Seconds’, 26 February 2025, https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/car-touchscreens-too-distracting-simple-tasks-explained-wlg9snsdm
Car and Driver, ‘Shocker! Test Shows Physical Buttons Are Less Time-Consuming in Cars Than Touchscreens’, 21 August 2022, https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a40949962/car-buttons-easier-than-touchscreens-study/
Jalopnik, ‘Science Proves That Buttons Are Better Than Touchscreens’, 18 August 2022, https://www.jalopnik.com/science-proves-that-buttons-are-better-than-touchscreen-1849428675/
The Autopian, ‘Swedish Test Offers Compelling Evidence That Buttons Are Less Distracting Than Touchscreen Infotainment Systems’, 18 August 2022, https://www.theautopian.com/swedish-test-offers-compelling-evidence-that-buttons-are-less-distracting-than-touchscreen-infotainment-systems/
BMW Blog, ‘Buttons Are Better Than Touchscreens, It’s Science’, 22 August 2022, https://www.bmwblog.com/2022/08/22/buttons-are-better-than-touchscreens-its-science/
