# data.attributes.title
TG readers have voted overwhelmingly in favour of physical buttons over touchscreens

# data.attributes.metatag[].attributes.content
TG readers have voted overwhelmingly in favour of physical buttons over touchscreens | Top Gear

# data.attributes.metatag[].attributes.content
Gone with ye, iPad screens… mostly. Because there were some who still saw logic behind a compromise

# data.attributes.metatag[].attributes.content
TG readers have voted overwhelmingly in favour of physical buttons over touchscreens

# data.attributes.metatag[].attributes.content
Gone with ye, iPad screens… mostly. Because there were some who still saw logic behind a compromise

# data.attributes.metatag[].attributes.content
Gone with ye, iPad screens… mostly. Because there were some who still saw logic behind a compromise

# data.attributes.metatag[].attributes.content
TG readers have voted overwhelmingly in favour of physical buttons over touchscreens

# data.attributes.metatag[].attributes.content
TG readers have voted overwhelmingly in favour of physical buttons over touchscreens

# data.attributes.metatag[].attributes.content
TG readers have voted overwhelmingly in favour of physical buttons over touchscreens

# data.attributes.metatag[].attributes.content
Gone with ye, iPad screens… mostly. Because there were some who still saw logic behind a compromise

# data.attributes.body.value
When we penned our latest edition of our running Question of the Week series, we were pretty confident what the answer would be. But what we didn’t realise was just how confident we should’ve been, such was the response in favour of physical buttons over the now more widely adopted touchscreens.

Let’s begin with the most-liked comment, which came in from Sebastian: “Buttons, no questions asked. Nothing is worse than going for a touchscreen option and, due to road imperfections, hitting something else. That then goes into another menu, which you then have to back out from… it’s a mess. Buttons are just more accessible and less distracting.”

And here’s Alex G’s hilarious response to that: “I can only assume whoever downvoted your comment was reading it using the android unit in their car, and as they went to tap the thumbs up, they hit a bump and tapped thumbs down instead.”

Eddie’s support for old school comes next: “One of the things that makes driving a pleasure is the tactile experience of touching and operating dials, switches and buttons, regardless of what they do. Turning something on is so satisfying. Now I come to think about it, maybe that explains why the car I've just bought is a manual over an automatic and has a CD player. Is this part of the same instinct for physically operating things?”

Good question, Eddie. Perhaps Alex Bourne’s comment answers that: “I prefer buttons myself, be it an old computer keyboard or the buttons on a centre console. Whilst touchscreens are cool, there isn't that physical sensation of actually pushing something and something happening.”

But is there a deeper reason to the ‘why’ our users prefer buttons? James Field thinks so. “Unsurprisingly, my vote is for buttons, for the same reason as many others: safety. The irony of new cars telling drivers off for being distracted whilst they're trying to work out how to switch on the fog lights via the screen is sounding.”

Antoine Dufresne-Fortin agreed, and even highlighted a wider societal issue: “Buttons are the way to go. Easier to use and less distracting. We look at our phone screen all day long, so I don't feel it's necessary to add more screens into our lives.”

Let’s revert to the ‘sensation’ side of the argument again for a few final comments in favour of physical buttons. Paolo Lattuca says: “Driving is a tactile experience; you control your environment with muscle memory knowing innately where everything is as opposed to scrolling or using voice control. Lose that and you become a passenger not really in control. I can see a role for settings like beam adjustments to wider menu functions with touchscreens, but stuff that you need to change in the moment should remain accessible via buttons or stalks.”

Meanwhile, Tom S wrote: “Buttons, switches, dials and the dashboard layout that accommodates them are all elements to be designed. Elements that play a part in adding character to how a car looks and feels, because not only is it what's in front of your eyes, it's how your body interacts with it. The haptic feedback from a real control lives on the same spectrum as the clack of a gated gearbox. A computer might not design it that way but I want a car that speaks to me as a human.”

We think you’re starting to get the point. But despite what seems to be a whitewash victory for buttons, there were some who saw sense in touchscreens.

Randy Fluffins was one of those. “I like a blend of the two: a touch screen for certain things, but physical buttons for heater controls and so on. In my world I’d still have wind down windows and a string/strap to close the door.”

And Ali was another: “A healthy mix of both is the best. No one wants to open the glove box through a touchscreen menu and no one wants to insert the address into the satnav with a dial.”

Andrew Robinson then presented their argument for why touchscreens may need time: “In defence of the touchscreen, there are some user interface tasks they do way better than buttons. The pinch gesture to zoom in and out of a map, for example, or picking a particular MP3 file from a list of thousands - both things that buttons are really bad at. The issue is that touchscreen technology isn't mature yet, so we haven't developed a standard design language for common controls.”

Then there comes perhaps the strongest vote in favour of touchscreens, from one who seems to consider it a necessary development rather than an optional one. That person is Bradleigh-James Coffill, and here’s the reason: “The thing is, we almost need touchscreens because of how much we’ve developed cars to do now. They’re no longer just transport, they’re more like mobile entertainment hubs.

“A full-button dash now, for everything a modern car is expected to do, just wouldn’t be practical. Imagine a full-button dash in a modern car, with a keypad for calls and a keyboard for voice-only navigation. Or how about all your climate controls, and individual buttons for Spotify? You’d never fit it all in, so I’ve no problem with condensing most of these things into a central screen.”

An interesting selection of arguments to sift through this week, no doubt. So we look forward to doing it again with the next one, which we’re confident will cause a similar division between you lot.

# data.attributes.body.processed
When we penned our latest edition of our running Question of the Week series, we were pretty confident what the answer would be. But what we didn’t realise was just how confident we should’ve been, such was the response in favour of physical buttons over the now more widely adopted touchscreens.

Let’s begin with the most-liked comment, which came in from Sebastian: “Buttons, no questions asked. Nothing is worse than going for a touchscreen option and, due to road imperfections, hitting something else. That then goes into another menu, which you then have to back out from… it’s a mess. Buttons are just more accessible and less distracting.”

And here’s Alex G’s hilarious response to that: “I can only assume whoever downvoted your comment was reading it using the android unit in their car, and as they went to tap the thumbs up, they hit a bump and tapped thumbs down instead.”

Eddie’s support for old school comes next: “One of the things that makes driving a pleasure is the tactile experience of touching and operating dials, switches and buttons, regardless of what they do. Turning something on is so satisfying. Now I come to think about it, maybe that explains why the car I've just bought is a manual over an automatic and has a CD player. Is this part of the same instinct for physically operating things?”

Good question, Eddie. Perhaps Alex Bourne’s comment answers that: “I prefer buttons myself, be it an old computer keyboard or the buttons on a centre console. Whilst touchscreens are cool, there isn't that physical sensation of actually pushing something and something happening.”

But is there a deeper reason to the ‘why’ our users prefer buttons? James Field thinks so. “Unsurprisingly, my vote is for buttons, for the same reason as many others: safety. The irony of new cars telling drivers off for being distracted whilst they're trying to work out how to switch on the fog lights via the screen is sounding.”

Antoine Dufresne-Fortin agreed, and even highlighted a wider societal issue: “Buttons are the way to go. Easier to use and less distracting. We look at our phone screen all day long, so I don't feel it's necessary to add more screens into our lives.”

Let’s revert to the ‘sensation’ side of the argument again for a few final comments in favour of physical buttons. Paolo Lattuca says: “Driving is a tactile experience; you control your environment with muscle memory knowing innately where everything is as opposed to scrolling or using voice control. Lose that and you become a passenger not really in control. I can see a role for settings like beam adjustments to wider menu functions with touchscreens, but stuff that you need to change in the moment should remain accessible via buttons or stalks.”

Meanwhile, Tom S wrote: “Buttons, switches, dials and the dashboard layout that accommodates them are all elements to be designed. Elements that play a part in adding character to how a car looks and feels, because not only is it what's in front of your eyes, it's how your body interacts with it. The haptic feedback from a real control lives on the same spectrum as the clack of a gated gearbox. A computer might not design it that way but I want a car that speaks to me as a human.”

We think you’re starting to get the point. But despite what seems to be a whitewash victory for buttons, there were some who saw sense in touchscreens.

Randy Fluffins was one of those. “I like a blend of the two: a touch screen for certain things, but physical buttons for heater controls and so on. In my world I’d still have wind down windows and a string/strap to close the door.”

And Ali was another: “A healthy mix of both is the best. No one wants to open the glove box through a touchscreen menu and no one wants to insert the address into the satnav with a dial.”

Andrew Robinson then presented their argument for why touchscreens may need time: “In defence of the touchscreen, there are some user interface tasks they do way better than buttons. The pinch gesture to zoom in and out of a map, for example, or picking a particular MP3 file from a list of thousands - both things that buttons are really bad at. The issue is that touchscreen technology isn't mature yet, so we haven't developed a standard design language for common controls.”

Then there comes perhaps the strongest vote in favour of touchscreens, from one who seems to consider it a necessary development rather than an optional one. That person is Bradleigh-James Coffill, and here’s the reason: “The thing is, we almost need touchscreens because of how much we’ve developed cars to do now. They’re no longer just transport, they’re more like mobile entertainment hubs.

“A full-button dash now, for everything a modern car is expected to do, just wouldn’t be practical. Imagine a full-button dash in a modern car, with a keypad for calls and a keyboard for voice-only navigation. Or how about all your climate controls, and individual buttons for Spotify? You’d never fit it all in, so I’ve no problem with condensing most of these things into a central screen.”

An interesting selection of arguments to sift through this week, no doubt. So we look forward to doing it again with the next one, which we’re confident will cause a similar division between you lot.

# data.attributes.field_standfirst
Gone with ye, iPad screens… mostly. Because there were some who still saw logic behind a compromise