What does it take for a central control screen without a single button to be considered useful?

When technology drives a technological change, user feedback is always polarized. One group of people thinks "it's good now, there's no need to change", while the other group thinks "only new technology is the future". As the central control entertainment system of cars gradually moves closer to intelligent devices, this situation is becoming more and more obvious.

In fact, whether it is "new forces in car manufacturing" or "traditional car companies", all major manufacturers are very fond of "big screens". We have also seen the new generation of Mercedes-Benz S-Class that has just been released. The size and layout of the screen seem to have reached some kind of consensus with the "new forces in car manufacturing" in private, which is surprising.

As the size of the central control screen becomes larger and larger and the number of buttons becomes fewer and fewer, human-computer interaction has also raised a new question: without buttons, what kind of interaction can be considered easy to use?

Yes, if a manufacturer just puts a large screen on the center console without any targeted optimization, then the user experience will definitely be bad, which is also the biggest concern of the "conservatives" at this stage. This article is to take you to look forward to what functions will be most critical if the center console of the future car really has no buttons.

●Voice interaction/artificial intelligence

There is a misunderstanding about voice interaction, that is, users will subconsciously think that voice interaction and pure electric vehicles are bound together, but in fact they are not. The sensors and processors used in voice interaction are also fully applicable to fuel vehicles, which has nothing to do with the power system that drives the vehicle forward.

If the physical buttons on the central control screen are compared to human hands, then when our hands are tied, our instinct will prompt us to solve the problem by "speaking". So to some extent, voice interaction is an indispensable function of a car with a "full touch-screen central control screen". It not only provides convenience in interaction, but also serves as the basis for the popularization of artificial intelligence in the future.

With the improvement of suppliers' technical systems, major manufacturers have now achieved a very high level of "accuracy" in voice interaction. Some models (such as Xiaopeng P7) can even recognize "one sentence after another" commands, with very high efficiency and recognition.

However, the improvement in efficiency has not brought about a significant upgrade in intelligence. When artificial intelligence in cars first became popular, some netizens dubbed it "artificial retardation." The main reason was that the system could not accurately judge the user's command intentions. When the official was conducting the underlying matching, it probably did not take into account the diversity of situations.

For example, if I say "turn the air conditioner to 20 degrees" to the voice interaction, it will recognize and execute it immediately. But if I say "It's too hot, turn down the air conditioner", most cars will not respond. In addition to keyword retrieval, it also reflects the problems that still exist in the current stage of car machine artificial intelligence.

Although it sounds a bit "surreal", our ideal artificial intelligence is to be like Jarvis in Iron Man, providing all-weather assistance without blind spots. After all, driving is a slightly dangerous operation. If you are too distracted, there will inevitably be safety hazards. Therefore, if you want to make voice interaction the first choice, you still have to solve the problem of "poor recognition logic" first.

Whether from a long-term perspective or in the present, voice recognition is the best supporting solution for the "full touch-screen central control screen". It is even more exaggerated to say that in the future, even if the central control screen is gone and replaced by a new display form (such as AR, holographic projection), voice recognition will definitely exist on every new car.

●Gesture control

Compared with voice control, gesture control does not seem to be a research and development priority for manufacturers in recent years, and only a few German brands insist on it. The reason is very simple: compared with other "alternative" solutions, gesture control is the only one that cannot be mass-produced.

Note that what I mean by "cannot be mass-produced" here is not sensors and radars, but the gesture control method that manufacturers need to actively adapt to the UI. In other words, if you want to really make gesture control easy to use, it is basically equivalent to developing a new UI, and it is still based on "sensors and radars" hardware whose effects are not yet clear.

▲The soli radar on the left is very small and low cost.

Each brand has its own unique central control operating system, such as BMW's iDrive, Audi's MMI, and so on. Even if the manufacturer buys the sensor, it must adapt the gesture control code separately again. This workload can be said to be a geometric increase. So today, the gestures we see are relatively simple, such as swiping left, swiping right, clenching fists, etc. There is also a more important question, how many gestures do I need to remember to successfully complete the function operation?

If gesture control is to become the best supporting equipment for the "full touch central control screen", the first thing to solve is the problem of universality. There are two solutions:

1. All major manufacturers have tacitly standardized and unified gesture control. If BMW swipes left to turn the page, Audi swipes left to change the song. This seems difficult, but there are only a few ways to control gestures. Although engineers are in different companies, they must know which one is in line with user intuition. In recent years, Apple's iOS and Google's Android have become more and more similar, and this is the same reason.

2. Directly outsource the underlying development rights of the central control system, which not only solves the problem of gesture control, but also solves the problem of touch and voice interaction. However, the realization of this solution may be infinitely close to zero, because there are too many automobile manufacturers, including not only low, medium and high product lines, but also special models, such as SUVs, supercars, etc.

Not to mention a certain model under a brand, even the specific car series configurations under a certain model are very different. The workload is not a geometric increase, but a "philosophical" problem. Unless the system manufacturer can convince the OEM to require all versions of all its models to have the same configuration, the developers will definitely "vomit blood and die."

Simply put, the difficulty of gesture control lies not in the realization of technology, but in the unification of technology. Regardless of the future, gesture control is indeed a "icing on the cake" solution, but what we really need is "help in times of need".

●Vibration motor

Don’t underestimate this hardware. The cost of a few vibration motors may be only a few dozen yuan, but the improvement it brings is a leap forward. The most classic example is Audi’s new generation of MMI system. Whether it is e-tron, A6, or A8, their systems are equipped with transverse linear motors, and the feedback feel is almost indistinguishable from the real thing.

▲The horizontal linear motor inside the iPhone

We mentioned in the previous article that vibration motors are currently divided into three types: rotor motors, longitudinal linear motors, and transverse linear motors. To put it simply: rotor motors have the lowest cost and cheap vibration. Longitudinal linear motors have clear sections and slow start-up speed. Transverse linear motors can start and stop suddenly, respond quickly and neatly, and have strong vibration.

Most cars equipped with "full touch screen" do not consider the feedback feeling, which directly increases the risk factor. In fact, if the central control screen (including virtual buttons) does not have vibration feedback, the user needs to check whether each operation is executed properly. But driving is not like lying in bed and playing with your phone. Any distraction is unsafe, so the "feedback feeling" is actually more important than we think.

This may be the most cost-effective supporting solution for the "full touch-screen central control screen", with low cost, easy adaptation and obvious effect. In fact, every manufacturer should be aware of this problem. Of course, it is best to optimize it several times before leaving the factory. Cadillac once had a good idea and equipped it with touch feedback, but the actual experience of the CUE system can only be regrettable.

●OLED screen

As LCDs exit the stage of history, even if this article does not list OLED screens, most cars in the future will probably use this material. On the one hand, OLED material has a very high contrast ratio, which can protect human eyes in the sun and in extremely dark environments. On the other hand, its plasticity also allows it to become a future label for manufacturers like LED lights, such as bending or folding.

Theoretically speaking, all the high-tech of current smart devices will be transferred to cars over time, such as touch sampling rates above 180hz, high refresh rates above 120hz, and the latest E3 luminous materials, etc. Whether it is for driving or entertainment, the introduction of these configurations will definitely greatly improve the user experience.

▲The new generation of Cadillac Escalade has taken the lead in applying curved screens

Of course, OLED materials also have their own disadvantages. Due to the limitations of physical properties, each pixel of the OLED screen is actually a "small light bulb". If it is lit for a long time, the light bulb will "burn out", so digital enthusiasts often call it "screen burn-in".

The solution to this problem is to move pixels in real time in single-digit units to ensure that each pixel does not work for too long. From the perspective of UI design, this undoubtedly adds some difficulty to the engineers of the central control system. Fortunately, this is much simpler than "re-creating a UI system" for each car.