This reminded me of the astounding UI regression of touch screen interfaces for car audio. Perhaps some readers here will empathize with my following rant.

Before the touch screen based, "Entertainment System" trend started, car audio systems, basic ones at least, had evolved a very efficient interface for adjusting the main parameters a user would need to access.

When I'm listening in the car, in addition to the volume, which is mercifully still adjustable by knob, there are 4 basic parameters I almost always want to adjust: bass, treble, left/right pan, front speaker to back speaker balance.

In the old system, you could adjust these all with a single knob. You would click the volume to cycle through these adjustments. Very fast, all on the same easily accessible knob, tactile feedback on the button presses, and most importantly, you can make adjusts quickly by twisting the knob, and listening to make the adjustment. This twisting motion lets you quickly try different settings to find the right one.

Here's what it takes to make the same 4 settings in my current system.

Locate, visually of course, and press onscreen icon for the "Home" screen.

Locate/Press "settings" icon

Locate/press "Sound" icon. This is a small button, that requires a careful look, and accurate press to hit.

Locate/press "Equalizer" icon. This is a poorly designed icon, in which it is unclear what to actually press, requiring extra attention.

This brings up a five band "graphic EQ" onscreen interface. Now, my goal is to adjust the overall treble and/or bass level.

This has to be done by ear. Each band has a smallish + or - button next to it, which has to be pushed to make the adjustment. The touch screen is also generally not very responsive (it's non-capacitive). So it requires a steady hand, if one is driving, to accurately hit the target.

After a press, there is also a lag before the sound actually changes. To adjust the treble requires targeting four of these little buttons, to adjust the "high band," and the "mid high band" which together comprise the overall "treble" level. The resolution of the gain adjustments is also very low, so fine adjust of the EQ is impossible.

As a small interface win, the bass can be adjusted in exactly the same tedious way, from the same screen. Four non-responsive onscreen buttons, laboriously operated, while looking at the screen.

After the EQ is set, a "back" button must be located, to return to the previous screen. Once there, the button to adjust the panning and speaker button must be located/pressed.

This takes you to a screen with a graph, and a point showing the theoretical current center position of the sound.

There are again buttons to adjust the left/right balance. You have to use the onscreen buttons, the graph is not directly touchable.

The front to back balance is (not so) cleverly split into two components: The "middle" component of the stereo signal, which they label "voice." And the left/right component of the stereo signal, which is labeled "music." (I'm a sound engineer, this is my best guess at what is happening, this type of signal manipulation is common in the audio production world, where it is known as "mid/side" processing. It's a matrix transformation of the left and right signals. I've never seen it implemented in consumer audio before.)

Now, I like to the middle and side components of the stereo signal intact, and not separate them in space, which almost always degrades the sound. So. To adjust the balance between the front and rear speakers requires, again, using four onscreen buttons, and laboriously clicking them, while they jerkily respond to the clicks. To move the balance one tick towards the front speaker, press the "voice" increment button, which will throw the signal total out of whack, until you go to the "music" button, and match the adjustment. Then you can evaluate whether the new position sounds better.

Remember, in the old system, you could simply twist the knob, while listening, and move the sound from front speakers to back speakers. Even on digitally controlled systems, there were usually many more positions to try (finer resolution).

To attempt to make these adjustments while driving is take one's, and others', life into one's hands. I simply have to pull over to make the adjustments. What required eight steps, with a singlae, easy to operate while not looking, knob can now easily require 40-50 clicks on the screen. With no tactile feedback.

The end result is also inferior, as it is simply not possible to try nearly as many different combinations of these four main parameters, which all interact with each other.

Some readers might question why a listener would need to bother with this, and I'm sure that most drives don't bother at all, as the interface is almost unusable.

The reason I like to fuss with these parameters is that I enjoy music, and the car playback system is a highly compromised, and ever changing listening environment.

The speed of the car, the weather, the road conditions, the passengers, all change the perception of sound, so I will tweak, to optimize this limited environment (and usually limited quality system.) In addition, the variation in sound and production values of different songs/albums/artists is exaggerated by the car listening environment.

If your listening to something like Spotify, this variation will make some songs hard to hear clearly.

Interestingly, radio stations employ extreme signal processing to minimize this effect. So listening to music from the radio will be a more consistent experience.

Anyhow, that is my lament. If there is one environment that a touch screen interface should never be used,it is a car.

One factor driving this terrible trend is, of course, the adding of increased functionality to these entertainment systems. This is an inherently challenging problem when it comes to UI, and it seems the designers and engineers have simply given up on designing interfaces that are usable for the given use case. It really blows my mind.

Thanks for reading! I feel better now.