Can intelligent cars feel intuitive?

The term 'increasingly' has exploded of late, often lazily attributed to even minor shifts in industry trends. But modern cars are indeed becoming increasingly complex and digitally sophisticated, posing a genuine challenge as brands move forward: how can designers introduce new technology without muddying the long-accepted norms of the driving experience, and is there a way to empower rather than confuse?

For a panel of UX design leaders from General Motors, Stellantis North America and Ford, the answer begins with understanding people and basic human needs, rather than focusing on what technology can do. From the physical controls drivers instinctively reach for to the digital interfaces they use every day, the aim is to create vehicles that feel intuitive and useful — not just a gadget count. 

To dig into this thorny topic, Car Design News was joined on stage by Sebastian Bauer, executive director of human interface design at General Motors, Bill Zhang, head of user experience at Stellantis North America, Aaron Denewth, chief physical interaction designer at Ford and Christian Dodd, senior design director, digital product design at Ford.

A key takeaway was that as the boundaries between physical and digital interaction continue to blur, progress could be measured by how little effort is required by the driver. 

Start with people, not technology

The opening point was simple: what makes something human centric? For GM's Bauer, designers must resist being absorbed by technological possibilities of new features that they lose sight of the people using them.

He pointed out that drivers face a wide range of circumstances on the road, from relaxed journeys to stressful commutes, and often while tired or distracted. An interface that appears straightforward in a studio may feel very different behind the wheel. “It starts with the customer — the human,” Bauer said, warning that designers can become “a little bit snowblind” when concentrating too heavily on the technology available to them.

The task can be boiled down to understanding what people need and design accordingly, which feels quite obvious. But in automotive applications, that means accounting for the cognitive demands of driving and ensuring that digital and physical interactions help people make appropriate decisions, particularly in high-pressure situations.

Ford's Dodd explained that design teams are constantly evaluating this during the course of a vehicle's development cycle — years — and that customer involvement cannot end once an initial idea has been signed off. “Designers should put concepts in front of customers, assess whether they work, and repeat the process as the product evolves," he affirmed. 

If the answer is 'because we can', my suggestion is: you probably shouldn’t

Dodd also drew on his earlier experience at Whirlpool designing kitchen appliances. Here, observing people cooking in their own homes revealed problems that might otherwise have been missed. While manufacturers could compare features offered by rival brands, customers were often more concerned with day-to-day frustrations (an awkward handle) to long-term issues (the finish of a pan deteriorating.)

In the context of the car, we can deduct that a deep understanding of real behaviour is more valuable than going toe-to-toe with a competitor’s feature list. Research must reveal what genuinely matters to people, the panel agreed, including the everyday irritations they may have come to accept as inevitable.

Confidence — the real test of usability

Stellantis' Zheng is fairly new to the role but has recognised some practical means of evaluating a car's interface: put yourself in the position of someone encountering it for the first time. Having worked across exterior and interior design before moving into UX, he described how visiting dealerships and speaking to sales and parts staff across China and North America helped him understand these early interactions.

It experience reinforced the importance of empathy and cultural awareness, he explained, and highlighted nuanced expectations across different generations and markets: familiarity with physical controls, touchscreens and other digital interactions can vary considerably.

Ford's Deneweth agreed that the first impression of a car can leave a big impression, recalling a recent situation of his own. "The rental-car experience offers a useful test of whether a design is truly intuitive. Drivers may be unfamiliar with the vehicle, tired after a long flight and under pressure to get moving," he said. “The question is: can I get in this in the dark and figure it out without swearing too much?"

He added that although exterior styling may attract someone to a car, the quality of the interaction determines whether that initial appeal lasts.“The aesthetic design is what attracts you to the product. But the interaction is the relationship,” Deneweth said.

Innovation with purpose

Brands have always looked to differentiate their products, and UX is no different. New displays, touchpoints and software can contribute to a distinctive brand identity, but designers should ultimately strive to create a better experience as the foundation.

GM's Bauer argued that some functions should remain familiar because they are time critical: indicators, wipers, climate controls and other frequently used functions are not necessarily opportunities for radical reinvention. “Predictability begets confidence; confidence begets trust,” he said, adding that designers should ask themselves 'why' they are introducing a change. “If the answer to that question is 'because we can', my suggestion is: you probably shouldn’t.”

We have a responsibility to take the technologies that are available, and that are coming, and view that through the lens of our customers

This is ultimately true of all interactions with the car and the UX as a whole. Innovation should solve or improve as opposed to complicate and obsfucate. Deneweth reinforced this idea: "The best products that we all love are instantly usable. You've got to be able to figure it out. That's the expectation and that's the goal.”

He jokingly added that “I think my career has just all been driven by aggravation” through the course of identifying certain pain points in the user experience.

Design for the customer of tomorrow

The car industry has never moved quicker which makes it all the more challenging to define who you are designing for. There is both the customer of today and tomorrow to consider, and expectations can vary significantly over the course of several years.

While it is a murky topic, Dodd suggested that designing exclusively for current customers risks overlooking the changing ways people can — and will — interact with machines. It feels like there is a parallel with that famous Henry Ford quote about faster horses — you know the one. "Voice control, generative interfaces and other emerging forms of interaction may become increasingly important, while conventions familiar to one generation may feel outdated to another," he explained. 

This creates a tension between familiarity and change. Drivers need continuity in essential functions, but they also expect technology to evolve alongside the rest of their digital lives. Apple CarPlay and Android Auto shapes much of the digital experience today, both of which were developed outside the vehicle manufacturer’s direct control. Dodd noted that OEMs must consider how these systems coexist with in-house interfaces and intelligent assistants for a coherent overall experience.

Bauer agreed and stressed that customers should never feel the seams between different design teams or systems. "In a vehicle, our customers should never be able to tell whether the front passenger infotainment was designed by a different team to the instrument cluster."

Heritage and curiosity can work together

Start-ups are fast, legacy players are slow — that is how the narrative has gone. On the other hand, established brands have a wealth of heritage to lean on, while new entrants must build from scratch. Does that mean there is a choice between preserving heritage and embracing new technology?

Bauer thinks not and suggested that a company's legacy can provide a foundation for innovation rather than an obstacle to it: "It's about having curiosity and an innovative spirit, looking at your heritage and then thinking how we can push that."

The panel agreed that curiosity is essential in finding new possibilities, and even companies with more than a century of history (as indeed is the case for each brand on stage), designers should continue exploring and challenging convention. “We have a responsibility to take the technologies that are available, that are coming, and really view that through the lens again of our customers,” he said.

Give UX a seat at the table

What then of the nature of human-centric design? How does this look within the studio and the wider organisation? Zheng acknowledged that UX can struggle to gain the same prominence as exterior and interior styling, despite its considerable influence on long-term customer satisfaction.

UX teams should have the authority to contribute early and not after after major design decisions have already been made. The experience should shape the product architecture and direction from the outset, made possible through a culture in which different teams can present their views openly and disagree constructively. “The user experience and how you interact with the vehicle is equally as important, if not more, in the longevity of your ownership,” Zheng said.

That principle brings the discussion back to its central message: human-centred design is very much a 'holistic' and broad-reaching ideology. It is an ongoing commitment to understanding people and make deliberate decisions that better serve them. All this cannot be done in isolation, and Deneweth captured the value of working together: “When we start a project, I don't always know where we'll end up, but through collaboration, we'll find the right answer.”