Have we reachedpeak screen?

The other day, I was dropping off some old photos to be digitized at Chaos to Memories, a local business owned by Adam Pratt. We got to chatting about my UX business, and he immediately brought up an article he’d read about a new vehicle with a massive wraparound display. The problem? Depending on where you positioned the steering wheel, a good portion of that beautiful screen was blocked from view.

His reaction was something along the lines of, “That’s the kind of thing I think about when I think of UX.”

And honestly, he wasn’t wrong.

It got us talking about cars, screens, and how sometimes the simplest interactions are the ones we miss the most.

When did everything become a screen?

I’m currently on my fifth MINI Countryman. Clearly, I’m a fan. And I actually really like the one I have now. It strikes a nice balance between digital displays and physical controls.

But recently, when mine was in the shop, I was given the latest model as a loaner. And let’s just say, I wasn’t sold.

The newer version has taken a pretty dramatic leap toward digital, replacing many of the physical controls with a screen. And while the technology is impressive, I found myself missing the simplicity of the knobs and buttons I was used to.

Can I just have a knob?

There’s a lot you can do with these newer interfaces, and much of it can be personalized to your preferences. But personalization also requires effort. You have to figure out how you want things to work before they work the way you want them to.

Sometimes I don’t want to configure an experience. I just want to use it.

Later that day, Adam sent me another article, this time about Porsche bringing back an analog tachometer. It was an interesting follow-up to our conversation. While some manufacturers are pushing further into screens, others seem to be rediscovering the value of physical controls.

More capability doesn’t always mean a better experience.

Coincidentally, we’d recently worked on a UX project involving a physical product with two potential interface directions.

One was primarily touchscreen-driven, offering more information, flexibility, and options. The other was centered around a physical knob, with a supporting screen that provided just enough information to guide the interaction.

The touchscreen concept was positioned as the more premium experience. The knob-driven version was the more economical option.

Naturally, I started with the touchscreen. There was more to design, more to explore, and more functionality to account for.

But something interesting happened as we worked through both concepts.

I found myself gravitating toward the simpler, knob-driven experience.

There was something satisfying about how direct it was. Fewer decisions. Less navigation. A clearer path to accomplishing what you came to do.

It wasn’t necessarily the more impressive interface. But I started to wonder whether it might actually be the more effective one.

And that’s an important distinction.

Just because we can, should we?

This question feels especially relevant as AI continues to change how we design and build products.

We’re entering a world where generating interfaces, prototyping concepts, and introducing new functionality is becoming dramatically faster and more accessible.

And that’s exciting. I’m genuinely enthusiastic about what AI makes possible for our industry.

But I also wonder whether we’re about to see an explosion of increasingly complex experiences simply because creating them has become easier.

And while we may be able to build and release new features faster than ever, we’re also asking a lot of the people using them. Every new feature, interaction, or change comes with an expectation that users will learn, adapt, and keep up. Just because we can move faster doesn’t necessarily mean they want to.

More screens. More features. More personalization. More possibilities.

At the same time, are people starting to crave the opposite?

Something tangible. Something intuitive. Something that doesn’t require a tutorial, a setup process, or three taps to accomplish what used to take a simple turn of a dial.

Maybe we’re approaching an interesting inflection point where the most innovative experience isn’t necessarily the most technologically advanced one.

Maybe sometimes it’s the one that knows when to get out of the way.

It’s not analog versus digital. It’s about intention.

I don’t think the answer is to abandon screens or start putting knobs back on everything.

There are experiences where a touchscreen is absolutely the right solution. Others where physical controls make more sense. And plenty where the best answer is a thoughtful combination of both.

The real question is whether we’re choosing the interaction that best serves the person using the product, or simply defaulting to what’s technologically possible.

As designers, that’s where our judgment becomes increasingly important.

Because as the tools make it easier to create more, the ability to recognize when less is actually better might become one of our most valuable skills.

And who knows? Maybe the next big innovation really is just a knob.