Here’s To The Death of Settings

August 2025

I believe that the majority of OEMs know exactly how a vehicle ought to be tuned, operated, and how it should respond in order to maximize passenger safety, comfort, productivity, and overall usefulness.

However, across the whole industry, the company cultures of automotive OEMs decided that providing drivers lots of choices was a good thing. Give them a few parameters to choose from to adjust functional behavior and features. In principle, this seems like a good idea, but now many companies offer this abundance of choice and optionality based on the technology and engineering of the systems themselves, and not based on what is best for the driver and passengers.

Don’t like the layout, then adjust it. Don’t like the sensitivity, then adjust it. Don’t like the sound of the warning, then change it. Don’t like those safety systems, then turn them Off.

When I refer to Settings, I am not referring less to “adjustments” made to your mirrors, or the steering wheel position, or seat position, or climate temperature, or the drive mode that you choose. I am referring to the many selectable parameters that can usually be found deeper in the user interface. They are software-like choices acknowledged by check boxes and radio buttons that affect parameters like timing, or brightness, or sensitivity, or feedback type, or sounds, or whether a feature is turned On or Off. They are often referred to as “Set it and forget it” choices, and like much of the technology integrated into modern vehicles, there are too many of them and they get very little driver attention.

Unfortunately, in regards to the relationship between you and your personal vehicle, this is the world that we live in. And this is especially the case as our vehicles try to strike a balance between manual control and increased automation. However, at this point in vehicle technology evolution, I think that Settings are overrated and way over used. For some “first surface” controls, that over-baked optionality is felt in the sheer number of choices or the levels of granularity presented. Examples include temperature choices that have 0.5 degree increments or 10-levels of fan speed. Or when the AUTO button of the climate system (HVAC) has 3-5 levels. These feel like technology capability driven decisions and values, rather than humanistic ones.

The Backstory

Vehicle functionality has been on a continuously growing trajectory since their inception. Core functionality evolved from mechanical and analogue to digital and automated. And now, many of the vehicle settings in modern vehicles feel like they exist because they can exist. With the primary rationalization being “all drivers are different, so we want to give them choices”. And by choices, the manufacturers mean 2-3-4 different adjustments or options. The historical reference that I often refer to is that this confusion started with Seek, Tune, and Scan.

The differences between today’s Settings / Adjustments are often very subtle - in fact too subtle for the user to appreciate the difference or discern a preferred choice. It is a rare driver or owner that will cycle through them and spend time experiencing all of the Settings’ parameters and then circle-back to their preferred. Settings are often examined and considered during the first 3-weeks of ownership. They are often chosen while the vehicle is stationary even though they may affect the experience of driving. Drivers anticipate and imagine what each Setting choice is going to be like. Or the Settings are never adjusted, and the “factory Setting” (or default) is never changed.

Drivers often look for real world metaphors to make comparisons, but really don’t have any. One of my favorite use quotes during past research was, “I like somewhat spicy food, so I chose the Medium Setting.” The metaphors are especially not so apparent for human-machine intervention. “I don’t want to be told what to do.”

Reflections on Past Products with Minimal or No Settings

These are some devices and services that introduced new paradigms of interaction and defined new product markets - while being useful, easy to use, fit for purpose, and sometimes considered indispensable by their owners.

Apple iPod (especially the classic Click Wheel era): These devices focused heavily on simplicity, with the click wheel providing a very limited, but effective, way to interact with the device and its functions.
Amazon Echo (and most Smart Speakers): These devices rely heavily on voice control and have minimal physical buttons or menus. They are designed for ease of use, with the primary interaction method being spoken commands.
Disposable Cameras: These are designed for point-and-shoot simplicity, with virtually no settings for the user to adjust.
Google Search Engine: While it has some behind-the-scenes algorithms to tailor results, the core search experience does not require users to adjust settings. And now the same is happening for interaction with AI models.
WhatsApp Messenger: Focuses on core functionality with minimal settings, prioritizing ease of use for messaging and calling.
Electronic Appliances (e.g., Toasters, Coffee Makers): Many household appliances are designed for simplicity with limited functionalities and few or no settings beyond basic On/Off or timer functions. Refrigerators seem to be the exception as some consumer electronic companies try to make them the “information hub” of the family and home itself.
Ebook Readers. These often display information in a straightforward way, providing the right info with each click, without needing users to configure them. They are designed to be used as-is, with no customer-facing settings or customization options.
While Apple iPhones have settings, their core success comes from their intuitive design and ease of use, with consumers often stating that the features "just work" - without requiring user configuration.

The success of these products often stem from prioritizing simplicity and ease of use over extensive customization. Many users prefer a product that just "works" and requires minimal effort to set up and use. That said, modern vehicles are probably the most complex products that we own - serving as our on-demand robot, a high-tech living space, a cloud service delivery platform, our intelligent digital companion, and a primary life (and sometimes, work) enabler. These complex mobility devices are then influenced by our unique physical, mental, and emotional states at any given time. Complex machine and human parameters contribute to the experience of each dynamic driving experience and journey.

By focusing on providing the best default option, Designers, Developers, and Engineers can save users from the burden of making multiple choices and imagining their effects, which can be unclear and overwhelming. Automotive manufacturers could have adopted this philosophy, but culturally chose not to. Unpacking those dynamics and reasons would require another different paper altogether. Decision fatigue is coming for all of us if you don’t already have it, and the response can be more dire than just not adjusting Settings. It is to stop trying and using the product, service, feature, or function altogether.

The Findability & Comprehension of Settings

Domain settings were originally associated directly with domain interaction screens. Audio adjustments were found on the Audio control screen. Over time, as Settings proliferated and moved into realms not associated with Infotainment or Driver Assistance, they became a high-level category. And then the domains had to be repeated within the Settings category.

The problem: Where should all Settings exist and how should they be structured?

Should each page or topic have its own Settings accessible on the functional page (like Audio controls with access to Settings on the same page) (or)
Should all Settings across different functional domains be centrally located and grouped in one place?
Or should they be structured in both locations and/or in some sort of Hybrid configuration?
Safe to say that there is no standard and that each of these different information architectures can be found in different vehicle types. Imagine a future where you don’t have to guess what a Settings category name contains within it.
And if the feature has no clear priority Category association, then it gets put in a more or less meaningless bucket of stuff that is named “General” or “Other” or “Personal” or “Information” or “Convenience”.
And in modern software-defined vehicles (lke Teslas), you will most likely find a universal search tool to find that esoteric setting. However, you have to know what “Joe Mode” does.

And if you have participated over the past 15-years in in-person, remote, and online usability testing, card-sorting studies, nomenclature association studies, cognitive clutter studies and the like, then you have seen and felt (and tried to fix) the confusion that this has caused. Personally, I remember facilitating numerous sessions of an in-vehicle infotainment system in which numerous users (or study participants) thought that the Settings domain categories were the primary functional navigation.

At first, I read this list of top 10 tasks most frequently performed by drivers and thought that only one, Driver Assistance, is partially affected by electronic or digital Settings. In order of frequency, these tasks include 1) using direction indicators / turn signals, 2) adjusting front windshield wiper speed, 3) adjusting radio volume, 4) positioning the sun visor, 5) activating the rear windshield wiper, 6) adjusting temperature, 7) adjusting fan speed, 8) switching radio stations or audio modes, 9) adjusting rearview mirrors, and 10) activating / de-activating driver assistance. Much to my surprise, I was able to find setting adjustments for all of them accept the positioning of the sun visor. No doubt, this too will come soon.

Most analysts expect for conversational voice interaction to become our primary vehicle interaction modality. However, a large global population still does not find talking your vehicle to be natural or preferred when given other choices. Imagine getting dynamic voice instruction of Eco-Driving Coaching tips while on your first road trip with a new vehicle. “I noticed that we’ll be on this road for a while, would you like to learn more about Driver Assistance and some related Eco-Driving tricks?”

The assumption is that consumers value them. But how does that value translate into anything tangible or measurable, like revenue and/or brand loyalty?

A question that I often pose is, which is worse?:

Not liking the design of a feature but learning to live with it (or)
Knowing that a feature can be adjusted, wanting to adjust it, but not knowing how to adjust it (or)
Knowing how to adjust a feature’s Setting, but not liking or preferring any of the options.

For a long time, I have been waiting for OEM’s to remove various Settings because they are not readily understood by the mass audience (or) to make dynamic changes to the availability of Settings once they realize that they are only used during that first week of ownership and never adjusted again over the history of the vehicle. I believe that in the longitudinal tracking of vehicle use, there comes a point in the lifetime of a vehicle where these software-like nuanced settings are no longer relevant to the driver. This sounds like an opportunity for OTA removal and the reduction of cognitive clutter.

The Future:

The current amount of choice and variability offered to drivers is already impossible to understand with total accuracy. Some OEMs have reached the point where there is a diminishing return and maybe an actual negative effect to adding more choices or Settings. Add more choice at your own risk.

Despite their complexity, modern vehicles could be designed without Settings - based on the single best way to complete a task or action. Including the best response, the best feedback, and a flow that is easy to learn. In this era of data capture, analytics, and dynamic learning and adjustment, the optimal patterns will be clear, but will OEMs lessen the number of choices and optionality? This uniqueness and distinguishing vehicle differences could also be a point of substantial brand loyalty and desirability. The coming maturity of software-defined vehicles with flexible and extensible service architectures will open up new opportunities for innovative services, experiences, and ecosystems. Speed, iteration, and continuous learning will need to be balanced with measured customer value.

Now, we look to AI and the intermingling of agentic agents working together to complete actions and solve problems for us. Will collaborative agents significantly enhance the next generation of service APIs and seamless interaction? Unfortunately, I am afraid that we will soon be “adjusting the tension levels” of each of the personality traits of our in-vehicle conversational AI agents. I also hear all about how dozens of OEMs are going to be positioning and utilizing AI, but I haven’t yet heard one that promises to do away with Settings.

Perhaps the next step is the maturity of my Personal Profile and the removal of all Settings from the vehicle and onto the App (& within my profile)? User Profiles continue to grow in complexity, including storage of seat position, radio preferences, sound and navigation preferences, screen layouts, and more. However, connection reliability remains mediocre and spotty at best. It is no small task to accurately configure and reconcile your Personal Profile across multiple channels (vehicle, app, web, etc.), diverse network and connection types (bluetooth, tethered, WIFI, etc.), and device storage types (phone, vehicle, key fob, carabiner, etc.) correctly and consistently.

And then, who is going to be the first OEM to design & develop & market a car that has No Settings? IM Motors, in partnership with Alibaba’s Zebra Network Technology Co., is at least hinting at this future in the recent launch of the IM AIOS Smart Cockpit. Dubbed “no touch, no app”, it introduces AI agents to replace traditional app-based interactions. The idea of scenario-based services is not new, but the coordination and collaboration of multiple agents may hold promise. Most global OEMs and big tech companies are making references to this future - so we’ll see. In the meantime, the tagline does not make the experience.

Will Dynamic Conversation & Machine Learning Ever Replace Settings?

We could imagine that your future new vehicle could remain in “collaborative learning” mode for the initial say 5-7k of miles driven. If you experience something that you don’t like or are uncomfortable with, then you enter into “Preference Adjustment mode” and describe the situation. The vehicle brain then revisits your Driving Profile and does some fine-tuning on the next few journeys.

While driving, the vehicle senses and records how you (the driver) react to vehicle behaviors
The vehicle brain records your reaction and makes slight adjustments to vehicle behaviors
The vehicle may tell you (e.g., transparency) or may not tell you about those changes
The vehicle may make recommendations or give hints, like saying “Did you know that by pushing button X …” (already happening via Google)

Within some gaming platforms, AI world modeling systems are now dynamically auto generating worlds while you navigate. Imagine a future intelligent vehicle / cockpit that dynamically, continuously adjusts based on who is driving and the context of the world - sensing and reacting to what both the vehicle and the driver are experiencing together. And your grandkids ask you, “Did you really manually adjust and select Settings in your car?”