Accessibility Challenges in In-Car Infotainment Systems

Modern vehicles are increasingly equipped with large touchscreens and advanced “mobilitytech” apps that handle navigation, entertainment, and vehicle controls. While these infotainment systems from Tesla, Rivian, Mercedes (MBUX), Android Auto, Apple CarPlay, etc., promise convenience, they often raise significant accessibility and usability concerns. Drivers and passengers – including those with disabilities or older adults – face challenges related to touch interaction, voice control, menu discoverability, and visual design. Beyond meeting Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) principles, these systems must also minimize driver distraction per safety guidelines. This report examines real-world feedback, case studies, and design critiques to highlight key accessibility issues and best practices in in-car infotainment UX.

Touchscreen Interaction Challenges

Touchscreens have become the central interface in many cars, replacing physical knobs and buttons. Lack of tactile feedback is a fundamental issue – unlike a physical button that can be found by feel, a flat screen demands visual attention. As usability experts note, “no haptic feedback” means drivers must look at touch controls, diverting eyes from the road. This is especially problematic for users with tremors or reduced motor control, who rely on feeling a control engage.

Small touch targets and poor placement further worsen the problem. Research by the Nielsen Norman Group on Tesla’s UI found that critical controls were placed at the bottom of a large 17″ screen — far from the driver’s natural hand position on the wheel

Such placement increases the time and effort to tap a control. Moreover, Tesla in one update actually shrunk icon sizes to fit more on screen, resulting in touch targets smaller than the recommended 1 cm × 1 cm – a common mistake that “does not lead to usable designs.” Small targets demand more precision, which is difficult for drivers, let alone people with large fingers or motor impairments.

Real-world tests have quantified these drawbacks. A Swedish car magazine study timed drivers performing simple tasks (adjusting radio, climate, etc.) at 110 km/h in different cars. In a 2005 Volvo with physical knobs, tasks took ~10 seconds; but in modern cars with only touchscreens, the same tasks took up to ~45 seconds. In the worst case, a driver traveled over 1,370 meters (nearly half a mile) while completing the tasks on a big touchscreen – four times the distance needed in the old Volvo. Such prolonged eyes-off-road time is a serious safety risk and an accessibility failure for anyone who cannot operate the interface swiftly. It far exceeds the U.S. NHTSA guidance that any infotainment task should be doable with brief glances totaling under 12 seconds. The AAA Foundation similarly found that complex touch interfaces can distract drivers for up to 40 seconds (half a mile at 50 mph).

Drivers themselves have voiced frustration. Many notice that physical buttons outperform touchscreens for quick, no-look adjustments. In fact, there is growing consumer backlash – one report notes manufacturers are even reconsidering touch-only designs in favor of traditional controls due to safety and usability concerns. In forums, users often mention how “touchscreens are harder to use without getting distracted”, whereas tactile knobs allow muscle memory and peripheral vision to guide the interaction. For people with limited dexterity, hitting a moving car’s jostling touchscreen target can be extremely difficult – a physical dial is far more forgiving.

Hidden or multi-step controls on touch UIs also impede accessibility. In many systems, simple functions (e.g. adjusting fan speed or turning on headlights or wipers) are buried in sub-menus. Every extra tap or menu navigation adds cognitive load and time. A critique of Tesla’s UI noted that frequently-needed features (rear camera, phone app) were oddly tucked behind menu layers rather than made one-touch accessible. Such design increases interaction cost and especially hinders users with cognitive impairments or anyone who needs an intuitive, predictable interface. The principle of discoverability is undermined when a driver has to hunt through menus for basic functions – this is challenging for new users, older drivers, or those with memory issues who can’t easily recall where a feature resides.

In summary, heavy reliance on touchscreens without thoughtful design accommodations leads to: eyes-off-road distraction, precision difficulties, and confusing interactions. These issues highlight why touch UI in cars must be optimized for glanceability and simplicity – or augmented by alternative input methods – to be accessible and safe.

Voice Control: Promise and Limitations

Voice assistants are touted as a solution to touch interaction problems. In theory, a driver or passenger can speak commands to control navigation, media, or climate, keeping their hands free and eyes on the road. Indeed, voice control can be a game-changer for users with mobility impairments who cannot easily use touch controls. Modern infotainment systems integrate voice AI: Apple CarPlay uses Siri, Android Auto leverages Google Assistant, Mercedes’ MBUX has “Hey Mercedes,” Tesla has basic voice commands, and Rivian has even integrated Amazon Alexa for comprehensive voice control of vehicle functions.

In practice, however, voice UX has its own accessibility hurdles. Until recently, in-car voice recognition was “frankly, quite rubbish,” often failing to understand commands or accents. Users grew frustrated by the classic “Sorry, I can’t do that” response from stiff voice interfaces. Reliability issues particularly affect people with speech impairments or strong accents – if the system doesn’t recognize their voice consistently, it’s not a viable alternative. Background noise on the road can further interfere with recognition for everyone.

The good news is that voice tech is improving. Newer systems in premium cars have made strides in natural language processing. Testers report that in some 2022–2023 models (e.g. BMW’s iDrive 8 or Mercedes MBUX), the car finally “understands your accent, lets you interrupt its prompts, and actually does what you ask.”These systems (often powered by AI from companies like Cerence or even cloud services) allow more conversational commands. For example, MBUX can parse “I’m cold” to trigger increasing the temperature, rather than requiring a rigid phrase. This makes voice control far more accessible and efficient. One reviewer noted that in such cars they could “dispense with poking the touchscreen for most functions” because the voice assistant was reliable enough.

Nonetheless, limitations remain. Voice interfaces still do not cover every feature or scenario. A usability experiment by Vi Bilägare pointed out that many carmakers’ voice systems “can’t control every function and don’t always work as advertised,” which is why the test drivers avoided them in critical tasks. For instance, a driver might be able to ask for a navigation destination or to call a contact, but might not be able to voice-adjust a specific setting buried in menus. Rivian’s tech leaders have acknowledged the hit-or-miss history of automotive voice control, but they are betting on its future – “Rivian’s goal is to make every single feature currently operated via touchscreen also available by voice,” according to its software chief. This approach is promising for accessibility: if every function (from opening the trunk to adjusting mirrors) can be done via speech, a driver with limited reach or a blind passenger could operate the system more independently. Indeed, Rivian’s integration of Alexa has earned some praise from owners, one noting that it “works shockingly well for navigation, calling, car functions,” etc. Voice also offers an eyes-free option, reducing distraction when it works correctly.

However, consistency is key. Some users report mixed experiences – for example, another Rivian driver said they “got so sick of ‘I’m sorry, I can’t do that’ that I’ve stopped trying” certain voice commands. This underscores that if voice control fails even occasionally for common tasks, users (especially those with disabilities) lose trust and may abandon it. Moreover, voice interaction can be slower for some tasks (speaking a full address vs. tapping a preset) and can pose privacy concerns (speaking out loud in a car isn’t always comfortable or possible for all, such as those with speech difficulties).

In summary, voice control is a crucial accessibility feature that can mitigate the pitfalls of touch-centric design – but it must be robust. Improvements in natural language understanding and AI are making voice a viable alternative input (Mercedes is even adding ChatGPT to enhance its assistant). The best systems combine modalities: allowing a task to be done via touch, voice, or even physical controls, as the situation or user needs dictate. Designers should ensure that voice commands cover as many functions as possible and that feedback is given when a command cannot be fulfilled (with guidance on what commands work). When done right, voice UI provides a lifeline for drivers who cannot easily use screens (due to disability or simply the demands of driving).

Menu Navigation and Discoverability

Complex menu structures and obscure navigation flows are another pain point in many car UIs. An accessible infotainment system should allow users to find and activate features with minimal confusion. Yet, design critiques frequently note that some systems are “one of the most complex and complicated user interfaces ever designed” (as said of a recent BMW infotainment system). For drivers with cognitive impairments or those who are simply new to the car, deep hierarchies and non-intuitive layouts can be frustrating or unusable.

Discoverability issues arise when key functions aren’t clearly visible or are hidden behind multiple steps. For example, in Tesla’s interface, the rear-view camera (important for parking and situational awareness) used to be pinnable but later was moved under a menu, requiring extra taps to access. If a user doesn’t know where to find it, they might assume it’s not available – a clear discoverability failure. Likewise, Mercedes’ MBUX and other systems often have scrolling lists, tabs, or nested settings that can overwhelm users who aren’t tech-savvy. The Nielsen Norman analysis of Tesla’s dashboard emphasized that commonly-used controls should be “the easiest to access,” yet in practice less-used features sometimes took priority in the layout. This kind of UI design can confuse even power users, let alone someone with mild cognitive decline or memory issues who needs a consistent, simple interface.

Additionally, inconsistent interaction patterns harm usability. In one example, Tesla’s UI had different gestures for closing apps (one app closed via an “X” button, another via a swipe) — such inconsistency violates basic usability heuristics and increases the learning curve. An accessible design calls for uniform actions (e.g. all apps close the same way) so that muscle memory and learned behavior can transfer.

Visual hierarchy and feedback play a role in navigation as well. Interfaces should provide clear indications of where you are in a menu and how to go back. However, some in-car systems lack breadcrumb trails or clear “home” buttons, which can leave users lost in sub-menus. Breadcrumb navigation or a consistent back button can greatly help users retrace steps – features standard on smartphones but not always present in custom car UIs.

Real-world user feedback often centers on complaints like “it takes too many clicks to do X” or “I can’t find Y without pulling over.” This is not just inconvenience – for a driver with cognitive load from traffic, a complex sequence can be dangerous. And for a user with a memory or cognitive disability, an opaque interface might be entirely inaccessible without assistance.

To improve discoverability, some vehicles now offer intelligent shortcuts or context-based menus. For instance, certain systems will surface commonly used controls at certain times (like showing climate controls prominently on cold days). Tesla’s UI, despite criticisms, did something clever by automatically displaying the lane-assist visualization whenever the turn signal is on, because that’s exactly when the driver needs lane information. By proactively showing relevant info at the right time, it reduces the need for the user to navigate at all – an example others could follow for crucial functions.

Recommendations: To address navigation challenges, infotainment designers should simplify menu structures, use larger, well-labeled icons, and prioritize frequently-used features on the main screen or one level deep. Consistent gestures and layout across apps are key. For third-party apps integrated into car systems (Spotify, maps, etc.), platform guidelines from Apple and Google enforce some consistency, which helps – e.g. CarPlay requires a common tab bar for switching between app sections, so a driver familiar with one app can navigate another with similar structure. Car makers developing in-house UIs should similarly adhere to uniform design language. Furthermore, providing multiple ways to access a feature (touchscreen, voice command, or even steering-wheel buttons) can aid discoverability – if a user forgets where a control is in menus, they might recall a voice command or have a shortcut button available.

Visual Contrast and Readability

In the driving environment, screens face harsh lighting conditions and the user’s limited attention. High contrast, legible text, and clear graphics are essential for accessibility. Many drivers have some level of visual impairment (e.g. presbyopia in older age or color blindness), so the visual design must accommodate them in addition to meeting formal WCAG contrast ratios.

A fundamental guideline is that text and icons should have sufficient contrast against backgrounds. In fact, Google’s design rules for Android Auto explicitly require that app interface colors meet WCAG 2.0 Level AA contrast (at least 4.5:1 for normal text). This ensures readability of on-screen content at a glance. Apple’s CarPlay similarly encourages inclusive color design and even provides system default color schemes to maintain clarity. In CarPlay settings, users can invert or increase contrast if needed. These features help users with low vision or in glare conditions.

Despite guidelines, some infotainment designs have stumbled in practice. A critique of Tesla’s UI pointed out that small text placed over a busy map background was hard to read, as it “blends in with the map text” due to low contrast. Tesla’s choice to constantly show the navigation map behind other apps meant that certain UI elements (like the status bar) could be illegible in some cases. This kind of design ignores a basic accessibility need: a clean background for text. Ideally, when overlaying text on something like a map, a subtle shading or solid backing should be provided to preserve contrast (or allow the user to turn off the persistent map). Without it, even users with good eyesight can struggle, and those with vision impairments or colorblindness may find information unusable. (Not to mention, a bright map moving in the background can be distracting – Tesla’s design was noted as potentially “distracting the driver with irrelevant info” in the gaps between app windows)

Another real example comes from Volkswagen’s newer models: the touch-sensitive climate slider controls on the VW ID.3 and Seat Leon are not backlit at night — making them “completely invisible at night.” This is a glaring accessibility oversight. Drivers literally cannot see where to slide their finger in the dark, violating even the most basic contrast requirement. It demonstrates how cost-cutting (saving on illumination) directly impacted usability for all users. For someone with low vision, this could render the climate controls effectively unusable without an external light.

Glanceability is a related concept: information should be formatted for quick comprehension. Using sufficiently large font sizes and avoiding information overload on any single screen helps all users. Older adults or those with visual impairments benefit from adjustable font sizes. Some systems do allow scaling the text or choosing a “zoom” mode – for instance, CarPlay inherits the iPhone’s font size settings and has a relatively simple layout with large icons by default. In contrast, an overly dense interface with tiny text (sometimes seen in luxury cars packing the screen with data) can be problematic. Even if it technically meets contrast ratios, if text is too small or the driver has to read a paragraph, it’s not accessible in context.

Color choices should also consider color blindness. Critical indicators (navigation prompts, warnings) should not rely on color alone. Some car UIs use red/green to show connected phones or drive modes; designers must ensure there’s an icon or label so that color-blind users can distinguish states. The WCAG principles of “Perceivable” content apply here: if something is important, present it in multiple ways (text label, shape, or sound in addition to color).

Lastly, screen brightness and anti-glare properties are key for visibility. Infotainment displays should adjust to ambient light – very bright for sunny days and dim for night. High-contrast themes (e.g., dark mode with light text) often work well for automotive use, which is why Android Auto uses a true black background to minimize glare. High luminance and matte screen finishes can help combat wash-out in sunlight. A failure to account for sun glare can make a screen unreadable at critical moments (for example, if the backup camera view is washed out by sun, that’s a temporary but dangerous accessibility issue). Users have posted complaints about certain systems having “washed out” colors in CarPlay on specific car screens — indicating a mismatch between the interface design and the display’s calibration.

In summary, visual accessibility in car apps requires adherence to contrast standards, sensible use of color, large and adjustable text, and careful consideration of ambient conditions. Designs like Apple’s and Google’s follow many of these rules, whereas some custom OEM systems have had missteps. Improving this ensures that whether it’s a quick glance to check navigation or a longer look by a passenger with low vision, the content is readable and clear.

Compliance with Standards and Inclusive Design Practices

Unlike public websites or mobile apps, car infotainment systems haven’t historically been held to formal accessibility regulations. However, the principles from standards like WCAG 2.x and ISO 9241-171 (software accessibility guidance) are highly relevant and increasingly applied in this domain. Carmakers and their suppliers are beginning to recognize that designing for accessibility is both an ethical imperative and, in some regions, a legal requirement (for digital products interfacing with consumers).

WCAG guidelines emphasize making interfaces Perceivable, Operable, Understandable, and Robust (the POUR principles). Translating this to in-car systems:

• Perceivable: Information (navigation cues, media info, warnings) should be presentable in ways users can perceive – e.g., text with good contrast (as discussed) and alternatives like voice output. For instance, screen reader support is a frontier for automotive apps. Apple’s VoiceOver and Android’s TalkBack screen readers can, to some extent, read out CarPlay or Android Auto interfaces. This allows a blind passenger to navigate the CarPlay menu by touch and receive spoken feedback, similar to using a smartphone. Ensuring that on-screen elements have proper labels for these assistive technologies is crucial. CarPlay inherently leverages the iPhone’s accessibility APIs, and Android Auto similarly ties into Android’s accessibility settings. This is a major advantage of those platforms over some proprietary systems that may lack any screen reader integration. A non-sighted user has reported that CarPlay is “a compelling infotainment solution for disabled passengers” since it works seamlessly with their device’s accessibility features – something many built-in car UIs fail to do
• Operable: The system should be operable through various means and not require impossible actions. This principle maps to providing multiple input modalities (touch, voice, physical controls, gesture) so that if a user cannot operate a touchscreen due to a disability (or even thick gloves or a prosthetic), they have alternatives. Many vehicles now include steering wheel buttons or touchpads that duplicate certain infotainment functions as an operability aid. Mercedes’ MBUX, for example, can be controlled via a central touchpad or thumb controls on the wheel in addition to touch – offering flexibility. Likewise, voice control serves as an operable alternative, as discussed. Another operability consideration is time – interfaces shouldn’t require rapid timed inputs that some users can’t perform. While not often an issue in car UIs, voice menus that timeout too fast or touch prompts that vanish can frustrate users with slower reaction times.
• Understandable: Consistency and simplicity help here. If the infotainment UI uses clear icons and predictable navigation, it’s easier to understand for people with cognitive limitations or those new to the system. Avoiding jargon (e.g., say “Track” instead of an obscure symbol for track change) and providing tutorials or hints can improve understandability. Some automakers provide quick-start guides or on-screen tips for their systems; others rely on users to read manuals (which many don’t). Given that drivers can’t easily refer to a manual while operating the car, in-UI guidance and intuitive design are critical. Personalization can also aid understandability – for instance, allowing users to rearrange home screen icons or set up a custom quick-access menu of frequent functions . This way, a user can simplify their own interface to what they use most.
• Robust: This refers to compatibility with assistive tech and future-proofing. As mentioned, integration with mobile screen readers is one aspect. Another is ensuring that firmware updates to the car do not break accessibility features (a commitment to maintaining support). Also, robust design in automotive context means considering edge cases: for example, if two apps try to give audio feedback at once (navigation vs. music), how does the system prioritize or mix them so that important info is not missed – this can be seen as an accessibility consideration for cognitive load.

There are also industry-specific guidelines starting to form. The automotive industry is exploring its own accessibility standards. Companies like GM have accessibility strategy teams (as hinted by talks in 2023 on accessible vehicles), and collaborations are happening to ensure future autonomous or connected vehicles address disabled users’ needs. While those efforts often focus on physical vehicle accessibility, the digital interfaces are part of the equation.

One area where standards meet reality is safety vs accessibility trade-offs. For example, CarPlay and Android Auto enforce that certain actions (like typing out a message or entering a new navigation destination) cannot be done through the touchscreen while the car is moving – input is locked to voice commands only. This is to prevent distraction, per guidelines. However, this can sometimes frustrate users who could operate something safely as a passenger. It’s a delicate balance: systems must comply with safety regs (e.g., not displaying video to the driver while moving, limiting text entry) but also try to accommodate accessibility. An ideal solution might detect if a passenger is present and allow certain interactions for them, but such nuanced control is not common yet. Generally, erring on safety is the norm, which means accessible design must be achieved within those safety constraints. Voice control for texting is a direct result of this: you must use voice to send texts in CarPlay/AA while driving, which actually aligns with accessibility by providing a hands-free method for all.

Legal pressures are slowly increasing. The EU, for instance, has a Web Accessibility Directive that could be interpreted to include web content shown in car systems (e.g., a built-in web browser or connected services). In the US, the ADA has led to lawsuits around digital interfaces in public devices; if a car’s software is deemed a public accommodation (debatable, since it’s privately owned), there could be liability for lack of accessibility. At the very least, carmakers marketing features like emergency call services, navigation, etc., need to ensure those can be used by disabled drivers and passengers under the principle of equal access.

Inclusive design in automotive UX ultimately means involving users with disabilities in the design and testing process. Automakers that have done so often uncover issues that might be missed by non-disabled designers. Continuous user testing, as one accessibility blog noted, “helps identify areas for improvement and ensures features are effective in real-world scenarios.” For example, testing with a color-blind user might have alerted VW that their unlit sliders were invisible in certain conditions, or testing with an older adult might show that an icon is too obscure. Some companies are starting to incorporate this feedback loop, which is encouraging.

Case Examples and User Feedback

To illustrate these themes, let’s look briefly at how specific platforms fare:

• Tesla (Touchscreen-First Design): Tesla’s approach is famously minimalist – almost all controls are on the central touchscreen. This has drawn criticism from usability experts for the reasons discussed (no tactile anchors, small icons, multi-layer menus). Owners have at times echoed these concerns; yet, some Tesla drivers say they acclimate over time, learning the screen like one learns a smartphone. Tesla does include voice commands for certain functions (e.g., “Set temperature to 20 degrees”), which offers an alternative, but its voice recognition is basic compared to others. A positive in Tesla’s favor: over-the-air software updates allow them to tweak UI based on feedback. For instance, after user complaints, Tesla revised its UI to put tire pressure monitoring on the main screen in one update. However, other changes (like moving windshield wiper controls into a submenu) were a step back for accessibility. The Nielsen Norman case study on Tesla’s UI serves as a caution – it highlighted how Tesla’s design, while sleek, violated many core UX heuristics related to visibility and efficiency. Users who are elderly or have disabilities might find a Tesla’s controls daunting without significant familiarization.
• Rivian (Voice-Centric, No CarPlay): Rivian, as a newer entrant, followed Tesla’s lead with a big touchscreen and very few physical buttons. Notably, Rivian chose to exclude Apple CarPlay/Android Auto, aiming for a fully in-house system. This upset some users who preferred the familiarity and accessibility of those platforms (one Reddit comment bluntly called Rivian’s infotainment “trash” compared to CarPlay, citing interface color issues, etc.). Rivian’s defense is that they want a tightly integrated experience and believe their voice assistant (Alexa) can make up for missing features. As mentioned, Rivian is working to enable voice control for all functions, which could set a new bar if achieved. The jury is still out: early user feedback shows promise in Alexa’s capabilities, but also reveals gaps. It’s an experiment in pushing voice as the primary accessibility feature. Rivian’s approach underscores a philosophy: rather than add more buttons, enhance AI. For accessibility, this could either be brilliant (if voice is perfected) or problematic (if users end up with neither buttons nor functional voice when they need it).
• Mercedes MBUX (Multimodal): Mercedes’ MBUX system is often praised for offering multiple input methods – touchscreen, a center console touchpad/knob (in some models), steering wheel controls, and the “Hey Mercedes” voice assistant. This redundancy is good for accessibility because users can choose what works best for them. For example, a driver with limited arm mobility might use the voice assistant or the buttons on the wheel rather than touching the screen. MBUX also incorporates some natural language understanding, allowing casual phrasing (you don’t have to memorize exact commands for many functions). However, MBUX isn’t without flaws: its menus are deep, and some have noted the learning curve is steep due to the sheer number of features. Visually, Mercedes tends to use high-contrast graphical styles and relatively large text – a benefit for readability. They have even included a form of gesture control (hand-waving to open menus) in some versions, though the utility of that for accessibility is debatable. Notably, Mercedes is testing AI enhancements to voice (ChatGPT beta), indicating they see voice as key to future accessibility and ease of use.
• Apple CarPlay and Android Auto (Smartphone Extensions): These are widely considered accessible and user-friendly relative to many OEM systems. They bring the user’s familiar smartphone interface (simplified for driving) onto the car screen. A major advantage is the built-in support for accessibility features – e.g., a visually impaired person can use iPhone’s VoiceOver to have CarPlay menus read aloud, and Siri/Google Assistant are at their service for virtually all interactions. Forbes writer Steven Aquino (who is legally blind) noted that as a non-driver he still found CarPlay immensely useful as a passenger, highlighting that CarPlay makes infotainment usable for disabled passengers who “struggle to use whatever a car maker built.” The consistent design of CarPlay/AA (big grid of icons, limited distractions, voice-first messaging) adheres to many best practices. That said, CarPlay and Android Auto have constraints – they lock out certain apps and inputs for safety, and rely on the phone (so if a user doesn’t have the corresponding phone or it dies, they’re back to the car’s system). But overall, these platforms have driven the industry forward on accessibility. Google’s guidelines, for instance, require not just contrast compliance but also testing for “glanceability” — meaning an app should be usable with very short glances. This is essentially an accessibility criterion for driving. Third-party app developers on these platforms must follow template designs, which prevents egregious usability issues (you won’t find a tiny-text, low-contrast third-party app on CarPlay, because Apple wouldn’t allow it).
• Third-Party Integrated Apps: Outside of CarPlay/AA, some cars have their own app ecosystems (Tesla has Spotify, Netflix, etc.; BMW and others offer app stores for weather, parking, etc.). These apps sometimes present accessibility challenges if they weren’t tailor-made for the car interface. For example, a music streaming app on a car might not support voice search properly, forcing users to type while parked, or the text might be too small because it’s a port of a mobile interface. It’s incumbent on automakers to enforce accessibility guidelines for any app in their system. Tesla’s integrated apps generally adopt Tesla’s UI style (white text on black, fairly high contrast), but not all allow voice control. One advantage in these walled gardens is that automakers can pick and choose which apps to include – hopefully selecting those that meet usability criteria. As an example, when Tesla added Disney+ and other video apps, they ensured playback only works in park (safety) and included subtitle support (so deaf or hard-of-hearing passengers can enjoy content, aligning with accessibility best practices like providing captions). On the flip side, Tesla came under fire for a feature that allowed passengers to play video games on the front screen; even though it was meant for passengers, it raised safety concerns and was disabled – showing how not to blend entertainment with driving. The key point is, every added app or feature must be vetted for how it impacts the overall accessibility and distraction level of the system.

Conclusion

In-car infotainment systems are rapidly evolving, but they must evolve inclusively. The stakes are high: an interface that is inconvenient for a typical user may be completely unusable for someone with a disability – and in the driving context, usability issues can become safety issues for everyone. The trends indicate growing awareness. Car manufacturers are beginning to incorporate accessibility guidelines (e.g., color contrast requirements from WCAG in Android-based systems) and to offer alternative control methods like improved voice assistants and even gesture or gaze controls in experimental forms.

Real-world feedback and studies have shone a light on what doesn’t work: tiny touch targets, lack of tactile feedback, information overload, low contrast visuals, and non-intuitive menus are common pitfalls. Meanwhile, solutions are emerging: voice control is finally becoming reliable enough to reduce dependence on touch in some cars, and standards like CarPlay are demonstrating that a consistent, simplified UI with assistive tech integration makes a difference for many users. As one user’s experience summarized, when comparing an accessible solution to a typical one, the accessible one can feel “more refined” and let the user focus on the road.

Moving forward, we can expect (and should demand) that WCAG principles and universal design be baked into automotive UX from the start. This means designing for the color-blind, the hard-of-hearing (e.g., ensure navigation voice prompts are also shown visually and supplemented with vibrations if needed), those with limited mobility (voice or physical controls as options), and cognitive differences (simple, consistent layouts). Inclusive design not only benefits disabled users; as often is the case, it ends up creating a better experience for everyone. When a task that once took 4 steps is redesigned to be doable in 1 or 2 steps without looking – the busy parent, the new driver, and the senior driver all win alongside the user with a disability.

In the end, the car is not a smartphone — people cannot devote full attention to fiddling with apps while driving. Thus, the usability bar for in-car apps must be even higher than typical software. By learning from user feedback and studies, and by adhering to accessibility and safety guidelines, the industry can create infotainment systems that are both cutting-edge and truly user-friendly for all.