Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the concept of "anti-human design" in automobiles, categorizing designs into two types: those that compromise user experience for aesthetics or cost, and those that, while seemingly counterintuitive, are based on engineering logic or industry standards [3]. Group 1: Unreasonable Designs - Hidden door handles are a popular design among new energy vehicles, reducing drag coefficient by 0.003 Cd, which translates to a minimal energy saving of 0.15-0.18 kWh per 100 km, but they pose usability issues in cold weather and emergency situations [6][7]. - The trend of eliminating physical buttons in favor of touchscreens can create safety hazards, as drivers must navigate menus to adjust settings, which detracts from driving focus [9][10]. - The removal of physical "close" buttons for electric tailgates in favor of remote or sensor activation can lead to awkward situations when the sensor fails [12]. Group 2: Reasonable Designs - The gear shift logic of placing the R (reverse) gear in front of the D (drive) gear is based on long-standing conventions that enhance usability and safety during parking maneuvers [14][16]. - The design of rear seat angles, which may feel uncomfortable, is actually intended to improve comfort and safety by preventing occupants from sliding during collisions [20][23]. - The thickening of the A-pillar for structural integrity in collisions is a necessary compromise for safety, despite creating blind spots [24][26]. - Delayed response in automatic window controls is a safety feature designed to prevent accidents involving children or pets, reflecting a preference for safety over speed [29][30]. Group 3: Impact of Smart Technology - The rise of smart technology in vehicles has led to a new wave of interface confusion, as many designs prioritize aesthetics over practical usability, often neglecting the driving context [32]. - Market feedback is increasingly influencing design choices, leading to a return of some physical controls and a shift away from purely aesthetic features like hidden door handles [33]. - The effectiveness of a design should be judged not just on its innovation but on its understanding of user needs and daily usability [35].

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the concept of "anti-human design" in automobiles, categorizing designs into two types: those that compromise user experience for aesthetics or cost, and those that, while seemingly counterintuitive, are based on engineering logic or industry standards [1][36]. Group 1: Unreasonable Designs - Hidden door handles are popular among new energy vehicles for their aesthetic appeal and slight reduction in drag coefficient, but the energy savings are minimal, leading to user inconvenience in cold weather and potential safety issues [3][4][5]. - The trend of eliminating physical buttons in favor of touchscreens can create safety hazards, as drivers must navigate menus instead of using simple buttons to adjust settings [7][8]. - The removal of physical "close" buttons for features like electric tailgates can lead to awkward user experiences when the sensor fails [10]. Group 2: Reasonable Designs - The gear shift logic of placing the reverse (R) gear in front of the drive (D) gear is based on historical conventions that enhance usability and safety during parking maneuvers [11][12]. - The design of rear seat angles, which may feel uncomfortable, is actually intended to improve comfort and safety by preventing passengers from sliding during collisions [15][18][21]. - The thickening of the A-pillar, while reducing visibility, is a necessary compromise for structural integrity and safety during collisions, with modern technology providing solutions to mitigate blind spots [23][25][28]. Group 3: Safety Considerations - Delays in automatic window operations are designed to prevent accidents, particularly for children and pets, reflecting a safety-first approach in engineering [29][30]. - The article emphasizes that many designs perceived as "anti-human" are actually rooted in safety, comfort, and regulatory compliance, highlighting the importance of understanding the rationale behind these choices [33][36].