Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The “DAUX Framework”: A Need-Centered Development Approach to Promote Positive User Experience in the Development of Driving Automation

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
User Experience Design in the Era of Automated Driving

Part of the book series: Studies in Computational Intelligence ((SCI,volume 980))

  • 2496 Accesses

Abstract

In recent years, the goal of companies to retain customers through good usability has evolved into a more holistic view to enhance the user experience. The purely pragmatic view is to be extended by hedonic aspects in order to touch the users also on the emotional level. Although everyone talks about user experience (UX), it still seems to be just “old wine in new bottles”. Despite extensive UX theory research in recent years, UX is still often used as a synonym for usability. Due to increasing vehicle automation, the automotive industry now also has to rethink its (long) existing processes and develop new strategies in order to keep its customers loyal to the brand in the future. Traffic will change fundamentally—and drivers will often neither drive themselves nor own a vehicle. With this book chapter we want to create the basis for this transformation process. After an overview of the current state of UX practice in the development of user interfaces for vehicle automation, the topic is systematically unfolded from the perspective of academia (literature studies) and industry (expert interviews). Based on the findings, the “DAUX framework” is presented as part of a need-centered development approach. It serves as a structured guide on how to define and evaluate UX in consideration of the challenges of automated driving. For this purpose, it provides guidelines on how (a) relevant needs for hypotheses/UI concept development can be identified and (b) UX can be evaluated by triangulating behavioral-, product-, and experience-oriented methods. To demonstrate its potential, the framework is applied in three case studies, each addressing a different level of automation (SAE L2, SAE L3, and SAE L4). This demonstrates that the “DAUX framework” promotes a holistic view of UX to encourage the development of UIs for driving automation. In particular, it is intended to help resolve technical constraints faced by designers and developers in the different levels of automation with the aim to create a positive UX.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In order to be consistent with recent standards/recommendations and precise with regard to the addressed automation level, “driving automation” instead of the better-known term “automated driving” is used for the rest of this chapter. Automated driving is deprecated since the 2018 edition of [1] and replaced by “driving automation” to allow for a more clear differentiation between automated driving features (“Automated Driving System”, perform all or part of the DDT on SAE levels 3–5) or any driver support feature (“driving automation systems”, SAE levels 0–5).

  2. 2.

    https://www.car-hmi.com/sessions/pre-event-method-design-workshop-designing-for-automated-vehicles-ux-design-methods-put-to-test/.

References

  1. SAE International, Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to Driving Automation Systems for On-Road Motor Vehicles. SAE On-Road Automated Vehicle Standards Committee (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Watzenig, D., Horn, M.: Introduction to automated driving. In: Automated Driving, pp. 3–16. Springer (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Gasser, T.M., Arzt, C., Ayoubi, M., Bartels, A., Bürkle, L., Eier, J., Flemisch, F., Häcker, D., Hesse, T., Huber, W., et al.: Legal consequences of an increase in vehicle automation. Bundesanstalt für Straßenwesen (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Schmidt, A., Herrmann, T.: Intervention user interfaces: a new interaction paradigm for automated systems. Interactions 24(5), 40–45 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Banks, V.A., Stanton, N.A.: Keep the driver in control: automating automobiles of the future. Appl. Ergon. 53, Part B, 389–395 (2016). [Online]. Available: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0003687015300247

  6. Hartwich, F., Witzlack, C., Beggiato, M., Krems, J.F.: The first impression counts–a combined driving simulator and test track study on the development of trust and acceptance of highly automated driving. Transp. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav., 65, 522–535 (2019). [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847816306489https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1369847816306489

  7. Ayoub, J., Zhou, F., Bao, S., Yang, X.J.: From manual driving to automated driving. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications–AutomotiveUI ’19, ser. AutomotiveUI ’19, ACM, pp. 70–90. ACM Press, New York (2019). [Online]. Available: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=3342197.3344529

  8. Frison, A.-K., Pfleging, B., Riener, A., Jeon, M.P., Alvarez, I., Ju, W.: Workshop on user-centered design for automated driving systems. In: AutomotiveUI’17 Adjunct, September 24–27, 2017, Oldenburg, Germany, p. 6. ACM (2017). [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3131726.3131734

  9. Braun, M., Völkel, S.T., Hussmann, H., Frison, A.-K., Alt, F., Riener, A.: Beyond transportation. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications–AutomotiveUI ’18, pp. 175–180. ACM Press, New York (2018). [Online]. Available: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=3239092.3265963

  10. Eckoldt, K., Knobel, M., Hassenzahl, M., Schumann, J.: An experiential perspective on advanced driver assistance systems. it-Inf. Technol. Methoden und Innov. Anwendungen der Informatik und Informationstechnik 54(4), 165–171 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K., Roto, V., Hassenzahl, M.: Now let’s do it in practice: user experience evaluation methods in product development. In: CHI’08 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 3961–3964. ACM (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Pettersson, I., Frison, A.-K., Lachner, F., Riener, A., Nolhage, J.: Triangulation in UX studies: learning from experience. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference Companion Publication on Designing Interactive Systems, pp. 341–344. ACM (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Hassenzahl, M.: User experience (UX): towards an experiential perspective on product quality. In: Proceedings of the 20th Conference on l’Interaction Homme-Machine, pp. 11–15. ACM (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Tractinsky, N.: The usability construct: a dead end? Hum.-Comput. Interact. 33(2), 131–177 (2018). [Online]. Available: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07370024.2017.1298038

  15. Hassenzahl, M.: The thing and i: understanding the relationship between user and product. In: Funology, pp. 31–42. Springer (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Wright, P., McCarthy, J., Meekison, L.: Making sense of experience. In: Funology, pp. 43–53. Springer (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Norman, D.A.: Emotional Design: Why We Love (or hate) Everyday Things. Basic Civitas Books (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mahlke, S., Thüring, M.: Studying antecedents of emotional experiences in interactive contexts. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 915–918. ACM (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Pettersson*, I., Lachner*, F., Frison*, A.-K., Riener, A., Butz, A.: A bermuda triangle? A review of method application and triangulation in user experience evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, p. 461. ACM (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Law, E.L.C., Roto, V., Hassenzahl, M., Vermeeren, A.P., Kort, J.: Understanding, scoping and defining user experience: a survey approach. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 719–728. ACM (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Law, E.L.C.: The measurability and predictability of user experience. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems, pp. 1–10. ACM (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Roto, V.: Commentary: actionable constructs for practitioners. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 33(2), 198–200 (2018). [Online]. Available: http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=afh&AN=126975207&site=ehost-live

  23. Bargas-Avila, J.A., Hornbæk, V.: Old wine in new bottles or novel challenges: a critical analysis of empirical studies of user experience. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2689–2698. ACM (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Pettersson, I.: Eliciting user experience information in early design phases: the care approach to in-vehicle ux. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Industrial and Materials Science, Chalmers University of technology (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  25. Owens, J.M., Antin, J.F., Doerzaph, Z., Willis, S.: Cross-generational acceptance of and interest in advanced vehicle technologies: a nationwide survey. Transp. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 35, 139–151 (2015). [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847815001710

  26. Schouten, P.: Why UX is booming in the automotive industry (2018). Retrieved 26 Feb. 2020 from https://uxdesign.cc/why-ux-is-booming-in-the-automotive-industry-6794eb599a51. [Online]. Available: https://psychologydictionary.org/primary-task/

  27. Kun, A.L.: Human-machine interaction for vehicles: review and outlook. Found. Trends Hum.-Comput. Interact. 11(4), 201–293 (2018). [Online]. Available: http://www.nowpublishers.com/article/Details/HCI-069

  28. Forster, Y., Frison, A.-K., Wintersberger, P., Geisel, V., Hergeth, S., Riener, A.: Where we come from and where we are going. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications Adjunct Proceedings–AutomotiveUI ’19, pp. 140–145. ACM, ACM Press, New York (2019). [Online]. Available: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=3349263.3351341

  29. Featherstone, M.: Automobilities: an introduction. Theory Cult. Soc. 21(4–5), 1–24 (2004). [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276404046058

  30. Pettersson, I., Ju, W.: Design techniques for exploring automotive interaction in the drive towards automation. In: Proceedings of the 2017 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. ACM, pp. 147–160 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U.M., Herrmann, A.: The social influence of brand community: evidence from European Car clubs. J. Market. 69(3), 19–34 (2005). [Online]. Available: http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1509/jmkg.69.3.19.66363

  32. Carriere, N.: Survey reveals relationships with cars mimic relationships with people: a new AutoTrader.com survey explores the emotional reasons why people’s relationships with their cars are longer than ever before (2013). [Online]. Available: http://press.autotrader.com/2013-06-04-Survey-Reveals-Relationships-with-Cars-Mimic-Relationships-with-People

  33. Frison, A.-K., Wintersberger, P., Riener, A.: Resurrecting the ghost in the shell: a need-centered development approach for optimizing user experience in highly automated vehicles. Transp. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 65, 439–456 (2019). [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369847818306715

  34. Rödel, C., Stadler, S., Meschtscherjakov, A., Tscheligi, M.: Towards autonomous cars: the effect of autonomy levels on acceptance and user experience. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, pp. 1–8. ACM (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Pettersson, I., Karlsson, I.M.: Setting the stage for autonomous cars: a pilot study of future autonomous driving experiences. IET Intell. Transp. Syst. 9(7), 694–701 (2015). [Online]. Available: http://digital-library.theiet.org/content/journals/10.1049/iet-its.2014.0168

  36. Rothenbücher, D., Li, J., Sirkin, D., Mok, B., Ju, W.: Ghost driver: a platform for investigating interactions between pedestrians and driverless vehicles. In: Adjunct Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, pp. 44–49. ACM (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Wintersberger, P., Frison, A.-K., Riener, A., von Sawitzky, T.: Fostering user acceptance and trust in fully automated vehicles: evaluating the potential of augmented reality. In: PRESENCE: Virtual and Augmented Reality, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 46–62 (2019). [Online]. Available: https://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/pres_a_00320

  38. Lallemand, C.: Towards consolidated methods for the design and evaluation of user experience. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Luxembourg (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K., Roto, V., Hassenzahl, M.: Towards practical user experience evaluation methods. In: Meaningful Measures: Valid Useful User Experience Measurement (VUUM), pp. 19–22 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Kashfi, P., Nilsson, A., Feldt, R.: Integrating user experience practices into software development processes: implications of the ux characteristics. PeerJ Comput. Sci. 3 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  41. Norman, D.A., Draper, S.W.: User centered system design. New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 3. L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., Hillsdale (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  42. Norman, D.A., Verganti, R.: Incremental and radical innovation: Design research vs. technology and meaning change. Des. Issues 30(1), 78–96 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  43. Blythe, M., Hassenzahl, M., Law, E., Vermeeren, A.: An analysis framework for user experience (UX) studies: a green paper. Towards a UX Manifesto 1(140), 6 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  44. Roto, V., Obrist, M., Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K.: User experience evaluation methods in academic and industrial contexts. In: Proceedings of the Workshop UXEM, vol. 9. Citeseer (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  45. Vermeeren, A.P., Law, E.L.-C., Roto, V., Obrist, M., Hoonhout, J., Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K.: User experience evaluation methods: current state and development needs. In: Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries, pp. 521–530. ACM (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  46. Obrist, M., Roto, V., Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K.: User experience evaluation: do you know which method to use? In: CHI’09 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 2763–2766. ACM (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Arhippainen, L., Pakanen, M., Hickey, S.: Mixed ux methods can help to achieve triumphs. In: Proceedings of CHI 2013 Workshop ’Made for Sharing: HCI Stories for Transfer, Triumph and Tragedy’, p. 83. ACM (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  48. Forster, Y., Hergeth, S., Naujoks, F., Krems, J.F.: How usability can save the day-methodological considerations for making automated driving a success story. In: AutomotiveUI, pp. 278–290 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  49. Denzin, N.K.: Triangulation: a case for methodological evaluation and combination. Sociol. Methods 339–357 (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Ergonomics of human-system interaction–part 210: human-centred design for interactive systems. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH, Standard (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Forlizzi, J., Battarbee, K.: Understanding experience in interactive systems. In: Proceedings of the 5th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, And Techniques, pp. 261–268. ACM (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  52. Law, E.L.-C., van Schaik, P., Roto, V.: Attitudes towards user experience (ux) measurement. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 72(6), 526–541 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Hart, S.G.: Nasa-Task Load Index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 50, no. 9 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  54. Frison, A.-K., Forster, Y., Wintersberger, P., Geisel, V., Riener, A.: Where we come from and where we are going: a systematic review of human factors research in driving automation. Appl. Sci. 10, 8914 (2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/app10248914

  55. Hassenzahl, M., Burmester, M., Koller, F.: Attrakdiff: Ein fragebogen zur messung wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer qualität. Mensch & Computer. Springer 2003, 187–196 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  56. Laugwitz, B., Held, T., Schrepp, M.: Construction and evaluation of a user experience questionnaire. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), vol. 5298 LNCS, pp. 63–76. Springer (2008)s

    Google Scholar 

  57. Van Der Laan, J.D., Heino, A., De Waard, D.: A simple procedure for the assessment of acceptance of advanced transport telematics. Transp. Res. Part C: Emerg. Technol. 5(1), 1–10 (1997). [Online]. Available: https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0968090X96000253

  58. Huta, V., Ryan, R.M.: Pursuing pleasure or virtue: the differential and overlapping well-being benefits of hedonic and eudaimonic motives. J. Happiness Stud. 11(6), 735–762 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Sheldon, K.M., Elliot, A.J., Kim, Y., Kasser, T.: What is satisfying about satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 80(2), 325 (2001)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Kujala, S., Roto, V., Väänänen-Vainio-Mattila, K., Karapanos, E., Sinnelä, A.: Ux curve: A method for evaluating long-term user experience. Interact. Comput. 23(5), 473–483 (2011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Terken, Z., Haex, R., Beursgens, L., Arslanova, E., Vrachni, M., Terken, J., Szostak, D.: Unwinding after work: an in-car mood induction system for semi-autonomous driving. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, pp. 246–249. ACM (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  62. van der Heiden, R.M., Iqbal, S.T., Janssen, C.P.: Priming drivers before handover in semi-autonomous cars. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems–CHI ’17, ser. CHI ’17. ACM Press, New York, pp. 392–404 (2017). [Online]. Available: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=3025453.3025507

  63. Frison, A.-K., Wintersberger, P., Riener, A., Schartmüller, C.: Driving hotzenplotz: a hybrid interface for vehicle control aiming to maximize pleasure in highway driving. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, pp. 236–244. ACM (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  64. Distler, V., Lallemand, C., Bellet, T.: Acceptability and acceptance of autonomous mobility on demand: the impact of an immersive experience. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, p. 612. ACM (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  65. Goedicke, D., Li, J., Evers, V., Ju, W.: VR-OOM: Virtual reality on-road driving SiMulation. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ser. CHI ’18. Association for Computing Machinery, New York (2018). [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173739

  66. Karjanto, J., Yusof, N.M., Wang, C., Terken, J., Delbressine, F., Rauterberg, M.: The effect of peripheral visual feedforward system in enhancing situation awareness and mitigating motion sickness in fully automated driving. Transp. Res. Part F: Traffic Psychol. Behav. 58, 678–692 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  67. Maurer, S., Erbach, R., Kraiem, I., Kuhnert, S., Grimm, P., Rukzio, E.: Designing a guardian angel: giving an automated vehicle the possibility to override its driver. In: AutomotiveUI, pp. 341–350 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  68. Oliveira, L., Luton, J., Iyer, S., Burns, C., Mouzakitis, A., Jennings, P.A., Birrell, S.A.: Evaluating how interfaces influence the user interaction with fully autonomous vehicles. In: AutomotiveUI, pp. 320–331 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  69. Frison*, A.-K., Aigner, L., Wintersberger, P., Riener, A.: Who is generation A? Investigating the experience of automated driving for different age groups. AutomotiveUI’ 18, September 23–25, 2018, Toronto, Canada, pp. 94–104 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  70. Creswell, J.W.: Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage Publications (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  71. Abrahão, S., Juristo, N., Law, E.L.-C., Stage, J.: Interplay between usability and software development. J. Syst. Softw. 83(11), 2015–2018 (2010) Interplay between Usability Evaluation and Software Development. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0164121210001603

  72. Ardito, C., Buono, P., Caivano, D., Costabile, M.F., Lanzilotti, R.: Investigating and promoting UX practice in industry: an experimental study. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 72(6), 542–551 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Law, E.L.-C., Abrahão, S.: Interplay between user experience (ux) evaluation and system development. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 72(6), 523–525 (2014) Interplay between User Experience Evaluation and System Development. [Online]. Available: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1071581914000470

  74. Alves, R., Valente, P., Nunes, N.J.: The state of user experience evaluation practice. In: Proceedings of the 8th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Fun, Fast, Foundational, pp. 93–102. ACM (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  75. Gray, C.M.: Evolution of design competence in ux practice. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1645–1654. ACM (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  76. Kashfi, P., Feldt, R., Nilsson, A.: Integrating ux principles and practices into software development organizations: a case study of influencing events. J. Syst. Softw. 154, 37–58 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Ergonomics of human-system interaction–Part 210: human-centred design for interactive systems. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH, Standard (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  78. Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs)–part 11: guidance on usability. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, CH, Standard (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  79. Driveme (2016). [Online]. Available: https://www.testsitesweden.com/en/projects-1/driveme

  80. Law, E.L.-C., Vermeeren, A.P., Hassenzahl, M., Blythe, M.: Towards a UX manifesto. In: Proceedings of the 21st British HCI Group Annual Conference on People and Computers: HCI... but not as we know it-Volume 2. BCS Learning & Development Ltd., pp. 205–206 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  81. Mirnig, A.G., Meschtscherjakov, A., Wurhofer, D., Meneweger, T., Tscheligi, M.: A formal analysis of the ISO 9241–210 definition of user experience. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 437–450. ACM (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  82. Hassenzahl, M., Wiklund-Engblom, A., Bengs, A., Hägglund, S., Diefenbach, S.: Experience-oriented and product-oriented evaluation: psychological need fulfillment, positive affect, and product perception. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 31(8), 530–544 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Eckoldt, K., Hassenzahl, M., Laschke, M., Knobel, M.: Alternatives: exploring the car’s design space from an experience-oriented perspective. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces, pp. 156–164. ACM (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  84. Verbrugge, B.: Best practice, model, framework, method, guidance, standard: towards a consistent use of terminology–revised, Aug 2016. [Online]. Available: https://www.vanharen.net/blog/general/best-practice-model-framework-method- guidance-standard-towards-consistent-use-terminology/

  85. Visser, F.S., Stappers, P.J., Van der Lugt, R., Sanders, E.B.: Contextmapping: experiences from practice. CoDesign 1(2), 119–149 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Desmet, P., Hekkert, P.: Framework of product experience. Int. J. Des. 1(1) (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  87. Hassenzahl, M., Diefenbach, S., Göritz, A.: Needs, affect, and interactive products-facets of user experience. Interact. Comput. 22(5), 353–362 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Reynolds, T.J., Gutman, J.: Laddering theory, method, analysis, and interpretation. J. Advertis. Res. 28(1), 11–31 (1988)

    Google Scholar 

  89. Burmester, M., Mast, M., Jäger, K., Homans, H.: Valence method for formative evaluation of user experience. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM conference on Designing Interactive Systems, pp. 364–367. ACM (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  90. Beyer, H., Holtzblatt, K.: Contextual Design: Defining Customer-Centered Systems, vol. 1. Morgan kaufmann (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  91. Frison, A.-K., Wintersberger, P., Riener, A., Schartmüller, C., Boyle, L.N., Miller, E., Weigl, K.: In ux we trust: investigation of aesthetics and usability of driver-vehicle interfaces and their impact on the perception of automated driving. In: Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, p. 144. ACM (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  92. Frison, A.-K., Oberhofer, A., Wintersberger, P., Riener, A.: Athena–supporting ux of conditionally automated driving with natural language reliability displays, p. in press (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  93. Frison, A.-K., Wintersberger, P., Liu, T., Riener, A.: Why do you like to drive automated?: A context-dependent analysis of highly automated driving to elaborate requirements for intelligent user interfaces, pp. 528–537 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  94. Muir, B.M.: Trust between humans and machines, and the design of decision aids. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 27(5–6), 527–539 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Lee, J.D., See, K.A.: Trust in automation: designing for appropriate reliance. Hum. Factors 46(1), 50–80 (2004)

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  96. Hoff, K.A., Bashir, M.: Trust in automation: integrating empirical evidence on factors that influence trust. Hum. Factors 57(3), 407–434 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  97. Wagner, A.R., Borenstein, J., Howard, A.: Overtrust in the robotic age. Commun. ACM 61(9), 22–24 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  98. Endsley, M.R.: Autonomous driving systems: a preliminary naturalistic study of the tesla models. J. Cognit. Eng. Decis. Mak. 11(3), 225–238 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Watson, D., Clark, L.A., Tellegen, A.: Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the panas scales. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 54(6), 1063 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  100. Jian, J.-Y., Bisantz, A.M., Drury, C.G.: Foundations for an empirically determined scale of trust in automated systems. Int. J. Cognit. Ergon. 4(1), 53–71 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. Tractinsky, N., Katz, A.S., Ikar, D.: What is beautiful is usable. Interact. Comput. 13(2), 127–145 (2000)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  102. Lindgaard, G., Dudek, C., Sen, D., Sumegi, L., Noonan, P.: An exploration of relations between visual appeal, trustworthiness and perceived usability of homepages. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. (TOCHI) 18(1), 1 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  103. Tuch, A.N., Roth, S.P., HornbæK, K., Opwis, K., Bargas-Avila, J.A.: Is beautiful really usable? Toward understanding the relation between usability, aesthetics, and affect in hci. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28(5), 1596–1607 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  104. Hassenzahl, M., Monk, A.: The inference of perceived usability from beauty. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 25(3), 235–260, 2010. [Online]. Available: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07370024.2010.500139

  105. van Schaik, P., Hassenzahl, M., Ling, J.: User-experience from an inference perspective. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 19(2), 11:1–11 (2012). [Online]. Available: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2240156.2240159

  106. Minge, M., Thüring, M.: Hedonic and pragmatic halo effects at early stages of user experience. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 109, 13–25 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Noah, B.E., Gable, T.M., Chen, S.-Y., Singh, S., Walker, B.N.: Development and preliminary evaluation of reliability displays for automated lane keeping. In: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications–AutomotiveUI ’17, ser. AutomotiveUI ’17, pp. 202–208. ACM Press, New York (2017). [Online]. Available: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=3122986.3123007

  108. Wintersberger, P., Green, P., Riener, A.: Am I Driving or Are You are Or We Both? A Taxonomy For Handover and Handback in Automated Driving. Power, pp. 1–7 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  109. Davies, A.: Why automakers are skipping semi-autonomous cars and going for fully driverless | wired (2017). [Online]. Available: https://www.wired.com/2017/01/human-problem-blocking-path-self-driving-cars/

  110. Klapperich, H., Hassenzahl, M.: Hotzenplotz: Reconciling automation with experience. In: Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, p. 39. ACM (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  111. Wintersberger, P., Dmitrenko, D., Schartmüller, C., Frison, A.-K., Maggioni, E., Obrist, M., Riener, A.: S (c) entinel-monitoring automated vehicles with olfactory reliability displays. In: IUI’19 Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, pp. 538–546. Association for Computing Machinery (2019)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. frisUX Research & Design, Technische Hochschule Ingolstadt (THI), Esplanade 10, 85049, Ingolstadt, Germany

    Anna-Katharina Frison

  2. CARISSMA Institute of Automated Driving (C-IAD), Technische Hochschule Ingolstadt (THI), Esplanade 10, 85049, Ingolstadt, Germany

    Andreas Riener

Authors
  1. Anna-Katharina Frison
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andreas Riener
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anna-Katharina Frison .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. CARISSMA Institute of Automated Driving (C-IAD), Technische Hochschule Ingolstadt, Ingolstadt, Germany

    Andreas Riener

  2. Grado Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA, USA

    Myounghoon Jeon

  3. Systems and Software Research, Autonomous Driving Research Lab, Intel Labs, Portland, OR, USA

    Ignacio Alvarez

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Frison, AK., Riener, A. (2022). The “DAUX Framework”: A Need-Centered Development Approach to Promote Positive User Experience in the Development of Driving Automation. In: Riener, A., Jeon, M., Alvarez, I. (eds) User Experience Design in the Era of Automated Driving. Studies in Computational Intelligence, vol 980. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-77726-5_10

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation