Inclusivity Considerations for Fully Autonomous Vehicle User Interfaces

Conference paper

Abstract

Autonomous vehicles could become an important part of the mobility solution for members of society previously excluded from driving. This paper presents the results of an interview study on users’ needs and expectations of fully autonomous vehicles, and specifically on the inclusivity considerations that emerged. Six drivers and two individuals that are currently excluded from driving participated in this study. The main finding was that conventional multimodal interfaces would indeed enable a broader range of users to operate these vehicles. However, fundamental considerations such as the accessibility of displays and easy ingress/egress were of equal importance. We hope the emerging recommendations would form part of an inclusive set of user requirements to be taken into account by industry and academia when designing fully autonomous vehicle user interfaces.

References

  1. Amanatidis T, Langdon P, Clarkson PJ (2017a) Needs and expectations for fully autonomous vehicle user interfaces. In: Manuscript submitted for publication in proceedings of human-robot interaction conference, Chicago, IL, US, Mar 2018Google Scholar
  2. Amanatidis T, Langdon P, Clarkson PJ (2017b) Toward an “equal-footing” human-robot interaction for fully autonomous vehicles. In: Chen J (ed) Advances in human factors in robots and unmanned systems, Springer, pp 313–319Google Scholar
  3. Catapult Transport Systems (2015) Intelligent mobility: traveller needs and UK capability study. Catapult Transportation Systems. https://ts.catapult.org.uk/current-projects/traveller-needs-uk-capability-study/. Accessed 13 Nov 2017
  4. Clark B, Parkhurst G, Ricci M (2016) Understanding the socioeconomic adoption scenarios for autonomous vehicles: a literature review. Project report, University of the West of England, Bristol, UK. http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/29134. Accessed 13 Nov 2017
  5. Clarkson PJ, Coleman R, Keates S, Lebbon C (2013) Inclusive design: design for the whole population. Springer Science & Business MediaGoogle Scholar
  6. Endsley MR (2016) Designing for situation awareness: an approach to user-centered design, 2nd edn. CRC PressGoogle Scholar
  7. Field A, Hole H (2002) How to design and report experiments. SAGEGoogle Scholar
  8. Google (2014) Self-driving car project. A first drive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqSDWoAhvLU. Accessed 5 Dec 2017
  9. Jeon M, Politis I, Shladover SE, Sutter C, Terken JMB, Poppinga B (2016) Towards life-long mobility: accessible transportation with automation. In: Adjunct proceedings of the 8th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications, AutomotiveUI’16, Ann Arbor, MI, US, pp 203–208, 24–26 October 2016Google Scholar
  10. Krome S, Walz SP, Greuter S (2016) Contextual inquiry of future commuting in autonomous cars. In: Proceedings of CHI’16 conference on human factors in computing systems, San Jose, CA, US, pp 3122–3128, 7–12 May 2016Google Scholar
  11. Langdon P, Johnson D, Huppert F, Clarkson PJ (2015) A framework for collecting inclusive design data for the UK population. Appl Ergon 46(Part B):318–324 (Special Issue: Inclusive Design)Google Scholar
  12. Large DR, Burnett G, Anyasodo B, Skrypchuk L (2016) Assessing cognitive demand during natural language interactions with a digital driving assistant. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications, Automotive’UI 16, Ann Arbor, MI, US, pp 67–742, 4–26 October 2016Google Scholar
  13. Meschtscherjakov A, Ratan R, Tscheligi M, McCall R, Szostak D, Politis I et al (2014) 2nd workshop on user experience of autonomous driving. In: Adjunct proceedings of the 6th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications, AutomotiveUI’14, Seattle, WA, US, pp 1–3, 17–19 September 2014Google Scholar
  14. Purchase, HC (2012) Experimental human-computer interaction: a practical guide with visual examples. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  15. Ritchie J, Lewis J, McNaughton-Nicholls C, Ormston R (2013) Qualitative research practice: a guide for social science students and researchers. SAGEGoogle Scholar
  16. Robert Bosch GmbH (2014) Automotive handbook, 9th edn, WileyGoogle Scholar
  17. SAE International (2016) SAE J3016: taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles. SAE InternationalGoogle Scholar
  18. Stanton N, Young MS, Walker GH (2007) The psychology of driving automation: a discussion with professor Don Norman. Int J Veh Des 45:289–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Stanton N, Salmon PM, Rafferty LA (2013) Human factors methods: a practical guide for engineering and design. Ashgate Publishing Ltd.Google Scholar
  20. UK Autodrive (2017) The UK autodrive project. http://www.ukautodrive.com/. Accessed 21 June 2017
  21. Wikipedia (2017) Nvivo. Encyclopedia Article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NVivo. Accessed 5 Dec 2017

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Amanatidis
    • 1
  • P. M. Langdon
    • 1
  • P. J. Clarkson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of EngineeringCambridge Engineering Design Centre, University of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations