Advertisement

The Research-Practice Gap: An Explanatory Factor for Automotive HMI Customers’ Complaints?

  • Fares Zaidi
  • Christian Bastien
  • Xavier Chalandon
  • Laurent Moiselet
  • Emmanuelle Thianche
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 824)

Abstract

Automotive HMI development was historically feature and technology-driven. Over time, we witnessed a shift in focus from physical to cognitive issues, especially due to technology evolution and embedded HMI complexification. This made adapting automotive HMI development process a necessity to address human factors and cognitive ergonomics challenges in design/evaluation phases. It is in this context that car manufacturers enhanced the traditional systems engineering logic (V like model) thanks to the User-Centered Design cycle (UCD). But, despite this user centric approach, some customers’ complaints and usability issues concerning automotive HMI are reported. Why is it so? To answer this question a research is underway. In this article, we (1) describe the work that led us to consider the research-practice gap as a candidate factor explaining why the user centric approach fails and (2) describe what we are planning to do as next steps.

Keywords

Research-practice gap Automotive HMI Infotainment systems Usability methods Customers’ complaints Systems engineering process 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is funded by the French “National Association of Research and Technology” (ANRT), grant number 2016/0738, and conducted in the Renault’s research center located in Guyancourt (France).

We would like to think all the “Cognitive ergonomics & HMI” team’s members within this work is carried out for their valuable time.

References

  1. 1.
    Schmidt A, Dey AK, Kun AL, Spiessl W (2010) Automotive user interfaces: human computer interaction in the car. Presented at CHI 2010 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 3177–3180Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Becker S, Hanna P, Wagner V (2014) Human machine interface design in modern vehicles. In: Crolla D, Foster DE, Kobayashi T, Vaughan N (éds) Encyclopedia of automotive engineering. Wiley, Chichester, pp 1–16Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Winner H, Hakuli S, Lotz, F, Singer, CT (2015) Handbook of driver assistance systems: basic information, components and systems for active safety and comfortGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Renault’s Standard (2017) Customer performance engineering. Document n° RPIFFPV3P20110005Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bhise VD (2012) Ergonomics in the automotive design process. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Leonard D, Rayport JF (1997) Spark innovation through empathic design. Harv Bus Rev 75:102–115Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wixon D, Holtzblatt K, Knox S (1990) Contextual design: an emergent view of system design. Presented at the proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 329–336Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ISO 9241-210 (2009) Ergonomics of human system interaction-Part 210: human-centred design for interactive systems. International Standardization Organization (ISO), SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Meixner G, Müller C (2017) Automotive user interfaces. Springer, ChamCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Eason KD (1995) User-centred design: for users or by users? Ergonomics 38(8):1667–1673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    SBD Automotive (2014) Connected car USA usability benchmarkingGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    ISO 16982 (2002) Ergonomics of human-system interaction — usability methods supporting human-centred design. International Standardization Organization (ISO)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bastien JC (2010) Usability testing: a review of some methodological and technical aspects of the method. Int J Med Inform 79(4):e18–e23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    ISO 9186-1 (2014) Graphical symbols – test methods – Part 1: method for testing comprehensibility. International Standardization Organization (ISO)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Campbell JL, Richman J B., Carney C, Lee JD (2004) In-vehicle display icons and other information elements. Volume I: guidelines (No. FHWA-RD-03-065)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Scapin DL, Bastien JMC (1997) Ergonomic criteria for evaluating the ergonomic quality of interactive systems. Behav Inf Technol 16(4–5):220–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stanton N, Salmon PM, Rafferty LA (2013) Human factors methods: a practical guide for engineering and design. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nemeth CP (2004) Human factors methods for design: making systems human-centered. CRC Press, Boca RatonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Maguire M (2001) Methods to support human-centred design. Int J Hum Comput Stud 55(4):587–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Harvey C (2009) Development of a method for evaluating the usability of in-vehicle information systems (IVISs). Presented at the IFIP conference on human-computer interaction. Springer, pp 856–859Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Harvey C, Stanton NA, Pickering CA, McDonald M, Zheng P (2011) A usability evaluation toolkit for in-vehicle information systems (IVISs). Appl Ergon 42(4):563–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chung AZQ, Shorrock ST (2011) The research-practice relationship in ergonomics and human factors – surveying and bridging the gap. Ergonomics 54(5):413–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Paul CL (2008) A modified Delphi approach to a new card sorting methodology. J Usabil Stud 4(1):7–30Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stanton N, Young M (1998) Is utility in the mind of the beholder? A study of ergonomics methods. Appl Ergon 29(1):41–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ardito C, Buono P, Caivano D, Costabile MF, Lanzilotti R (2014) Investigating and promoting UX practice in industry: an experimental study. Int J Hum Comput Stud 72(6):542–551CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shorrock ST, Williams CA (2016) Human factors and ergonomics methods in practice: three fundamental constraints. Theor Issues Ergon Sci 17(5–6):468–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fares Zaidi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Christian Bastien
    • 1
  • Xavier Chalandon
    • 2
  • Laurent Moiselet
    • 2
  • Emmanuelle Thianche
    • 2
  1. 1.Université de Lorraine, PErSEUs (EA 7321)NancyFrance
  2. 2.Renault, Design and Development CenterGuyancourtFrance

Personalised recommendations