EMU in the Car: Evaluating Multimodal Usability of a Satellite Navigation System

  • Ann Blandford
  • Paul Curzon
  • Joanne Hyde
  • George Papatzanis
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5136)


The design and evaluation of multimodal systems has traditionally been a craft skill. There are some well established heuristics, guidelines and frameworks for assessing multimodal interactions, but no established methodologies that focus on the design of the interaction between user and system in context. In this paper, we present EMU, a systematic evaluation methodology for reasoning about the usability of an interactive system in terms of the modalities of interaction. We illustrate its application using an example of in-car navigation. EMU fills a niche in the repertoire of analytical evaluation approaches by focusing on the quality of interaction in terms of the modalities of interaction, how modalities are integrated, and where there may be interaction breakdowns due to modality clashes, synchronisation difficulties or distractions.


usability evaluation multimodal systems in-car navigation systems satellite navigation systems 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Blandford, A., Hyde, J.K., Green, T.R.G., Connell, I.: Scoping Usability Evaluation Methods: A Case Study. Human Computer Interaction Journal (to appear)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brewster, S., McGookin, D., Miller, C.: Olfoto: designing a smell-based interaction. In: Proc. CHI 2006, pp. 653–662. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burnett, G.E.: Usable vehicle navigation systems: Are we there yet? In: Vehicle Electronic Systems 2000 - European conference and exhibition, ERA Technology Ltd, June 29-30, 2000, pp. 3.1.1-3.1.11 (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Card, S.K., Moran, T.P., Newell, A.: The Psychology of Human Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1983)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coutaz, J., Nigay, L., Salber, D., Blandford, A., May, J., Young., R.: Four easy pieces for assessing the usability of multimodal interaction: the CARE properties. In: Nordby, K., Helmersen, P., Gilmore, D.J., Arnesen, S. (eds.) Human-Computer Interaction: Interact 1995, pp. 115–120. Chapman and Hall, Boca Raton (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Curzon, P., Blandford, A., Butterworth, R., Bhogal, R.: Interaction Design Issues for Car Navigation Systems. In: Sharp, Chalk, LePeuple, Rosbottom (eds.) Proc. HCI 2002 (short paper), vol. 2, pp. 38–41. BCS (2002)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Duke, D.J., Barnard, P.J., Duce, D.A., May, J.: Syndetic Modelling. Human-Computer Interaction 13, 337–394 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Elting, C., Zwickel, J., Malaka, R.: Device-dependant modality selection for user-interfaces: an empirical study. In: Proc. IUI 2002, pp. 55–62. ACM, New York (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fink, J., Kobsa, A.: Adaptable and Adaptive Information Provision for All Users, Including Disabled and Elderly People. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia 4, 163–188 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hyde, J.K.: Multi-Modal Usability Evaluation. PhD thesis. Middlesex University (2001)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    John, B., Kieras, D.E.: Using GOMS for user interface design and evaluation: which technique? ACM ToCHI 3.4, 287–319 (1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kieras, D.E., Wood, S.D., Meyer, D.E.: Predictive Engineering Models Based on the EPIC Architecture for a Multimodal High-Performance Human-Computer Interaction Task. ACM Trans. Computer–Human Interaction 4, 230–275 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lin, T., Imamiya, A.: Evaluating usability based on multimodal information: an empirical study. In: Proceedings of the 8th international Conference on Multimodal interfaces, ICMI 2006, Banff, Alberta, Canada, November 02 - 04, 2006, pp. 364–371. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Oviatt, S., Coulston, R., Lunsford, R.: When do we interact multimodally? Cognitive load and multimodal communication patterns. In: Proc. ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI), pp. 129–136 (2004)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sun, Y., Chen, F., Shi, Y., Chung, V.: A novel method for multi-sensory data fusion in multimodal human computer interaction. In: Proc. OZCHI 2006, vol. 206, pp. 401–404. ACM, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wharton, C., Rieman, J., Lewis, C., Polson, P.: The cognitive walkthrough method: A practitioner’s guide. In: Nielsen, J., Mack, R. (eds.) Usability inspection methods, pp. 105–140. John Wiley, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wickens, C.D., Hollands, J.G.: Engineering Psychology and Human Performance, 3rd edn. Prentice Hall International, London (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ann Blandford
    • 1
  • Paul Curzon
    • 2
  • Joanne Hyde
    • 3
  • George Papatzanis
    • 2
  1. 1.UCL Interaction CentreUniversity College LondonLondonU.K
  2. 2.Queen MaryUniversity of LondonU.K
  3. 3.formerly at Middlesex University U.K 

Personalised recommendations