Using Personas and Scenarios as an Interface Design Tool for Advanced Driver Assistance Systems

  • Anders Lindgren
  • Fang Chen
  • Per Amdahl
  • Per Chaikiat
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4555)


When looking at the traditional way of conducting human factors research within the active safety area, focus often tends to be on drivers’ cognitive capacities like; situation awareness, workload and behavioural adaptation. This research is of course invaluable but other important issues that tend to be forgotten are: What are the drivers’ needs and how should an interface be designed to satisfy those needs? This paper describes the process of defining requirements for a dynamic graphical interface for ADAS using a rather new method, Personas, as a starting point in the design process. Based on the Personas different scenarios and narratives were created and used in a workshop to specify user needs and requirements in the interface design for Advanced Driver Assistance Systems.


Advanced Driver Assistance Systems (ADAS) User Centered Design Personas Scenarios Interaction Design Traffic Safety 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Amdahl, P., Chaikiat, P.: Personas as drivers: An alternative approach for creating scenarios for ADAS evaluation. Unpublished master’s thesis, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden ( 2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blomquist, Å., Arvola, M.: Personas in Action: Ethnography In An Interaction Design Team. In: Proceeding of the second Nordic conference on Human-Computer Interaction, NordiCHI, Aarhus, Denmark, October 19-23, 2002, ACM Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cooper, A, The Inmates Are Running The Asylum – Why High-Tech Products Drive us Crazy And How To Restore Sanity. Sams Publishing (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cooper, A., Reimann, R.: About Face 2.0 – The Essentials Of Interaction Design. Wiley Publishing Inc., Chichester (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, Concepts of Operations and voluntary Operational Requirements for Forward Collision Warning Systems (CWS) and Adaptive Cruise Control (ACC) Systems On-Board Commercial Motor Vehicles. Retrieved August 10, 2006 htm ( 2005), from
  6. 6.
    Gaffney, G.: [www]. Affinity Diagramming. In: Usability Techniques series (1999), Retrieved August 10, 2006 from
  7. 7.
    Grudin, J., Pruitt, J.: Personas, Participatory Design and Product Development: An Infrastructure for Engagement. In: Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference 2002, pp.144–161 ( 2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grudin, J., Pruitt, J.: Personas: Practice and Theory. ACM Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lajunen, T., Parker, D., Summala, H.: The Manchester Driver Behaviour Questionnaire: a cross-cultural study. Accident Analysis and Prevention 36, 231–238 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Linell, P.: Transkription av tal och samtal: Teori och praktik, Arbetsrapporter från Tema K ( 1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ma, M., Kaber, D.B.: Situation awareness in driving while using adaptive cruise control and a cell phone. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 35, 939–953 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McCall, J., Trivedi, M.M.: Driver Monitoring for a Human-Centered Driver Assistance System. In: proceedings of the 1st ACM international workshop on Human-centered multimedia, Santa Barbara, California, USA, October 27, 2006, pp. 115–121. ACM Press, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H.: Interaction Design: Beyond Human-computer interaction. John Wiley & Sons, New York (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reason, J.T., Manstead, A.S.R., Stradling, S.G., Baxter, J.S., Campbell, K.: Errors and violations on the road: a real distinction? Ergonomics 33, 1315–1332 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rosson, M.B., Carrol, J.M.: Scenario-Based Design. In: Jacko, J., Sears, A. (eds.) The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, pp. 1032–1050. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rudin-Brown, C.M., Parker, H.A.: Behavioural adaptation to adaptive cruise control (ACC): implications for preventive strategies, Transportation. Research Part. F 7, 59–76 (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Shneiderman, B.: Promoting universal usability with multi-layer interface design. In: proceedings of 2003 Conference on Universal Usability, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, pp. 1–8. ACM Press, New York (November 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Westerman, S.J., Haigney, D.: Individual differences in driver stress, error and violation. Personality and Individual Differences 29, 981–998 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Özkan, T., Lajunen, T., Summala, H.: Driver Behaviour Qusetionnaire: A follow-up study. Accident Analysis and Prevention 38, 386–395 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anders Lindgren
    • 1
  • Fang Chen
    • 1
  • Per Amdahl
    • 2
  • Per Chaikiat
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Chalmers University of Technology, SE-412 96 GothenburgSweden
  2. 2.Department of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University, SE-581 83 LinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations