Designing Human–Machine Interactions in the Automated City: Methodologies, Considerations, Principles

Part of the Advances in 21st Century Human Settlements book series (ACHS)


Technological progress paves the way to ever-increasing opportunities for automating city services. This spans from already existing concepts, such as automated shuttles at airports, to more speculative applications, such as fully autonomous delivery robots. As these services are being automated, it is critical that this process is underpinned by a human-centred perspective. This chapter provides a framework for future research and practice in this emerging domain. It draws on research from the field of human-computer interaction and introduces a number of methodologies that can be used to structure the process of designing interactions between people and automated urban applications. Based on research case studies, the chapter discusses specific elements that need to be considered when designing human-machine interactions in an urban environment. The chapter further proposes a model for designing automated urban applications and a set of principles to guide their prototyping and deployment.


Automated city infrastructure Automated city services Human-centred design Human-computer interaction Human-machine interaction Media architecture Smart cities Urban robots 



This research was supported partially by the Australian Government through the Australian Research Council’s Discovery Projects funding scheme (project DP200102604). Elements of this chapter are based on a previously published book by one of the authors (Tomitsch 2018).


  1. Atkinson RD (1998) Technological change and cities. Cityscape, pp 129–170Google Scholar
  2. Batty M (2013) Big data, smart cities and city planning. Dialogue Hum Geogr 3(3):274–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bauer A, Klasing K, Lidoris G, Mühlbauer Q, Rohrmüller F, Sosnowski S, Xu T, Kühnlenz K, Wollherr D, Buss M (2009) The autonomous city explorer: towards natural human-robot interaction in urban environments. Int J of Soc Robotics 1:127–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bellotti V, Edwards K (2001) Intelligibility and accountability: human considerations in context-aware systems. Hum Comput Interact 16(2–4):193–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boll S, Koelle M, Cauchard J (2019) Understanding the socio-technical impact of automated (Aerial) vehicles on casual bystanders. Presented at the iHDI—International workshop on human-drone interaction at the 2019 CHI conference on human factors in computing systemsGoogle Scholar
  6. Camero A, Alba E (2019) Smart City and information technology: a review. Cities 93:84–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cauchard JR, Zhai KY, Spadafora M, Landay JA (2016) Emotion encoding in human-drone interaction. In: Proceedings of the 11th ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI)Google Scholar
  8. Chang CM, Toda K, Sakamoto D, Igarashi T (2017) Eyes on a car: an interface design for communication between an autonomous car and a pedestrian. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications, pp 65–73Google Scholar
  9. Checkland P, Poulter J (2010) Soft systems methodology. In: Systems approaches to managing change: a practical guide. Springer, London, pp 191–242Google Scholar
  10. Clamann M, Aubert M, Cummings ML (2017) Evaluation of vehicle-to-pedestrian communication displays for autonomous vehicles. Presented at the transportation research board 96th annual meetingGoogle Scholar
  11. Dameri RP (2013) Searching for smart city definition: a comprehensive proposal. Int J Comput Technol 11(5):2544–2551Google Scholar
  12. De Waal M (2014) The city as interface. How new media are changing the city. Amsterdam: Naio10publishersGoogle Scholar
  13. Dirks S, Gurdgiev C, Keeling M (2010) Smarter cities for smarter growth: how cities can optimize their systems for the talent-based economy. IBM Institute for business ValueGoogle Scholar
  14. DiSalvo CF, Gemperle F, Forlizzi J, Kiesler S (2002) All robots are not created equal: the design and perception of humanoid robot heads. In: Proceedings of the 4th conference on designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques, pp 321–326Google Scholar
  15. Došilović FK, Brčić M, Hlupić N (2018) Explainable artificial intelligence: a survey. In: 2018 41st international convention on information and communication technology, electronics and microelectronics (MIPRO). IEEE, pp 0210–0215Google Scholar
  16. Dourish P (1995) Developing a reflective model of collaborative systems. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact (TOCHI) 2(1):40–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dourish P (1997) Accounting for system behaviour: representation, reflection and resourceful action. Computers and design in context, pp 145–170Google Scholar
  18. Floyd C, Mehl WM, Resin FM, Schmidt G, Wolf G (1989) Out of scandinavia: alternative approaches to software design and system development. Hum Comput Interact 4(4):253–350Google Scholar
  19. Foth M (2006) Network action research. Action Res 4(2):205–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Frison AK, Pfleging B, Riener A, Jeon MP, Alvarez I, Ju W (2017) Workshop on user-centered design for automated driving systems. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications adjunct, pp 22–27Google Scholar
  21. Gage M, Kolari P (2002) Making emotional connections through participatory design. Boxes and Arrows. Accessed 17 Feb 2020
  22. Graham S (2014) Super-tall and ultra-deep: the cultural politics of the elevator. Theory Cult Soc 31(7–8):239–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gupta S, Vasardani M, Winter S (2016) Conventionalized gestures for the interaction of people in traffic with autonomous vehicles. In: Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGSPATIAL international workshop on computational transportation science, pp 55–60Google Scholar
  24. Hill D (2015) Robots may force us to confront how we treat the people that currently make our cities tick. Dezeen. Accessed 15 Feb 2020
  25. Hoggenmueller M, Hespanhol L, Tomitsch M (2020) Stop and smell the chalk flowers: a robotic probe for investigating urban interaction with physicalised displays. In: Proceedings of the 2020 CHI conference on human factors in computing systemsGoogle Scholar
  26. Hoggenmueller M, Tomitsch M (2019) Enhancing pedestrian safety through in-situ projections: a hyperreal design approach. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM international symposium on pervasive displays, pp 1–2Google Scholar
  27. Hoggenmueller M, Wiethoff A (2015) Blinking lights and other revelations: experiences designing hybrid media façades. In: Proceedings of the 4th international symposium on pervasive displays, pp 77–82Google Scholar
  28. Hoggenmueller M, Tomitsch M, Wiethoff A (2018) Understanding artefact and process challenges for designing low-res lighting displays. In: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI conference on human factors in computing systems, pp 1–12Google Scholar
  29. Hosio S, Goncalves J, Kukka H, Chamberlain A, Malizia A (2014) What's in it for me: exploring the real-world value proposition of pervasive displays. In: Proceedings of the international symposium on pervasive displays, pp 174–179Google Scholar
  30. IBM Corporation (2014) IBM smarter cities: creating opportunities through leadership and innovation. Accessed 17 Feb 2020
  31. Jackson M (1993) Systems methodology for the management sciences. In: Proceedings of systems science and cognition, second European congress on systems science 3, pp 1000–1005Google Scholar
  32. Jacob S (n.d.) Machines of loving grace: the city as a distributed robot and the omnipresent intelligence of data networks. Cube Uncube. (n.d.). Magazine No. 36. Accessed 17 Feb 2020
  33. Jensen RH, Kjeldskov J, Skov MB (2016) HeatDial: beyond user scheduling in eco-interaction. In: Proceedings of the 9th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  34. Kitchin R (2014) The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism. GeoJournal 79(1):1–14Google Scholar
  35. Lewin K (1946) Action research and minority problems. J Soc Issues 2(4):34–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Li L, Park P, Yang SB (2018) The role of public-private partnership in constructing the smart transportation city: a case of the bike sharing platform. Asia Pacific J Tour Res, 1–12Google Scholar
  37. Lim YK, Stolterman E, Tenenberg J (2008) The anatomy of prototypes: prototypes as filters, prototypes as manifestations of design ideas. ACM Trans Comput Hum Interact (TOCHI) 15(2):1–27Google Scholar
  38. Luria M, Forlizzi J, Hodgins J (2018) The effects of eye design on the perception of social robots. In: 2018 27th IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN). IEEE, pp 1032–1037Google Scholar
  39. Macrorie R, Marvin S, While A (2020) Robotics and automation in the city: a research agenda. Urban Geogr 1–21Google Scholar
  40. Malizia A, Chamberlain A, Willcock I (2018) From design fiction to design fact: developing future user experiences with proto-tools. In: International conference on human-computer interaction. Springer, Cham, pp 159–168Google Scholar
  41. Mark Fisher M (n.d.) Urban design and permaculture. Accessed 17 Feb 2020
  42. Matias JN (2012) How designers can imagine innovative technologies for news. Accessed 17 Feb 2020
  43. Mercedes-Benz (n.d.) Mercedes-Benz F 015 luxury in motion. Accessed 17 Feb 2020
  44. Mladenović MN, Lehtinen S, Soh E, Martens K (2019) Emerging urban mobility technologies through the lens of everyday urban aesthetics: case of self-driving vehicle. Essays Philos 20(2):1526–1569Google Scholar
  45. Nagenborg M (2018) Urban robotics and responsible urban innovation. Ethics Inf Technol 1–11Google Scholar
  46. Nguyen TT, Holländer K, Hoggenmueller M, Parker C, Tomitsch M (2019) Designing for projection-based communication between autonomous vehicles and pedestrians. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications, pp 284–294Google Scholar
  47. Nordhoff S, de Winter J, Madigan R, Merat N, van Arem B, Happee R (2018) User acceptance of automated shuttles in Berlin-Schöneberg: a questionnaire study. Transp Res Part F Traff Psychol Behav 58:843–854Google Scholar
  48. Owensby C, Tomitsch M, Parker C (2018) A framework for designing interactions between pedestrians and driverless cars: insights from a ride-sharing design study. In: Proceedings of the 30th Australian conference on computer-human interaction, pp 359–363Google Scholar
  49. Parker C, Hoggenmueller M, Tomitsch M (2018) Design strategies for overcoming failures on public interactive displays. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM international symposium on pervasive displays, pp 1–7Google Scholar
  50. Pierce C (2006) Cedric price: doubt, delight and change. J Soc Architec Historians 65(2):285–287Google Scholar
  51. Rasouli A, Tsotsos J K (2019) Autonomous vehicles that interact with pedestrians: a survey of theory and practice. IEEE Trans Intell Transp SystGoogle Scholar
  52. Resnick M (2007) All I really need to know (about creative thinking) I learned (by studying how children learn) in kindergarten. In: Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCHI conference on creativity & cognition, pp 1–6.Google Scholar
  53. Royce W W (1987) Managing the development of large software systems: concepts and techniques. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on software engineering, pp 328–338Google Scholar
  54. Schwab K (2015) The fourth industrial revolution: what it means and how to respond (December 12, 2015). Foreign Affairs. Accessed Feb 15 2020Google Scholar
  55. Shiomi M, Sakamoto D, Kanda T, Ishi CT, Ishiguro H, Hagita N (2008) A semi-autonomous communication robot—a field trial at a train station. In: 2008 3rd ACM/IEEE international conference on human-robot interaction (HRI). IEEE, pp 303–310Google Scholar
  56. Shostack GL (1982) How to design a service. Eur J Mark 16(1):49–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Shostack GL (1993) How to design a service. Eur J Mark 16(1):49–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stickdorn M, Schneider J, Andrews K, Lawrence A (2011) This is service design thinking: basics, tools, cases, vol 1. Wiley, Hoboken, NJGoogle Scholar
  59. Tachet R, Santi P, Sobolevsky S, Reyes-Castro L I, Frazzoli E, Helbing D, Ratti C (2016) Revisiting street intersections using slot-based systems. PloS one 11(3)Google Scholar
  60. Terada K, Yamauchi A, Ito A (2012) Artificial emotion expression for a robot by dynamic color change. In: 2012 IEEE RO-MAN: the 21st IEEE international symposium on robot and human interactive communication, pp 314–321Google Scholar
  61. Tomitsch M (2017) City apps as urban interfaces. Media architecture-using information and media as construction material. In: Wiethoff A, Hussmann H (eds) Media architecture—using information and media as construction material. De Gruyter Publishers, pp 81–102Google Scholar
  62. Tomitsch M (2018) Making cities smarter: designing interactive urban applications. JovisGoogle Scholar
  63. Tomitsch M, Wrigley C, Borthwick M, Ahmadpour N, Frawley J, Kocaballi B, Núnez-Pacheco C, Straker K, Loke L (2018) A handbook of methods our new book: Design. Think. Make. Break. Repeat. Bis PublishersGoogle Scholar
  64. Tompson T, Tomitsch M (2014) Understanding public transport design constraints by using mock-ups in stakeholder conversations. In: Proceedings of the 13th participatory design conference: short papers, industry cases, workshop descriptions, doctoral consortium papers, and keynote abstracts, vol 2, pp 53–56Google Scholar
  65. Townsend AM (2013) Smart cities: big data, civic hackers, and the quest for a new utopia. WW NortonGoogle Scholar
  66. Verplank B (2009) Interaction design sketchbook: frameworks for designing interactive products and systems. Accessed 17 Feb 2020
  67. Weiss A, Mirnig N, Bruckenberger U, Strasser E, Tscheligi M, Kühnlenz B, Wollherr D, Stanczyk B (2015) The interactive urban robot: user-centered development and final field trial of a direction requesting robot. Paladyn J Behav Robot 6(1)Google Scholar
  68. Wolcott HF (2005) The art of fieldwork. Rowman AltamiraGoogle Scholar
  69. Woods Bagot (2012) SICEEP urban design and public realm guidelines. Accessed 17 Feb 2020
  70. Yigitcanlar T, Kamruzzaman M, Foth M, Sabatini-Marques J, da Costa E, Ioppolo G (2019) Can cities become smart without being sustainable? A systematic review of the literature. Sustain Cities Soc 45:348–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2021

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Architecture, Design and PlanningThe University of SydneySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.CAFA Beijing Visual Art Innovation InstituteBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations