A First Approach to Understanding and Measuring Naturalness in Driver-Car Interaction

ABSTRACT

With technology changing the nature of the driving task, qualitative methods can help designers understand and measure driver-car interaction naturalness. Fifteen drivers were interviewed at length in their own parked cars using ethnographically-inspired questions probing issues of interaction salience, expectation, feelings, desires and meanings. Thematic analysis and content analysis found five distinct components relating to 'rich physical' aspects of natural feeling interaction typified by richer physical, analogue, tactile styles of interaction and control. Further components relate to humanlike, intelligent, assistive, socially-aware 'perceived behaviours' of the car. The advantages and challenges of a naturalness-based approach are discussed and ten cognitive component constructs of driver-car naturalness are proposed. These may eventually be applied as a checklist in automotive interaction design.

References

1. Abbink, D., Mulder, M., & Boer, E. (2012). Haptic shared control: smoothly shifting control authority? Cognition, Technology & Work, 14(1), 19--28.
2. Autocar Magazine, (2013) A week in cars, editorial on how power assistance has changed our view of 'natural' steering. 17th July 2013. Haymarket, London.
3. Baker, S. E., & Edwards, R. (2012). How many qualitative interviews is enough. Available at: http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/2273/4/how_many_interviews.pdf
4. Banks, V., Stanton, N., & Harvey, C. (2014). Subsystems on the road to vehicle automation: Hands and feet free but not 'mind' free driving. Safety science, 62, 505--514.
5. Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1999). Contextual design. Interactions, 6(1), 32--42.
6. Black, S. (1966). Man and motor cars: An ergonomic study. Secker & Warburg.
7. Bless, H., Fiedler, K., & Strack, F. (2004). Social cognition: How individuals construct social reality. Hove and New York: Psychology Press
8. Boess, S., & Kanis, H. (2007). Meaning in product use -- A design perspective. Product experience, 305--332.
9. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology, 3(2), 77--101.
10. Burgess, M., King, N., Harris, M., & Lewis, E. (2013). Electric vehicle drivers' reported interactions with the public: Driving stereotype change? Transportation Research Pt F: traffic psychology, 17, 33--44.
11. Chen, H., Finin, T., & Joshi, A. (2003). An ontology for context-aware pervasive computing environments. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 18(03), 197--207.
12. Cooper, A., Reimann, R., & Cronin, D. (2012). About face 3: The essentials of interaction design. John Wiley & Sons.
13. Creswell, J. (2012). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. Sage.
14. Dahlbäck, N., Jönsson, A., and Salber, D. (1993). Wizard of Oz Studies - Why and How? Proceedings of the 1993 ACM International Workshop on Intelligent User Interfaces. ACM Press: New York.
15. Dogan, E., Steg, L., & Delhomme, P. (2011). The influence of multiple goals on driving behavior: The case of safety, time saving, and fuel saving. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43(5), 1635--1643.
16. Elo, S., & Kyngääs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. J.Advanced Nursing, 62(1), 107--115.
17. Flemisch, F., Heesen, M., Hesse, T., Kelsch, J., Schieben, A., & Beller, J. (2012). Towards a dynamic balance between humans and authority, ability, responsibility and control in shared cooperative control situations. Cognition, Technology & Work, 1--16.
18. Gellatly, A., Hansen, C., Highstrom, M., & Weiss, J. (2010). Journey: General Motors' move to incorporate contextual design into its next generation of automotive HMI designs. In Proc 2nd Int. Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (pp. 156--161). ACM.
19. Giacomin, J. (2012). What is human centred design? In 10th Conference on Design Research and Development, P&D Design, Sãão Luís (pp. 10--13).
20. Giacomin, J. (2012) Human Centred Design of 21st Century Automobiles, Report by Human Centred Design Institute, Brunel University, Uxbridge.
21. Giacomin, J. and Ramm, S. (2013) There's more to safe driving than information and decisions. Human Centred Design Institute, Brunel University, Uxbridge. www.perceptionenhancement.com/docs/papers/
22. Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (2009). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Transaction Books.
23. Goodman, T., Montgomery, R., Bialek, A., Forbes, A., Rides, M., Whitaker, A., Overliet, K., McGlone, F., & Heijden, G. (2008). Measurement of Naturalness. Measurement.
24. Graneheim, U., & Lundman, B. (2004). Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse education today, 24(2), 105--112.
25. Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field methods, 18(1), 59--82.
26. Hill, D. (2008). Emotionomics. Leveraging emotions for business, Revised edition
27. Hornecker, E. (2011). The role of physicality in tangible and embodied interactions. Interactions, 18(2), 19--23.
28. Jacob, R., Girouard, A., Hirshfield, L., Horn, M., Shaer, O., Solovey, E., & Zigelbaum, J. (2008). Reality-based interaction: a framework for post-WIMP interfaces. In CHI-conference- (vol. 1, p. 201). ACM.
29. Jensen, M., Buur, J., & Djajadiningrat, T. (2005). Designing the user actions in tangible interaction. In Proc. 4th decennial conference on Critical computing: between sense and sensibility (pp. 9--18). ACM.
30. Kazi, T., Stanton, N., Walker, G.,& Young, M. (2007). Designer driving: drivers' conceptual models and level of trust in adaptive cruise control. International Journal of Vehicle Design, 45(3), 339--360.
31. Krefting, L. (1991). Rigor in qualitative research: The assessment of trustworthiness. The American journal of occupational therapy, 45(3), 214--222.
32. Le, J. (2012) Workshop notes, AUI 2013. Workshop 5 Using Contextual Design: Moving from data to solutions in automotive contextual design process by Jenny Le - Fujitsu Ten Corp. of America.
33. Malizia, A. & Bellucci, A. (2012). The artificiality of natural user interfaces. Commun. ACM 55, 3 (March 2012), 36--38.
34. Mason, M. (2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews. In Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research (Vol. 11, No. 3, August).
35. Meschtscherjakov, A., Wilfinger, D., Gridling, N., Neureiter, K., & Tscheligi, M. (2011). Capture the car! Qualitative in-situ methods to grasp the automotive context. In Proc. 3rd International Conf. on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (pp. 105--112). ACM.
36. Miller, D. (2001). Car cultures. Berg Publishers.
37. Morse, J., & Field, P. (1995). Qualitative research methods for health professionals. Sage.
38. New Scientist, (2012). Driverless cars ready to hit our roads 2nd April 2012 by Paul Marks. http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21328585.300
39. Norman, D. (1999). The invisible computer: why good products can fail, the personal computer is so complex, and information appliances are the solution. MIT press.
40. O'hara, K., Harper, R., Mentis, H., Sellen, A., & Taylor, A. (2013). On the naturalness of touchless: putting the "interaction" back into NUI. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 20(1), 5.
41. Osgood, C. E. (1957). The measurement of meaning (Vol. 47). University of Illinois Press.
42. Ranney, T. (1994). Models of driving behavior: a review of their evolution. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 26(6), 733--750.
43. Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). How people treat computers, television, and new media like real people and places. CSLI Publications and Cambridge university press.
44. Schmidt, A., Spiessl, W., & Kern, D. (2010). Driving automotive user interface research. Pervasive Computing, IEEE, 9(1), 85--88.
45. Sheridan, T. (2002). Humans and automation: System design and research issues. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
46. Smith, J., Bekker, H., & Cheater, F. (2011). Theoretical versus pragmatic design in qualitative research. Nurse researcher, 18(2), 39--51.
47. Spradley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview.
48. Steg, L. (2005). Car use: lust and must. Instrumental, symbolic and affective motives for car use. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 39(2), 147--162.
49. Steg, L., Vlek, C., & Slotegraaf, G. (2001). Instrumental-reasoned and symbolic-affective motives for using a motor car. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 4(3), 151--169.
50. Tscheligi, M. (2012). User Experience Design for Vehicles. Christian doppler laboratory: contextual interfaces. Tutorial for conference AUI 2012.
51. Vadeby, A., Wiklund, M., & Forward, S. (2011). Car drivers' perceptions of electronic stability control (ESC) systems. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 43(3), 706--713.
52. Walker, G., Stanton, N., & Young, M. (2006). The ironies of vehicle feedback in car design. Ergonomics, 49(2), 161--179
53. Weinberg, G. (2012): Voice and Multimodal Interaction in the Car. Tutorial. http://www.autoui.org/12/adjunct-proceedings/t1-voice-multimodal-nteraction-car-weinberg.pdf
54. Wigdor, D., & Wixon, D. (2011). Brave NUI world: designing natural user interfaces for touch and gesture. Elsevier.

Index Terms

• Human-centered computing

  • Human computer interaction (HCI)