Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

3 Design takeaways for Navigating a menu while driving | AUTOUI 2013


Published on

Link to the Paper:

This study of in-vehicle menu design produced 3 Design takeaways:
1. Afford Interruption.
2. Don't afford shortcuts.
3. Slow designs may prompt users not to make sequential actions.

See: for live view of the conditions.

Published in: Automotive
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

3 Design takeaways for Navigating a menu while driving | AUTOUI 2013

  1. 1. Comparing three novel multimodal touch interfaces for infotainment menus
  2. 2. “The New Standard”
  3. 3. “How can we use sound to improve the driving experience?” The “experience” is some combination of allowing the user to engage in secondary activities while always prioritizing safety.
  4. 4. Voice
  5. 5. The Goal Demonstrate a device that has the following qualities: Reduce the negative impact of secondary task on driving performance or total visual demand, At an acceptable cost for secondary navigation speed. How Compare them experimentally against common methods (i.e. direct touch) on a common task (i.e. menu navigation). The Study
  6. 6. 4 interfaces see them in action
  7. 7. Measuring.... - Driving Performance - Total Visual Demand - Speed of operating the menu see this in action While..... Selecting items which are either 1 – 3 levels deep in a hierarchical menu (same video as on previous slide)
  8. 8. Results
  9. 9. Serial Swiping had significantly better driving performance than the rest. (lowest deviation)
  10. 10. ...But under Direct Touch users were twice as fast to complete the menu operation task as all the others. 2 TIMES AS FAST!!!!! Best Driving Performance!!!!!
  11. 11. Total visual demand of the “visual based” Direct Touch screen was equal to that of the multimodal Serial Swipe. .` =
  12. 12. No significant differences in the distribution of glance lengths either, but definitely some longer looks
  13. 13. Gaze Percentage: Time Looking at the Interface / Total Task completion time.
  14. 14. Same total visual demand distributed over a much shorter amount of time = Worse Driving Performance
  15. 15. Results Part 2: Diving deeper
  16. 16. ~2.5 seconds ~1.25 seconds That’s an average of about 1~ second of waiting around before hitting the target. ~4 seconds ~4 seconds Users begin working immediately and in parallel to driving. Time To Complete while driving while not driving.
  17. 17. In the lane change task every ~10 seconds a command is sent. Often the user can execute a changing of the menu with little risk of missing a command.
  18. 18. but the story may change for multiple-step tasks. It is likely the results would not have been significant if multiple step tasks were not introduced.
  19. 19. no change in total task time between 2 and 3 step tasks! The willingness to commit such actions so speedily in succession is the real problem.
  20. 20. Users are either... Adding on one more step and not waiting at all between one of the steps or... waited on average less between each selection simply because they were given more work.
  21. 21. User’s exhibiting wonderful stair- case like sub-tasking. Compare to our winner:
  22. 22. Lessons Learned: 3 lessons for designing in the vehicle
  23. 23. Because Direct Touch is faster, the user may be tempted to fit more selections before the next command, 1. and maybe make a miss.
  24. 24. Lesson 1 Built in slowness may be beneficial. Afford returning eyes to the road ( a punctuated “staircase.”) winnerslosers
  25. 25. For direct touch, user’s eyes and hand are near the target after the first selection – making the subsequent selection easier to complete. Returning their hands and/or eyes to the wheel (i.e. the right thing to do) would result in more total effort. 2.
  26. 26. Don’t afford “shortcuts,” afford a “staircase.” Lesson 2 hint: slowness could accomplish this, but so could other things
  27. 27. For the GRUV prototypes, work is lost if you remove your hand from the touchpad. In other words, regaining your position is too difficult. It’s exactly the opposite for Serial Swipe, which does not require “starting over” when interrupted. 3.
  28. 28. Lesson 3 Afford interruption. Progress must not be lost if interrupted.
  29. 29. Discussion Questions
  30. 30. Discussion Question How could these principles be applied to context where safety should be considered when wearing Google Glass? 1. Built in slowness 2.Design out “shortcuts” 3. Design for interruption driving construction
  31. 31. Discussion Question Can voice do it all? I’d argue no. In the following example, a user can choose up to 3 ways of doing the same thing. So then, how do you afford the “right mode switching” without suffering the costs of modes?
  32. 32. Discussion Question Is the touchpad where it’s at – how can the touchpad realize its full potential ?