The document discusses the development of a user-friendly interface for an autonomous vehicle intended for use in specialty crop operations, focusing on usability for farm workers. Initial user tests revealed that while computer-experienced users were comfortable with the interface, others needed training to operate the equipment effectively. Future work aims to improve row detection methods and enhance the vehicle's control functionalities for better performance in orchards.

1. Comprehensive Automationfor Specialty CropsShowcaseMay 20th, 2010

2. Reconfigurable MobilityShowcase

3. Recent WorkCreating a useable interfaceNew methods for row detectionNew methods for turning and row entry

4. Autonomous Vehicle User InterfaceGoal: Create an interface for the vehicle useable by growers and workers without engineer assistanceApproach: Follow structured, formal human-computer interaction design methodologiesInterview workers to understand farm operations and equipmentDefine requirements that must be satisfied in the final interface productFollow a top-down design approach from requirements to functionalitiesTest with the workers on the APM

5. Existing InterfaceHere’s what the engineers use

6. Existing InterfaceIt tells us a lotGood for testing and debuggingHard to use even for usImpossible to use without lots of trainingScary for those without computer backgrounds

7. Designing a New InterfaceStart from the beginningWhat does the vehicle have to do?Who will be using it?What is their current experience/expectation?

8. Designers’ Initial Assessment

9. Assessment (cont.)

10. Initial InterviewsDesigners interviewed owners and workers from four orchards

11. Potential UsersBased on interviews, determined hierarchy of roles in an orchard

12. Design IdeasFocus on things solvable within one semester and with limited budget

13. First DraftDesigns on paper presented to usersNo prior instructionLead users through scenario of vehicle useFind out what works

14. Task Selection, Farm View

15. Vehicle Control

16. First Interface Prototype

17. First Interface Prototype

18. WiFi Communication with Interface

19. User Tests: First RoundInterface run on laptop, controlling simulated vehicleWorkers completely unfamiliar with interfacePresented with similar scenarios as beforeTold to use vehicle in a variety of tasks

20. First Round ResultsComputer-experienced users felt comfortableOthers were afraid to give an incorrect commandAutonomous vehicle is an expensive piece of equipmentConclusion:Users need some training, even if it is short

21. Final User TestsInterface stayed the sameWent to Hollabaugh Orchards, BiglervilleFour users operated APMOwner/manager and three workersTwo workers understood some English,one understood very little

22. Final User TestsAll were able to control APMAll understood speed, offset, and go/stop modeMany mentioned potential applications for which they would like to use the APMOne common complaintNeed for speed control in stop/go modehttp://www.cs.cmu.edu/~casc/public/showcase_video1.wmv

23. Final Design

24. Help Screen

25. ConclusionsThis interface can make APMs easy to use by:Reducing text on screenPresenting vehicle’s location clearlyAbstracting orchard tasks to single button clicks

26. ConclusionsIn order to make performing tasks simpler for workers,additional setup is required by managers

27. Recommended Future Work

28. Recent WorkCreating a useable interfaceNew methods for row detectionNew methods for turning and row entry

29. Previous Row DetectionSusceptible to spurious dataApply some filters to reduce the effect of bad detectionsBut we want to have no bad detections

30. New Row Detection WorkUsing particle filter to track row over timeLooks good so farNeeds more testing

31. New Row Entry WorkMake wider turnsPoints vehicle at row soonerEasier to detect row Smoother turns in tight spacesAccount for trailer when turningUse high accuracy localization (Area 1.2 work) to improve vehicle control

32. Back to the OrchardsMay 24: N. Blosi platform testing in Biglerville, PAJune 7: APM testing in BiglervilleJuly 19: APM testing in Washington

33. AcknowledgmentsReed SoergelJoy Kline (Bear Mountain)Bruce Hollabaugh

34. Questions?

35. Augmented HarvestingShowcase

36. Augmented HarvestDBR Conveyor Concepts updateStatement of work and contract finalizedWork initiatedNew bin filler head looks goodLaying out power unit with integrated exhaust silencing and intake filteringOrdering parts for hoses and vacuum chambersBubble pack bin fillerRobin Pritz and Gwendolyn Barr completed first bruise testingMethod shows promise, but new prototype is required for field testing

41. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~casc/public/showcase_video2.mpg

42. Results

43. SummaryBubble pack bin filler shows promiseBruising is not bad given distance apples are tossedUpcoming improvementsMore guiding by netBetter distribution of bubble pack layersLighter and better padded frameMechanism for raising and lowering frameWork with DBR Conveyor Concepts is ramping up

44. Thank you.