This document summarizes research into designing a driverless car experience for the visually impaired. It includes interviews with blind individuals, creating personas and scenarios, identifying problems, developing concept prototypes, and testing prototypes with simulated blind individuals and one completely blind individual. Key findings from testing include the need for feedback on position and distance to destination, both haptic and audio cues, and challenges relating maps to the real world experience. The document also reflects on using a design methodology versus a waterfall methodology, noting advantages of the design approach include being more flexible, focused on users, and allowing for fast iterations.

1. Designing the driverless car
experience for the visually impaired
Final Presentation
Clément | Mohit | Rafael

2. https://www.teachengineering.org/engrdesignprocess.php

3. Telephonic Interview with
Blind Women
Nationality : Brazilian
Age : 50
Blind since the age of
20
Nationality : Indian
Age : 46
Born Blind
BodyStorming
Primary Research

4. Primary Research

5. Persona and Scenario

6. Getting in the car Getting out the carIn car experience
● Navigating to the car
from home
● Getting inside the
car.
● Estimated time of
arrival
● Obstructions around
the car.
● Navigating to the
final destination from
the car.
● Getting outside the
car.
● Obstructions around
the car.
● Payments
● Feedback on the
current route.
● Reassure when the
driver is taking an
unusual route.
Problem Identification

7. Concept Prototype

8. Prototype

9. Test Subject 1 :
Male | 22 | Simulated Blindness
Test Subject 2 :
Female | 22 | Simulated Blindness
Test Subject 3 :
Male | 23 | Simulated Blindness
Evaluation and Testing

10. Test Subject 1 :
Male | 22 | Stimulated Blindness
Test Subject 2 :
Female | 22 | Stimulated Blindness
Test Subject 3 :
Male | 23 | Stimulated Blindness
Key Takeaways
● Feed back of the current position and the distance to be covered in total.
● Specific feedback for start and stop position
● Both Haptic and sound feedback are required
● It’s a bit challenging to relate zoomed in map with the overview
Evaluation and Testing

11. Henrik
Completely Blind from birth | uses technology | lives in Uppsala
● Able to figure out different dots (though didn’t
establish relation with the width of the road)
● Able to distinguish different number of roads at a
junction.
● Tough to figure out start and end
● Might be challenging while using a cane.
● Validated the problem of trust.
● Financing such a project might be challenging.
● Validated decreasing use of Braille (with reasons)
“it’s impossible to use Android phones”
-when asked which phone they use
Evaluation and Testing

12. Field Observation

13. Reflection

14. Waterfall Methodology V Methodology
Engineering Methodology
stepwise | non iterative | distant from real user

15. Waterfall Methodology V Methodology
flexible | focus on the users | fast iterations
Advantages of Design Methodology

16. Waterfall Methodology V Methodology
flexible | focus on the users | fast iterations
less focus on technological feasibility | less use of persona | real user at the end
Disadvantages of Design Methodology