Correlation between safety assessments in the driver-car interaction design process

Applied Ergonomics

Volumn 42, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 575-582

  Broström, Robert ^a,b   Bengtsson, Peter ^b   Axelsson, Jakob ^c  

^a VOLVO CAR CORPORATION   (Sweden)

^b LULEÅ UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

^c SWEDISH INSTITUTE OF COMPUTER SCIENCE   (Sweden)

Author keywords

IVIS; Safety; UEM; Usability

Indexed keywords

ACCIDENT PREVENTION; AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURE; EFFICIENCY; NAVIGATION SYSTEMS; SALES;

DEGREE OF CORRELATIONS; DRIVER-CAR INTERACTION; EXPERT EVALUATION METHOD; IVIS; J.D. POWER AND ASSOCIATES; QUANTITATIVE APPROACH; USABILITY; USABILITY EVALUATION;

DESIGN;

ADULT; ARTICLE; CAR DRIVING; CONTROL SYSTEM; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRIVING ABILITY; ERGONOMICS; EVALUATION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MAN MACHINE INTERACTION; NORMAL HUMAN; SATISFACTION; TASK PERFORMANCE; TRAFFIC SAFETY; WORKLOAD;

EID: 79551604057     PISSN: 00036870     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2010.06.019     Document Type: Article

References (34)

1. AAM (Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Driver Focus-Telematics Working Group) Statement of Principles, Criteria and Verification Procedures on Driver Interactions with Advanced In-Vehicle Information and Communication Systems-Version 2.0 2002, Obtained through the Internet, (accessed 30/10.2009). http://www.umich.edu/%7Edriving/guidelines/AAM_DriverFocus_Guidelines.pdf.
2. Baumann M., Keinath A., Krems J.F., Bengler K. Evaluation of in-vehicle HMI using occlusion techniques: experimental results and practical implications. Applied Ergonomics 2004, vol. 35:197-205.
3. Blanco, M., Hankey, J. M., Chestnut, J. A., 2005. A taxonomy for secondary in-vehicle tasks based on eye glance and task completion time. In: Proceedings of the 49th Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, Orlando, FL, pp. 1975-1979.
4. Broström R., Bengtsson P., Axelsson J. Perceived styling and usability in integrated centre panel layouts as a function of interaction style and age. Human Factors Issues in Complex System Performance 2007, 193-204. Shaker Publishing, Maastricht. D. de Waard, G.R.J. Hockey, P. Nickel, K.A. Brookhuis (Eds.).
5. Byers J.C., Bittner A.C., Hill S.G. Traditional and raw task load index (TLX) correlations: are paired comparisons necessary?. Advances in Industrial Ergonomics and Safety 1989, 481-485. Taylor & Francis, London. A. Mital (Ed.).
6. ESOP European Statement of Principles on Human Machine Interface 2006, Obtained through the Internet, (accessed 30.10.2009). http://www.esafetysupport.org/download/working_groups/hmi_esop221206_en.pdf.
7. Gray W.D., Salzman M.C. Damaged merchandise? A review of experiments that compare usability evaluation methods. Human Computer Interaction 1998, 13:203-261.
8. Green, P., 1999. Navigation system data entry: estimation of task times. UMTRI 99-17.
9. Hart S.G., Staveland L.E. Development of a NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Human Mental Workload 1988, 239-250. North Holland Press, Amsterdam. P.A. Hancock, N. Meshkati (Eds.).
10. Hartson H.R., Andre T.S., Williges R.C. Criteria for evaluating usability evaluation methods. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 2003, 15(1):145-181.
11. Hertzum M., Jacobsen N.E. The evaluator effect: a chilling fact about usability evaluation methods. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction 2003, 15(1):183-204.
12. Horberry T., Anderson J., Regan M.A., Triggs T.J., Brown J. Driver distraction: the effects of concurrent in-vehicle tasks, road environment complexity and age on driver performance. Accident Analysis and Prevention 2006, 38:185-191.
13. ISO/TR 16982 Ergonomics of Human-System Interaction - Usability methods supporting human-centred design 2002.
14. ISO 9241-11 Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminals (VDTs) Part 11: Guidance on Usability 1998.
15. Jahn G., Oehme A., Krems J., Gelau C. Peripheral detection as a workload measure in driving: effects of traffic complexity and route guidance system use in a driving study. Transportation Research Part F 2005, 8:255-275.
16. Jeffries R., Desurvire H. Usability testing vs. heuristic evaluation: was there a contest?. SIGCHI Bulletin 1992, 24(4):39-41.
17. Jordan P.W. An Introduction to Usability 1998, Taylor and Francis, London.
18. Keinath, A., Durach, S., Eckstein, L., Niedermaier, B., 2008. The BMW iDrive - The next step of a revolution. In: Proceedings of the 2008 Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics Conference, Las Vegas.
19. Klauer S.G., Dingus T.A., Neale V.L., Sudweeks J.D., Ramsey D.J. The Impact of Driver Inattention on Near-Crash/Crash Risk: An Analysis Using the 100-Car Naturalistic Driving Study Data 2006, (Report DOT HS 810 594), Virginia Tech Transportation Institute, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA.
20. Kurosu M., Kashimura K. Apparent usability vs. Inherent usability: experimental analysis on the determinants of the apparent usability. Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems 1995, ACM Press, New York, NY, USA, (Denver, USA)292-293.
21. Ling C., Salvendy G. Effect of evaluators cognitive style on heuristic evaluation: field dependent and field independent evaluators. International Journal of Human Computer Studies 2009, 67:382-393.
22. Loftus G.R., Masson M.E. Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 1994, 1:476-490.
23. Mattes S. The lane-change-task as a tool for driver distraction evaluation. Quality of Work and Products in Enterprises of the Future 2003, 57-60. Ergonomia Verlag, Stuttgart. H. Strasser, K. Klutch, H. Rausch, H. Bubb (Eds.).
24. Nielsen J. Heuristic evaluation. Usability Inspection Methods 1994, 25-62. John Wiley & Sons, New York. M. Nielsen (Ed.).
25. Nielsen, J., 2005. Obtained through the Internet: (accessed 07.04.2010). http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/.
26. Pew R., Hemel S.V. Technology for Adaptive Aging 2004, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
27. Power, J.D., 2009. Obtained through the Internet: (accessed 30.10.2009). http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pressrelease.aspx%3FID%3D2008078.
28. Rogers W.A., Fisk A.D., Collins McLaughlin A., Pak R. Touch a screen or turn a knob: choosing the best device for the job. Human Factors 2005, 47:271-288.
29. SAE J2364 Surface Vehicle Recommended Practice. Navigation and Route Guidance Function Accessibility while Driving 2004, Society of Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA.
30. Stanton N.A., Salmon P.M., Walker G.H., Baber C., Jenkins D.P. Human Factors Methods: a Practical Guide for Engineering and Design 2005, Ashgate.
31. Stevens A., de Lancey A., Davison A., Allen P., Quimby A. A Safety Checklist for the Assessment of In-vehicle Information Systems 1999, Project Report SE/589/99, Transportation Research Laboratory, Berkshire, England.
32. Tractinsky N., Katz A.S., Ikar D. What is beautiful is usable. Interacting with Computers 2000, 13:127-145.
33. Victor T.W., Harbluk J.L., Engström J.A. Sensitivity of eye-movement measures to in-vehicle task difficulty. Transportation Research Part F 2005, 8:167-190.
34. Wixon D. Evaluating usability methods: why the current literature fails the practitioner. Interactions 2003, 10:28-34.