D. Large, G. Burnett, E. Crundall, Glyn Lawson, L. Skrypchuk
{"title":"扭,触,推,滑:评估汽车触摸屏HMI使用的二次输入设备","authors":"D. Large, G. Burnett, E. Crundall, Glyn Lawson, L. Skrypchuk","doi":"10.1145/3003715.3005459","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Touchscreen Human-Machine Interfaces (HMIs) inherently demand some visual attention. By employing a secondary device, to work in unison with a touchscreen, some of this demand may be alleviated. In a medium-fidelity driving simulator, twenty-four drivers completed four typical in-vehicle tasks, utilising each of four devices -- touchscreen, rotary controller, steering wheel controls and touchpad (counterbalanced). Participants were then able to combine devices during a final 'free-choice' drive. Visual behaviour, driving/task performance and subjective ratings (workload, emotional response, preferences), indicated that in isolation the touchscreen was the most preferred/least demanding to use. In contrast, the touchpad was least preferred/most demanding, whereas the rotary controller and steering wheel controls were largely comparable across most measures. When provided with 'free-choice', the rotary controller and steering wheel controls presented as the most popular candidates, although this was task-dependent. Further work is required to explore these devices in greater depth and during extended periods of testing.","PeriodicalId":448266,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications","volume":"65 Suppl 1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Twist It, Touch It, Push It, Swipe It: Evaluating Secondary Input Devices for Use with an Automotive Touchscreen HMI\",\"authors\":\"D. Large, G. Burnett, E. Crundall, Glyn Lawson, L. Skrypchuk\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/3003715.3005459\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Touchscreen Human-Machine Interfaces (HMIs) inherently demand some visual attention. By employing a secondary device, to work in unison with a touchscreen, some of this demand may be alleviated. In a medium-fidelity driving simulator, twenty-four drivers completed four typical in-vehicle tasks, utilising each of four devices -- touchscreen, rotary controller, steering wheel controls and touchpad (counterbalanced). Participants were then able to combine devices during a final 'free-choice' drive. Visual behaviour, driving/task performance and subjective ratings (workload, emotional response, preferences), indicated that in isolation the touchscreen was the most preferred/least demanding to use. In contrast, the touchpad was least preferred/most demanding, whereas the rotary controller and steering wheel controls were largely comparable across most measures. When provided with 'free-choice', the rotary controller and steering wheel controls presented as the most popular candidates, although this was task-dependent. Further work is required to explore these devices in greater depth and during extended periods of testing.\",\"PeriodicalId\":448266,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications\",\"volume\":\"65 Suppl 1 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-10-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"14\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/3003715.3005459\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/3003715.3005459","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Twist It, Touch It, Push It, Swipe It: Evaluating Secondary Input Devices for Use with an Automotive Touchscreen HMI
Touchscreen Human-Machine Interfaces (HMIs) inherently demand some visual attention. By employing a secondary device, to work in unison with a touchscreen, some of this demand may be alleviated. In a medium-fidelity driving simulator, twenty-four drivers completed four typical in-vehicle tasks, utilising each of four devices -- touchscreen, rotary controller, steering wheel controls and touchpad (counterbalanced). Participants were then able to combine devices during a final 'free-choice' drive. Visual behaviour, driving/task performance and subjective ratings (workload, emotional response, preferences), indicated that in isolation the touchscreen was the most preferred/least demanding to use. In contrast, the touchpad was least preferred/most demanding, whereas the rotary controller and steering wheel controls were largely comparable across most measures. When provided with 'free-choice', the rotary controller and steering wheel controls presented as the most popular candidates, although this was task-dependent. Further work is required to explore these devices in greater depth and during extended periods of testing.