a. pauzié - human interface

8/7/2019 A. Pauzi - Human Interface

1/6

P2-4HUMAN INTERFACE OF IN-VEHICLE INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Annie Pauzid

INRETS-LESCO109, AV.Salvador Allende - Case n 0 2 4 - 69675 BRON C edex - FRANCE1. Intr-During the last decade, applications of new telematictechnology in transport have been quickly growing inEurope, supported by two research programmes EUREKAand DRIVE (Dedicated Road Infrastructure for Vehiclesafety in Europe). These programmes brought togethergroups of Euro pean researchers from academia and industryin collaborati ve work, allowing to ma ke a constru ctive linkbetween basic and a pplied research.The Eureka programme PROMETHEUS has morespecifically focused on the interests of the automotiveindustries, the electronic and the supplier industries,involved in the product development, where individualpreferences must be satisfiedaspotential customers.The CEC programme DRIVE has focused on socialobjectives by supporting the development of Europeaninfrastructuresystems, which must meet users' requirementsand needs."The success of both PROMETHEUS and DRIVE willdepend on how the human being, as a driver, will be takeninto account from the very early stage of the R&D work,and how the risk of intro ducing new function s and conceptsbased only on technological considerat ions must beavoided", (Franzen, 1993) and "New technology will notend up as an innov ation that reaches the market unless it issocially accepted, and the driver acceptance is, to adominant part, dependent on the man-machine interaction"(Sviden, 1993).As a matter of fact, since the creation of these programmes,the moveme nt has been an increasing consideration of thehuman interface problems. The objective is to adapt thesystem as a whole to the driver task and require ments, and,also, to avoid potential negative consequences of the newcontext on t he driver behaviour.Considering ATT in Europe, the more advancedapplications nowadays are the road and traffic dynamicinformation and the navigation/guidance systems. SomeEuropean prototype in-vehicle systems give dynamicinformation (Traffic Master, INFFLUX, Generation COCARMINAT) ; ther can inc lude this type of information inthe guidance applicatio n (CARMINAT: EUROSCOUT: headvanced follow-up to theLISB system). Other systems areof navigation type (TRAVELPILOT : map-displaysystems). Efficiency in giving advanced dynamicinformation displa yed on Variable Message Signs, availablefor all drivers, and on-board systems for equipped vehicles,are current ly under study in pilot projects in speci fic areas inEurope (corridor MELYSSA, CITIES, ...).

In general, potential benefits from the electronicguidancehavigation systems have been qualified asreducing total kilometrage and travel time (Jeffery, 1981).they enable drivers to circumvent congested routes withconsequences for the traffic flow and the road safety(Hounsel & al., 1988). and lead to safer behaviour ingeneral (Ftirber & al., 1986) , by reducing , for example,theamount of attention required for navigationprocesses.There has been an attempt to evaluate the road safetyconsequences of electronic devices implementation byanalysing accident data (Malaterre & Fontaine, 1993) ;major ways to decr ease probabilities of acci dent happeninghave been identified :- reducing difficulties from the infrastructure byregulating traffic flows, for example,- providing human operators in their place, orconjointly with them, certain functions in the perception-decision-action loop.In the guidancehavigation area, several studies have beenconducted in order to evaluate the efficiency of use of thes esystems while compared to the classical mode oforientation, that is to say, the paper map (see Schraagen,1993, for a review). The general positive input of electronicsystems in this application was so demonstrated, but thevariability in the reduction of er rors in pe rcentage accordingto the type of interface leads to questio n about an optimisedmessage design and content .2. Ereonomics of the interfaceThe impl ementation of i n-vehicle informati on systems willlead to a reorganization of the driving activity.On the positive side, navigation/guidance systems willimprove this activity by :- facilitating the orientation processes by indicationgthe vehicle location relatively to th e chosen destination- making available some useful land marks- giving precise and easily handled indic ations aboutthe direction o follow at each driver's decision point- decreasing the workload of the strategic level of t hedriving taskand, fo r the other applications, sometimes alreadyimplemented in the navigation I guidance application. by :- giving information that will not be available to thedriver such as traffic information, accidents and hazardhappenings ahead, det ecting obstacle

- enhancing available information such as vision bynight or by fog situations

&71K)3-2105-7/%/$4M C' 9 4 IEEE1994 Vehicle Navigation & info-tion Systems Conference Proceedings plenary-35


2/6

- taking decision in place of the driver such asintelligent co-driver.But we have to be aware that the use of these systems willcreate a sub-task to be managed by the driver in addition tothe main task. Globally, the main task for the driver is topay attention to the external moving world, full ofunpredictable events, in order to react correctly in anappropriate iming. In this framework, it has to be remindedthat, even without any supplementary tasks to manageinside the vehicle, driver inattention plays a role in about30to 50 per cent of all accidents (Sussman & al.. 1985).Workload and interference induced by this supplementaryactivity must be evaluated according to the design andfunctions offered by the interface. The balance between thegain of the implementation and the potential decrement ofthe driver's performancedue to it must be evaluated.

. . .m2JL"bIn order to fulfil the road safety objective, in terms ofergonomicsof the interface, one of the main requirementsofthe system usecanbe identified as swiftness of use. takinginto


3/6

constantly up-dated through a travel time database, theshortest route in terms of travel time predicted according tothe time of the journey. In navigation principle, the routechoice is made by the driver, the map display is constantlyin accordance with the vehicle direction and in relation tothe actual vehicle position. Advantages of the presentationof a map mean that the driver is responsible of his routechoice and has the opportunity to set up a mentalrepresentation of his trip.The system has o lead the driver over routes that he wouldhave chosenhimself f he had all the complete knowledge ofthe characteristics of the routes. Accord ing to van Winsumstudy (1993). gender, age, education, trip motive anddriving experience would not have influence on thesubjective importance of route choice criteria in ameaningful way. In agreement with other data, it appearsthat total travel time, road type including high order roadand reliability of the rout e would be important determinantcriteria of route choice.

of the information :

Desien of the information ;Allernalive fo r navigation display : ORTH UP VERSUSHEADINGIn the navigation application, questions have been raisedconcerning the two possib le modalities : "North up" versus"Heading". In the first case, the north oriented map staysstable on the screen and the driver knows where to pick upthe information on the screen because of the staticpresentation. In the second case, the map moves in relationto the vehi cle movements and there is a matching betweenthe road environment and the information display.It is the manner in which the driver performs the spatial-cognitive activities, namely relationships between the twoframes of reference -World Reference Frame and EgoReference Frame-, which determines to a large extent howwell he can navigate within that space (Antin, 1993).Themore efficient mode of presentation would be closelydependent from individual characteristics but further dalaare required in this area.Navigation versus guidance irformation presenrarionWhen compared to guidance information, it seems that mapdisplay contains too many information not directly relevantfor navigational purposes (Schraagen , 1993). As a matter offact, a map is a schem atic representation of a network ofroutes, represented from above, and which has very poorconnections with the real world seen through the driver'seyes. In order to undersland and take decisions from thistypeof information, attentional processes are requ ired, more,or less heavy, according to the driver experience and othertemporary parameters such as fatigue,... It has been shownthat this type. of display detracts attention away from thetraffic situation to the inca r display (Wierwille &al., 1988;Ashby & al., 1991). The recommendations in this case areto display information as relevant as possible to thenavigational purposes such as roadsigns (Schraagen. 1990).and also prominent environmental features such asmonuments actually used by individuals for navigationaldecisions (Heft, 1979; Schraagen, 1989, 1990). Trafficlights, orientation and traffic signs, metro stations,... hadpositive effects upon drivers' route following ( A h & al.,Considering the difference between the environment ofhighways and cities, it has been suggested that the use ofroad signs could be better in the first case and the use ofarrows in the second case. Simple left-right instructionsused in guidance procedure led to better orientationperformance than electronic map dispaly (Schraagen, 1993).

1991).

Guidance displayGuidance implies a great trust from the driver in thesystems, the task consisting in following "blindly" all thesystems instructions ; fficiency and reliability of messagesare of a great importance n this situation.Instructions might be given verbally, in written and/or withsymbols. Symbols are generally better than writteninformation for people with poor visual abilities such aselderly drivers (Green, 1993). Furthermore, they do notrequire to speak a specific language and this universalunderstanding is an advantage in the world of today.Nevertheless. it must be noted that a generational effect canplay an important part in the comprehension of the symbolicinformation and induces difficulties for people over 50 insome cases (Saunby & col., 1988).The use of street names in add ition to left-right instructionsseems to be less efficient in reducing errors in compari sonwith other information such as road signs, landmarks, andtopological characteristics( Schraagen, 1993).Only one inst ruction should be presented at a time, with anextension to two when the driving time between two choicepoints is less than IOseconds ( A h , 1990).Questions like information presentation for the complexcrossing-road and round about have been raised : s it moreefficient to present a static screen or a moving screenmatching with the moving environment while driving inlarge round-about? Various modalities, namely sialic,dynamic or mixed, have bccn tested in driving simulator andreal road environment ( Pauzit et al., 1994).Results indicatethat a moving display might confuse the driver because he islosing his landmarks. On the other hand, a staticprescntation might be ambiguous for the right exit toch oo se ; the best way identified would be a mixedpresentation, where th e screen remains stable but the vehiclelocation is moving on the schema according to its realmovement.Visual versus audirory modaliliesConcerning the information given by the systems, messagescan be emitted through various modalities : uditive. visual,or both. Auditive information must be just "beep" typemessages, in order to attract driver's attention. or meaningfulmessagcs with words. For the visual ones, locations couldbe in central vision area, on the windshield or in ex centredvision area, on dash board screen.The more available perceptive channel in the drivingsituation is the auditive one : supplementary auditiveinformation will be less in competition than supplementaryvisual information when considering the driving task (seethe Wickens' model, 1984).Nevertheless, it is difficult toimagine that all the messages from the electronic systemswill be auditive for the following reasons :- an auditive message must be caught and understoodby the driver when it is emitted. whatever the driver'smental workload due to the road events at this moment,while the visual message can be looked at the driver's "will"as long as it is displayed. So, :ime constraints to perceiveand to process information are less heavy for visualmessages,- a too frequent auditive "beep" is considered asbeing annoying and even disturbing by the driver (Pauzit &col., 1993).- intelligibility of auditive messages might be badbecause of the wide variability of in-veh icle noise level insome situations, such as urban context and open windows.Ambient light conditions also vary to an important extent,creating problems such as screen reflections, but solutionslike sunshade protection or type of screen quality in thiscase can compensate this difficulty. It can be expected that.

plenary-37


4/6

in the future, improvements in technology will allow toovercome ntelligibility problems.Auditory presentation would be the preferred medium forinformation which is simple, short or deals with events intime : visual information is more suited to informationwhich might be referred to later, deals with a location inspace, or is being presented in a noisy environment(McCormick& Sanders, 1983). Carefully designed verbaldirectives seem to be more efficient than visual ones(Streeter et al.. 1985: enwy andJanssen. 1988).m c e r n e d , too earlypresentation put extra demand on the driver's memorycapacity and a too late presentation increases the temporaldemands upon the driver. Thespan of time between the twolimits is certainly narrow and, to make the question evenmore complex, depends greatly according to the driver'sfunctional ability. Current systems have been found to raisedriver workload due to inappropriate message timing(Ashby & al., 1991). Further researches are obviouslyrequired in this area.In conclusion, it is agreed that a fully formulated set ofdesign guidelines available for the design process and forthe evaluation process is necessary, and efforts aim atdeveloping his area nowadays.4. EvalilatioqKnowing that vision is the essential perceptive channelinvolved in the driving task, one of the major ergonomicsaspects to consider is related to the visual demand of thesystems for this evaluation. Visual strategies towards theon-board devices have been considered by some authors asbeing one of the most importantcriteria leading to acceptor to reject dash-board devices according to road safetydemands (Zwahlen. 1988). The original idea is simple butinescapable : the longer the driver watches towards thesystems, the less he is able to take external information tocontrol his vehicle - with consequences on the vehicletrajectory- and, more generally, he less he is able to detectroad events. Drivers' visual strategies are generally definedby glance frequencies and glance duration required to getinformation from a specific on-board system.The objective of this evaluation would be to set up a tooleasy to useby experts, designers and manufacturers n orderto evaluate the visual demand of their system. Theadvantage of this kind of approach appears clearly: t canbe applied to any system, whatever its function, itscommands and its display. This consideration s very useful,taking into account the fact that nobody really knows howthe systems of the next generation will look like. A toolfocusing on the visual driver performance will also allow toevaluate he real useof aset of systems mplemented insidethe vehicle.Design process, in order to be efficient, mustbe consideredas an iterative process, with the systems dcsign improvedaccording to the successive evaluations. The evaluationcriteria are defined by Franzen (1993) as being bothacceptable system performance and technical feasability aswell as user acceptance of the product or the systemprovided, i.e. the potential orreal use in the market place.Evaluation process might be run individually, bymanufacturers while setting up products and services, orcollectively with the necessity of global evaluation onsafety, efficiency of traffic management and forenvironment protection. This second case impliesdemonstrator projects sufficiently representative of thephenomenon in order to statistically evaluate the positive orthe negative effects of the implemented structure and to

. .I

constitute he final experimental phase before the marketingphase. . .o n i s mThe facilitation of systems usability can be reached byharmonisation procedure : considering that someergonomics rule will been identified for the interface, aneffortcan be devoted to apply this rule as often as possible,in order to have a consistency among systems, amongEuropeancounvies, and, amongall available information nthe transport environment.This is themain objective of theproject V 2008 "Harmonisation of AlT Roadside andDriver Information in Europe". The harmonisationconcemsmessage content and design, to be displayed by VariableMessage Signs and by in-car systems. In the same veine,this approach could lead to recommend the use ofinformation from existing infrastructure n accordance withthe Vienna Convention as navigation support (Godthelp,1990). The well-known symbolic information such asconventional road signs requiresless time to be recognizedand understood (PauziC, 1994).Standardization is a step in the harmonisation process and isa quite controversial issue, with on one side, the wish fromindustrialists and manufacturers to be a processas light aspossible, and, on the other side, the societal interest leadingto a developmentof this process, especially in the areas oftraffic and transport.In terms of product standard, the fact to design informationtechnology with consistency, among systems, amongcountries, and by using already well-known types ofmessages will obviously improve the systems usability and

applied in a coherent way with consistency(DRIVE/STAMMI). Because of the multilingualcharacteristics of Europe, one of the main preoccupations isto make sure that messages willbe understood whatever thecountry.Concerning product-indepcndent tandard, ike performancestandard, we saw it could be useful for evaluation process.For that, it is recommended to apply the human factorpreformance standard not only to the total implementedsystem, but also to all stages of the design cycle in ordertoavoid too late and expensivecorrections (Howarth, 1993).A third possible approach in the interface design, like inother existingareas, could be a standardizationof the designprocess tself (Franzen, 1993).6. nteeration of the set of svstemImproving the ergonomicsof a specific system is one thing,but the driver's workload depends upon the use of all thedevices implemented in the car.The integration of the set ofin-car sytems constitutes a future challenge. A firstapproach of this problem has been conducted withinDRIVE, with a project considering the possibility of aGeneric Intelligent Driver Support where the final outputwould be an interface able to schedule the messagesaccording to their priority (emergency. warning, advice orsimple information content), and to adapt informationpresentation to the current demand imposed to the driver(Venvey,1993). As the author points it out, one of the keyissues is the evaluation of the driver's current workload in

plenary-38


5/6

order to set up an adaptative interface, and this aspect stillremains unresolved for the mo ment. This type of approachdeserves to be studied in the future, according to thedevelopment of the applications offered by the devices andthe technological improvements. At this stage, and directlyin relation to future technological developemnt, it must beadded that the interface can have various modalitiesinvolving auditory, visual and may be kinestesic perceptivechannels. For the visual one, potential options are the use ofa shared multi-function dashboard display, with a singlescreen for numerous functions, and/or the type of Head UpDisplay (HUD) technology, with symbolic and text displayin upper driver's vision. For the driver/system dialogue,improvement in speech recognition technology will lead tofacilitate the management of the set of available functionsfor the driver, like, for example, giving the supportinginformation only at driver's request.An other side of the integration is the joint existence of the"nowadays" and the "high-tech" road network and trafficorganisation, taking into account the fact that neither all thepopulation no r all the places will be equippedsimultaneously.7. ConclusionThe final goal of these quite ambitious projects isto ensuresystems safety and acceptability by all road users, inaddition to technical efficiency and reliability of thefunctions of the system.If we really want to get results in terms of safetyimprovement, a good connection must be found betweenclear alarms, timely warnings, unambiguous and relevantinformation, the reality of the situation and the specificity ofthe user.Referen=Alm H. & Berlin M., 1990, "What is the optimal a mount ofinformation from a verbally based navigation system ?".Technical report, Swedish Road and Traffic ResearchInstitute, Linkt)ping, Sweden.Alm H.. Nilsson L., Jarmark S ., Savelid J.. & Hennings U,.1991. "The effects of landmark presentation on driverperformance and uncertainty in a navigation task- a fieldstudy", Swedish PrometheusIT-4,TI, Linkoping, Sweden.Antin J.F., 1993, "Informationnal aspects of car design, inAutomotive ergonomics", Peacock & Karwowski (eds.),Taylor & Francis.Aretz AJ., 1990, "Map display design", in Proceedings ofth e Human factors Sociery, 33rd Annual Meeting, 8-12,Santa Monica, CA :Human Factors Society.Ashby M.C., Parkes A.M., Fai rclough S.H. & Lorenz K.,1991, "A comparison of route navigation and routeguidance systems in an urban environment", Proceeding ofthe 24th ISATA Conference, Florence, Italy.Bruyas M.P., Le Breton B. & Pauzi6 A., 1993. "Iconicinformation presentation :pictograms understanding, studyabout ambiguity", Fiflh International C onference on.Visionin Vehicles, Glasgow.Bruyas M.P.. Pauzi6 A. & Alauzet A., 1992, "Knowledgeand understanding of pictograms : survey conducted amonga diversified population", lnrernational Journal ofPsychology, 21,342.

Farber B., Fhrber B. & Popp M.M.. 1986. "Are orienteddrivers better drivers ?", Fifth lnterncuional congress ATEC86 . Paris.Franzen S. , 1993, "Driver oriented design'', in Drivingfuture vehicles. A.M. Pa rk a & S. Franzen 4s . ) . 247-250.Godthelp H., 1990, "Naar een beheerst wegverkeer",Verkeerskunde. 41.3.112-6.Green P., 1993, "Design of control and display symbols",in Automotive ergonomics, Peacock & Karwowski (eds.),Taylor & Francis.Heft H., 1979, "The role of environmental features in route-learning : two exploratory studies of way-finding",Environmental Psychology and Nonverbal Behaviour, 3,Hounsel N.B., McDonald M. & Wong C.F.S., 1988,"Traffic incidents and route guidance in a SCOOTnetwork", PTRC summer annual meeting.Howarth I., 1993, "Effective design : ensuring humanfactors in design procedures", in Driving future vehicles,A.M. Parkes & S.Franzen (eds.), 311-320.Jeffery D.J., 1981, "Ways and means for improving driverroute guidance",TRRL aboratory, report 1016.MalaterreG. & Fontaine H.. 1993, "Drivers safety needs andthe possibility of satisfying them using RTI systems", inDriving future vehicles, A.M. Parkes & S.Franzen (eds.),McCormick E.J. & Sanders M.S., 1983, "Human factors inengineering and design", New York :Mcgraw-Hill.Mourant R., 1979. "Driving performance of the elderly",Accident Analysis and Prevention, vol.11.Pauzi6 A. & Anadon S.. 1993, "Visual requirements ofvehicle guidance systems : central versus peripheralpreparatory information display", F g ~ h n te rn at io na lConference on Vision in Vehicl es,Glasgow.Pauzi6 A., 1994, "Ergonomics of M am ac hi ne Interface forDriving Aid Systems :Future Design Recommendations?",FISITA Conference, Beijing, China.PauziB A., Chautemps F., Trauchessec R. & Blanchet V.,1994, "Road Information Experiments :Legibility of RoadSign Display", Deliverable no 12.1, DRIVE / HARDIE,23 p.Pauzi6 A., Letisserand D. & Trauchessec R., 1992,"Displayed information legibility of in-vehicle systems:focus on elderly drivers visual specificities",Proceeding ofthe 25rh ISATA Conferen ce, Florence.Pauzi6 A., Letisserand D., 1991, Ergonomics of MMI in aiddriving system: : approach focusing on elderly visualcapacities", Studies in Health Techno logy andInformatics", Bouma & Graafmans (eds.), Proceeding of the1st Conference Gerontechnology, 1 0 s Press, Netherlands.Saunby C.S., Farbcr E.I. & DeMello J., 1988, "Driverunderstanding and recognition of automotive I S 0 symbols",M E p ap er n o 880056, Warrendale. P.A. : Society ofAutomotive Engineers.

172-185.

151-169.

1994 Vchiclc Nawigatioo & Info"on Systems Cnnfcrewc Roccuhgs plenary-39


6/6

Schraagen J.M. C., 1993, "Information presentation in ins arnavigation systems", in Driving future vehicles, A.M. F'arkes& S. Franzen (eds.), 171-185.Schraagen J.M.C.. 1989. "Navigation in unfamiliar cities: areview of the literature and a theoretical framework". ReportIZF ,1989-36, Soesterberg, The Netherlands.Schraagen J.M.C., 1990. "Strategy differences in mapinformation use for route following in unfamiliar cities :implications for insar navigation systems", Report IZF,B 6,Soesterberg, The Netherlands.Sivak M., P.L. Olson & L.A. Pastalan, 1981. "Effect ofdriver's age on nighttime legibility of highway signs".H u " Factors, 23.59-64.Stockes A., Wickens C. & Kite K., 1990, "Displaytechnology human facors concepts", Warrendale P.A. :Society of AutomotiveEngineers, Inc.Streeter. L.A.. VitelloD. and Wonsiewicz S.A., 1985, "Howto tell people where to go : comparing navigational aids",Inlernational Journal of Man-MachineStudies, 22,549-62.Sussman E.D.. Bishop H., MadnickB.& Walter R., 1985,Driver inattention and highway safety", Transportationresearch Record. 1047.4048.,Sviden0..993, "MMI scenarios for the future road serviceinformatics", in Driving future vehicles, A.M. Parkes& S.F r m n eds.), 29-38 p.Transportation Research Board, 1988. National ResearchCouncil, "Transportation in an aging society", SpecialReport 218, TRB Washington D.C.Verwey W.B. and Janssen W.H., 1988, "Route followingand driving performance with in-car route guidancesystems", Report IZF, C-14, Soesterberg, The Netherlands.Verwey W.B., 1993. "How can we prevent overload of thedriver ?", in Driving future vehicles, A.M. Parkes & S.Franzen (eds.), 235-244.Wickens C.D., 1984. "Processing resources in attention", inParasuraman & Davies (eds.), Varieties of artenlion,OrlandoFL, Academicpess.Wierwille W., Antin J.F., Dingus T.A.& Hulse M.C., 1988,"Visual attentional demand of in-car navigation displaysystem". in Gale A.G.. Freeman M.H., Halsegrave C.M.;Smith P. & Taylor S.P. (eds), Vision in Vehicle I , 307-316,Amsterdam :North-Holland.Winsum van W., 1993 "Selection of routes in routenavigation systems". in Driving future vehicles, A.M. Parkes& S. Franzen (eds.), 193-203.Wolffelaar P., Brouwer W. & Rothengatter T., 1990,"Divided attention in RTI-tasks for elderly drivers",Deliverable Report 1 0 0 6mC1 , 4 9p.Zwahlen H.T., AdamsC.. Debald D., 1988 "Safety aspectsof CRT touch panel controls in automobiles". in Gale A.G.,Freeman M.H.. Halsegrave C.M., SmithP. & Taylor S.P.(eds), Vision in Vehicle II , 335-344, Amsterdam : North-Holland.

plenary-40

a. pauzié - human interface

Documents