devices enhance the user experience, possibly providing a degree of pleasure, ... certain automotive manufacturers allow access to functions such as navigation .... initially interact with the screen based feedback and will learn to associate the.
Paper presenting at the 3rd International conference on 'Design and Emotion', held 1-3 July, Loughborough, UK (Proceedings in Press)
Feeling your way home: The use of haptic interfaces within cars to make safety pleasurable Steve J. Summerskill, J. Mark Porter , Department of Design and Technology, Loughborough University, UK and Gary E. Burnett , School of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Nottingham, UK INTRODUCTION At the start of the 21st century the interiors of automobiles are becoming increasingly complex. Navigation systems, communication devices and car component management systems are all being implemented in cars. However, these devices increasingly require the visual and mental attention of the driver, distracting from the primary task of getting safely from A to C via B. Do these devices enhance the user experience, possibly providing a degree of pleasure, or do they add to the pressure that drivers already perceive in the era of traffic jams, speed cameras and road rage? Consumers in the information age are provided with increasing levels of functionality from the products they interact with. Nokia have produced a mobile phone which has an integrated digital camera and the BMW 7 Series car has over 700 functions controllable from one interactive knob. Technology ‘push’ assumes that people equate increased functionality with increased satisfaction or pleasure. This remains debatable as inaccessible functionality often leads to frustration. An example of technology ‘push’ is the implementation of satellite navigation systems in the automotive environment. The availability of a screen based interface in the car has allowed manufacturers such as Lexus to implement screen based functionality for systems other than satellite navigation, such as fan speed and air temperature. These interfaces generally increase the time that is required to access functionality when compared to standard dash mounted controls, increasing the ‘eyes off road time’. Research into distraction related accidents by Kantowitz et al. (1996) has highlighted the need to reduce the time that drivers spend with ‘eyes off the road’ in order to operate secondary functions such as navigation systems. Currently, certain automotive manufacturers allow access to functions such as navigation
destination entry whilst on the move (a complex task requiring the entry of alpha numeric data). The manufacturers, who do not allow access to this type of functionality for safety reasons, receive complaints from their customers stating frustration with the inability to perform certain tasks. This points to the premise that drivers can be overconfident in their ability to interact with such systems safely and are frustrated by the lack of access to all functionality whilst driving. This paper discusses the benefits that non-visual, haptic (active tactile) feedback may provide. It is anticipated that the ability to operate the secondary functions within a car without looking, will result in safer access to functionality. This will result in enhanced user interaction and acceptance of the system as a whole, whilst actually reducing the time that drivers spend with their eyes off the road. An added benefit from the use of haptic feedback is the inherent physical interaction between the car and driver, as the user perceives a direct physical relationship with the product. However, reducing the visual load on the driver is of no use if the cognitive load is increased, as both are capable of distracting the driver from the primary task. The possibility must be acknowledged that using current technology, it may not be safe to allow people to perform the tasks they wish to whilst driving, such as using a mobile phone. The only way to reduce frustration on the part of consumers in this case is to inform them of the risks of being distracted whilst driving. However, the actions of certain manufacturers in allowing access to complex functions on the move may mean that consumers will always resent these functions being removed once they have experienced them in the driving context. We are currently investigating the above issues in our BIONIC (Blind Operation of In-car Controls) project which is funded by the EPSRC/DTi Foresight Vehicle Link programme. Honda R&D is the lead industrial partner. The possible benefits of perceived added quality and safety to the driving environment cannot be underestimated in terms of product acceptance and marketability. THE HIERARCHY OF CONSUMER NEEDS AND FUNCTIONALITY The hierarchy of consumer needs as proposed by Jordan (2000) is adapted from Maslow’s ‘hierarchy of human needs’, that in-order for a user to gain pleasure from a product, a suitable level of functionally and usability must be in place. A number of examples where functionality within products is not inaccessible to the user due to limitations within the interface have been found. Perhaps the most relevant example to the BIONIC project is that of car radio usage. Van Nes et al. (1990) performed a study in which a group of participants were asked to use a new car radio for a period of 36 weeks. The users had the radio fitted to their cars and were also given a copy of the user manual. The frequency of radio function usage was recorded electronically over the period, and post evaluation interviews were performed. Only a third of participants used the manual in any depth resulting in many participants who were unable to use some of the basic functionality of the car radio, causing them much frustration. Designers of in-car systems should therefore use hidden functionality with caution. This is further emphasised by the work of Burns and Evans (2000) who adapted the ‘Kano model of product quality’. The model (see Figure 1) shows that poor
implementation of features can enrage or frustrate consumers. Taking this model further, an unexpected feature, such the ability to send e-mail messages from a car, may provide initial ‘delight’ to the consumer, but prolonged interaction with a poorly implemented interface is likely to cause frustration which will soon negate any feelings of delight.
Figure 1 An adapted Kano model of product quality.(Burns and Evans, 2000).
The driving environment is becoming more complex due to both external and internal pressures. Factors such as traffic congestion, and the desire to communicate with the outside world all add to the pressure of the driving environment. This introduces the possibility that drivers will be distracted by the interior and it’s ‘added functionality’, neglecting safe driving by being unaware of the exterior environment. Therefore the control of the secondary functions must be made as simple and easy to understand as possible. Referring once again to the ‘hierarchy of consumer needs’, it is the responsibility of the designer/ergonomist to ensure that the included functionality is safe to use in the environment into which it is to be placed. THE STATUS QUO IN CAR INTERIOR DESIGN Radios and navigation systems are not the only devices which drivers must interact with. Car manufacturers such as Fiat and Volvo are developing systems which integrate functionality such as SMS messaging, e-mail, telephone, and emergency assistance into ‘driver support systems’. Figure 2, below, shows the BMW I-Drive system, with an insert showing the main I-Drive controller and the screen based interface. The I-Drive system integrates all of the secondary functionality (over 700 functions) that is available in the BMW 7 series. The main I-Drive controller is a force feedback device with which the user interacts with screen based information. The benefit of the I-Drive is that all of the functionality available, such as navigation, entertainment, and environmental settings can be controlled from the main force feedback controller. Usage of the I-Drive system is essential if key features such as navigation are to be accessed effectively. However, the system
requires frequent and prolonged visual screen interaction in order to be able to complete tasks. An example of this is illustrated by an evaluation of the I-Drive system performed by the magazine Autocar (Pollard, 2002). The time it took to access a number of functions with I-Drive was timed. It took 21.7 seconds to select maximum airflow to the foot wells, whereas this function can be accessed in most cars by the flick of a switch. It therefore seems inevitable that I-Drive will increase ‘eyes off road time’. Most people who drive have at sometime used a radio or cassette player whilst driving, and have been surprised by the change in the exterior conditions when the eyes finally refocus on the road, e.g. the car in-front braking.
Figure 2. The BMW I-Drive system
THE USE OF HAPTIC FEEDBACK TO REDUCE EYES OFF ROAD TIME The use of secondary systems currently depends on visual feedback, whether in the form of screen based information as provided by the I-Drive system, or control positions as can be seen in lower end production cars. An ISO standard (ISO TC22/SC13/WG8) is currently being drafted which will set limits on the eyes off road time for control interactions and will, it is anticipated, exclude many systems that are currently available from in motion use. In order to provide the same level of functionality that drivers are currently experiencing, other feedback methodologies must be developed. The use of the tactile sense is currently under used and is therefore a target for exploration by the BIONIC project. It is anticipated that providing tactile feedback will provide a pleasurable experience for the driver, excluding some of the anxiety that is inherent with taking the eyes off the road, and provide a more interactive experience between the product and the user. In order to explore the non visual use of controls, experiments have been performed with visually impaired participants. The aim of these experiments has been to determine the tactile cues that visually impaired people use to determine the function of various controls, and to determine how
visually impaired people explore unfamiliar electronic products. Performing this experimentation has lead to two of the BIONIC concepts currently being explored. The first approach involves a design for a dash board which incorporates fixed locations for control interactions. HCRPs (Hand Control Reference Points) are placed at the centre of control clusters, allowing all of the controls that are associated with a certain function, such as entertainment, to be reached with the hand in one set location. The different functionality of the associated controls will be identified using further tactile cues, such as shape, texture and protrusion levels from the mounted surface, with state of the system information being provided by control position with suitable tactile markers. The aim of this approach is for the driver to be able to reach to a certain location and interact with the control surfaces without having to take the eyes off the road. The second approach being explored uses a multi function controller in combination with both visual and tactile feedback methodologies. The tactile feedback methodology being explored is the use of active pin matrix displays. These displays provide feedback to the user in the form of symbols which change to provide information on the current mode which is being interacted with, in combination with state of the system information. It is anticipated that the user will initially interact with the screen based feedback and will learn to associate the tactile symbols with the screen based information, with the aim of reducing the time needed with ‘eyes off the road’. CONCLUSIONS The combined influences of standardisation of ‘eyes off road time’, and research showing how driver distraction causes accidents, are going to change the functionality that is available in the automotive environment. This will produce safer driving packages, but is likely to cause frustration for drivers who are unaware of the dangers that current systems pose. In order for people to be able to use the current level of functionality that is present within cars, interaction methodologies will need to be explored which reduce distraction, but it is perhaps inevitable that tasks such as using a mobile phone will be banned in the near future. The need to take risks is part of human nature and risk taking is for some people part and parcel of the driving experience. Most drivers at some point will go through a red light, or drive with a mobile phone in the crook of their neck. But these activities are dangerous and cost lives. Receiving good, or bad news on a mobile phone, or entering destination information into a car, means that attention is divided and the user is not concentrating on the road, with obvious implications. REFERENCES Burns, A.D. and Evans, S., (2000) Insights into Customer Delight. Chapter 29 in Scrivener, S.A.R., Ball, L.J. and Woodcock, A., (Eds), Collaborative Design. Springer, London. pp 195-204
Jordan, P.W., 2000, Designing pleasurable products. Taylor and Francis: London. pp. 06 Kantowitz, B.H., 1995, Simulator evaluation of heavy-vehicle driver workload, In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting, Vol. 2. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Santa Monica, CA. pp. 11071111 Pollard, T., 2002, Does I-drive work. Autocar, 231, pp.68 Van Nes, F.L., and Van Itegem, J.P.M., 1990, Hidden functionality: How an advanced car radio is really used. IPO Annual Progress Report 25, Institute for Perception Research, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
