driver link-up- exploring user requirements for a driver-to-driver communication device

1、Driver Link-up: Exploring User Requirements for a Driver-to-Driver Communication DeviceRaphael Lamas, Gary Burnett, Sue Cobb, Catherine Harvey Human Factors Research GroupThe University of Nottingham University Park, Nottingham+44 (0) 115 9514040raphael.lamas, gary.burnett, sue.cobb, catherine.harve

2、ynottingham.ac.ukABSTRACTDriving is a social task, where drivers commonly communicate with other road users (e.g. verbally, through gestures, etc.). This exploratory cross-cultural research sought to investigate various communication issues raised while driving, and how a hypothetical electronic dev

3、ice could address them. Twenty-four participants from the UK and Brazil were asked to give their opinions on how they would react to six different driving scenarios involving communication between drivers. The scenarios varied intransport bodies or informally (e.g. hand gestures, verbal utterances).

4、 As technology evolves, systems could be introduced within vehicles to facilitate communication without adversely affecting the driving task. For example, an electronic device available in the vehicle could be used to exchange messages between drivers. This device could use the technology being deve

5、loped as part of the extensive research on connected vehicles. With this technology vehicles are equipped with sensors and wireless devices which allow them to be connected all the time and exchange information either with each other (V2V), or between the vehicle and the road infrastructure (V2I) 6.

6、Compared to other means of communication, which are predominantly verbal and often face-to-face, the interaction between two drivers has specific characteristics. Firstly, since the drivers are ide the vehicles, this creates a spatial separation and physical barrier between agents. Secondly, due to

7、the fact that both vehicles are usually in movement, often at high speeds, this interaction needs to be completed in a much shorter time. Finally, visual information such as facial expressions and gestures may be unavailable (e.g. at night). All of these factors mean it can often be difficult to ver

8、ify the precise intent of other drivers. If a driver is not aware of another road users real intentions, this can lead to misunderstandings, which can potentially cause stress and extreme emotional responses 12.Drivers influence other drivers and are in turn influenced by them. A small change in the

9、 behaviour of a few drivers can easily affect other drivers within that culture 13.whotigated the interaction, the number of vehiclesinvolved, the likelihood of anonymity, the event duration and whether the vehicle was stationary/in motion. Results highlighted various cross-cultural differences betw

10、een drivers when using traditional means of communication,e.g. use of horn/lights. For the electronic device, results showed how the main drivers reaction to an aggressive message would affect their decision to interact with another driver via the device. The presence of passengers was also believed

11、 to have important implications for how the system is likely to be used in practice. The study generated design recommendations for a driver-to-driver communication device, such as the need for non-visual interactions and asetofpre-definedmessages communication scenarios.Author KeywordsDriver intera

12、ction; interpersonal InterfaceACM Classification Keywordstocoverthebasiccommunication;UserH.1.2 User/Machine Systems: Human factors.INTRODUCTIONIn the socially dynamic road situation, driversStudies have shown differences amongst cultureseveralaspects such as driver behaviour, safety skills, riskmus

13、tperception skills and symbol use 10, 11. For these reasons it is very important to study the differences in culture related to driving.The aim of this cross-cultural study was to investigate ways, either formal or informal, in which drivers from twocommunicate with others to make their intentions c

14、lear and avoid accidents. This interaction can be made either formally using legal signals approved by governmentPermission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or c

15、ommercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored.Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, require

16、s prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from P.AutomotiveUI 14, September 17 - 19 2014, Seattle, WA, USA Copyright 2014 ACM 978-1-4503-3212-5/14/09$15.00/10.1145/2667317.2667336effectiveness of the use of a hypothetical electronic device on the

17、communication outcome in these scenarios.Table 1 - Details of ScenariosThe study was based on driving scenarios, which are specific stories used to present information and elicit opinions from participants. Scenario-based studies have been used not only for automotive research 8, 9 but also for othe

18、r areas within Human-Computer Interaction (HCI)1 and can be considered a powerful design tool. Scenarios can be used to explore potential issues with the use of a proposed technology, in this case an in-vehicle communications device, before implementation. The technique generates predictions about e

19、mergent behaviour arising from the user-device interaction and leads to design recommendations to support future product development.METHODParticipantsA convenience sample of 24 drivers, 15 male and 9 female, participated in the study. Participants were recruited on the basis that they must have hel

20、d a valid driving license from either the UK or Brazil for at least five years (mean=25, SD=14.1). Participants also had to regularly drive at least three times a week. Almost all of them (92%) reported that they drove regularly for at least 60 minutes a week onEthics Committee of the Faculty of Eng

21、ineering at the University of Nottingham.Driving ScenariosAn important part of the study was the design of the driving scenarios presented during the interview process. The initial step was to produce a comprehensive list of common driving scenarios in which there was some form of communication betw

22、een drivers. Each driving scenario was then further analysed and grouped, based on a set of five attributes covering the following areas:Who starts the interaction; the main driver (i.e. the participant) or the other drivers;The cardinality of the interaction, i.e. if the interaction was between the

23、 main driver and the other driver (i.e. one-to-one) or between the main driver and a group of other drivers (i.e. one-to-many);If the message could be sent anonymously or not; If both vehicles are in movement;The duration of the drivers interaction (e.g. brief or prolonged);average in their respecti

24、ve countries.Half of theseparticipants (12) were from Brazil with ages ranging from 22 to 64 (mean=42, SD=16.5). The other half were British nationals with ages ranging from 24 to 69 (mean=46, SD=9.9).The information presented to the British participants was translated from English and presented in

25、Portuguese to the Brazilian participants. The study was approved by theBased on the similarities and differences of each scenario of this full set, a sub set of six scenarios was developed. With this set of specific scenarios it was possible to cover a wide range of different forms of communication

26、between drivers. Table 1 shows the description and attributes for these scenarios.#DescriptionWho starts InteractionCardinality of InteractionAnonymous MessageDuration of InteractionCars in Movement01The main driver is late for an extremely important appointment due to heavy, unexpected traffic. Whe

27、n they are about to reach their destination, they come up behind a very slow driver on a single carriageway, and are therefore unable to overtakeMain driverOne-to-oneNoBrief / ProlongedYes02The main driver is driving calmly on a single carriageway on a Sunday morning when an apparently angry driver

28、starts tailgating themOther driverOne-to-oneNoProlongedYes03Friendly interaction between the main driver and the other driver (e.g. old school friend, celebrity) while driving on a motorwayMain driverOne-to-oneYes/NoBrief / ProlongedYes04The main driver notices a problem with the other drivers vehic

29、le (e.g. flat tyre) while overtakingMain driverOne-to-oneNoBriefYes05The other driver needs to give way to the main driver who is leaving a buildingMain driverOne-to-one One-to-manyNoBriefNo06The main driver, due to traffic stopping unexpectedly, gets stuck in the middle of a junction, blocking vehi

30、cles coming from the other directionMain driverOne-to-manyNoBriefNoProcedureParticipants initially read an information sheet containing details about the steps involved in the study and signed a consent form. They then filled in a short demographic questionnaire containing general questions about th

31、eir gender, age, driving experience and competency with technology. Participants were then presented with one detailed driving scenario at a time on a separate sheet. After reading the scenario, they were allowed to ask the researcher any questions to confirm understanding.The interview process was

32、semi-structured and was audio recorded. The researcher asked participants questions regarding the scenario they had just read based on the interview script designed beforehand. Depending on their previous answers, further probing questions were also asked to provide a deeper understanding. After all

33、 the questions regarding a scenario had been answered, participants were then presented with the next scenario and the same process started again. All participants answered questions based on the same set of six scenarios. The scenario orders were randomised and presented to each participant in a di

34、fferent order.Some of the questions presented to the participants were related to a communication device. The researcher did not explain to the participants what this device would be like and left it open to their imagination without any further information. Participants were only asked to think of

35、an electronic device available in the vehicle, which would allow them to exchange messages with other drivers. The following questions were asked first for each scenario:More codes were created during this process. The coding process continued in order to find common themes based on cultural differe

36、nces in each scenario. The final data was reduced to a set of codes based on each driving scenario.RESULTSTraditional Means of CommunicationIt was apparent in analysis that the meaning of some informal, traditional means of communication between road users is sometimes not clear, as one Brazilian pa

37、rticipant mentioned:“if the other driver flashes his headlights at you it could mean a lot of things, like an animal on the road, police check, problem with your car. You dont know what to do for a while, you even reduce your speed. When nothing happens ahead on the road you start wondering why the

38、other driver flashed his headlights at you.”Some cultural differences were found in the ways that participants reported using traditional communication methods. Firstly, the Brazilian drivers reported that they would use their horns and flash their headlights much more frequently than the British dr

39、ivers. There is a law 4 in Brazil aga t honking the horn, but it is not respected. Brazilian drivers honk their horns all the time in different ways and with different meanings. This was found particularly in the first scenario where almost all Brazilian drivers (11 out of 12) reported that they wou

40、ld either honk their horns or flash their headlights. In the third scenario where participants saw an old school friend, nine out of twelve Brazilians would honk their horns in a light, friendly way to get the attention of the driver, while none of the British drivers would do the same. According to

41、 the UK Highway Code 5, drivers should only use their horns or flash their headlights to make the other driver aware of their presence in an emergency situation and the interview data showed that this rule is generally respected on UK roads.Secondly, Brazilian drivers appear to be not so courteous w

42、hen giving way to other drivers. Almost all Brazilian participants said that they would try to get the other drivers attention and ask their permission to pull in front, for tance by honking their horns. When a Brazilian driver wants to pull in front, the other drivers often edge their car forward,

43、speed up or cut the other drivers off 2. British participants, on the other hand, reported that they know it is considered polite to wait their turn and that they should remain calm and hope someone is courteous or has enoughcommon sense to let them in.Electronic Devices for CommunicationAlthough so

44、me cultural differences between Brazilian and British participants were found using the traditional means of communication, no clear differences were found when participants reported how they would use the hypothetical device as a means of communication. Both British and Brazilian participants belie

45、ved they would use the device in the same way with similar message content.1.What would you do in this scenario without device? (All scenarios)the2.Would you send a message to the other driver using this device? If so, what would you say? (All scenarios except scenario number two)Would you accept th

46、e message coming from the driver behind you? (Scenario number two only)3.Probe questions more closely related to each scenario and the device were also asked, involving different topics such as the effect of passengers and anonymous messages. After the questions from all six scenarios had been answe

47、red, the researcher then asked all participants the same general question regarding what they thought the best way would be to interact with the electronic device, including its user interface.Data AnalysisA formal iterative analysis technique for qualitative data was used, which is based on demarca

48、tion of words/short sentences (i.e. codes) linked back to the research aims 7. Before starting the analysis, a comprehensive list of main codes was produced based on the study setup, including “cross-cultural difference”, “interaction type”, “message type” and “message reply”. The researcher then an

49、alysed the transcripts according to culture and driving scenario.Issues with the device, such as the potential for abusive use were equally found in both cultures.According to one participant, the most important quality of the device is that it makes the drivers intentions clearwell to an aggressive

50、 or offensive message. As one British participant noted:“If I had a passenger with me I wouldnt accept the message in the first place just because I didnt want to create any negativity with the person if its my mother, she would be really upset by foul language so I would probably reject the message

51、.“DISCUSSIONDesign RecommendationsBased on participants responses, the study highlighted some key initial design recommendations for a suitable driver-to-driver communication device. Firstly, it is clear that distraction is a concern therefore, the design of an appropriate human-machine interface (H

52、MI) is critical. In this respect, a voice-based interface offers potential, but may suffer from an extended interaction time.Secondly, the device should allow its users to set up how they want to send and receive the messages. This could be either by audio or by text. Participants reported they woul

53、d prefer audio, as it is less distracting. The audio message could be transmitted with the drivers actual voice or a synthesised voice (i.e. computer-generated). Based on findings, the latter would be preferred, especially if drivers do not know how the other driver would interpret the tone of their

54、 voice. The message with the actual voice of the drivers would also carry their emotions (e.g. aggressive, polite, sad), which could lead to different outcomes. For example, the situation could be dealt with or the other driver could become angrier resulting in a road rage scenario.Thirdly, the devi

55、ce should provide easy access to a set of pre-defined messages. The driver could just say what the topic of the message is (e.g. “Flat tyre”) and the device would send a pre-defined message (e.g. “Youve got a flat tyre”). Although free content message could cover any communication scenario, it could

56、 also lead to inappropriate use. Therefore, the device should be equipped with a subset of messages, initially covering basic communication scenarios such as apologising and asking permission. For future versions, this could be further expanded with a wider range of content in order to have a higher

57、 acceptance by the general public. This content, however, needs to be carefully considered, because the increased number of messages might result in more time for drivers to decide on and select the appropriate one.Fourthly, the HMI of the device should also identify the driver who sent the message

58、by informing the vehicles number plate, make and model, even if the vehicle cannot be seen by all drivers. Although this could violate the drivers privacy, it was felt that an anonymous message might lead to abusive use.Finally, the device interface could allow its users to display their current status, which would be anything they want to share with other drivers, such as their emotional feeling at