Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T10:17:40.889Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

CLOSING THE HUMAN-MACHINE DISCONNECT: DESIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR TWO EXTREME COMPANIONS FOR FUTURE AUTONOMOUS MOBILITY

Part of: Industrial Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2020

P. Kong ,
H. Cornet  and
F. Frenkler
P. Kong*
Affiliation:
TUMCREATE Ltd, Singapore
H. Cornet
Affiliation:
TUMCREATE Ltd, Singapore
F. Frenkler
Affiliation:
Technical University of Munich, Germany
*
*[email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In an era of increased automation in commuters’ everyday life, addressing the disconnect caused by taking the human out of the loop is critical. This paper describes the development of two extreme Companions for a public autonomous bus interface in Singapore. Attributes were identified in a benchmarking study and tested in a survey to investigate local users’ key preferences for must-have and ideal-to-have traits and Companion qualities. Finally, two contrasting Companion concepts are proposed and design strategies considering user expectations of Companions versus humans are discussed.

Keywords

human-centred designindustrial designempirical studieshuman-machine interfaceshuman-robot interaction
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: DESIGN Conference , Volume 1 , May 2020 , pp. 1627 - 1636
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Akamatsu, M., Green, P. and Bengler, K. (2013), “Automotive Technology and Human Factors Research: Past, Present, and Future”, International Journal of Vehicular Technology, Vol. 2013, pp. 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/526180Google Scholar
Bengler, K. et al. (2014), “Three Decades of Driver Assistance Systems: Review and Future Perspectives”, IEEE Intelligent Transportation Systems Magazine, Vol. 6 No. 4, pp. 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1109/MITS.2014.2336271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bissell, D. et al. (2020), “Autonomous automobilities: The social impacts of driverless vehicles”, Current Sociology, Vol. 68 No. 1, pp. 116–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392118816743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Damiani, S., Deregibus, E. and Andreone, L. (2009), “Driver-vehicle interfaces and interaction: where are they going?”, European Transport Research Review, Vol. 1 No. 2, pp. 87–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12544-009-0009-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Debernard, S. et al. (2016), “Designing Human-Machine Interface for Autonomous Vehicles”, IFAC-PapersOnLine, Vol. 49 No. 19, pp. 609–614. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.10.629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Desmet, P., Overbeeke, K. and Tax, S. (2001), “Designing Products with Added Emotional Value: Development and Appllcation of an Approach for Research Through Design”, The Design Journal, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 32–47. https://doi.org/10.2752/146069201789378496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etherington, D. (2017), “Here's what it's like to drive with Toyota's Yui AI in-car assistant”, TechCrunch, available at: https://techcrunch.com/2017/01/06/heres-what-its-like-to-drive-with-toyotas-yui-ai-in-car-assistant/ (accessed 19 April 2018).Google Scholar
Guell, C. et al. (2012), “Towards a differentiated understanding of active travel behaviour: Using social theory to explore everyday commuting”, Social Science and Medicine, Vol. 75 No. 1, pp. 233–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2012.01.038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Häuslschmid, R. et al. (2017), “Supporting Trust in Autonomous Driving”, Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces - IUI ’17, pp. 319–329. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025171.3025198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heufler, G. (2004), Design Basics, translated by Zettinig, S.M., Niggli Verlag AG, Sulgen, Zurich.Google Scholar
Hohenberger, C., Spörrle, M. and Welpe, I.M. (2016), “How and why do men and women differ in their willingness to use automated cars? The influence of emotions across different age groups”, Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Vol. 94, pp. 374–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.09.022Google Scholar
Horton, G. and Goers, J. (2019), A Revised Kano Model and its Application in Product Feature Discovery, University of Magdeburg. Magdeburg, Germany.Google Scholar
Howard, D. and Dai, D. (2014), “Public Perceptions of Self-driving Cars: The Case of Berkeley, California”, 93rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Vol. 2014, p. 21.Google Scholar
Institute for Media Innovation (IMI). (2019), “Nadine Social Robot”, available at: https://imi.ntu.edu.sg/IMIResearch/ResearchAreas/Pages/NadineSocialRobot.aspx (accessed 6 November 2019).Google Scholar
Kano, N. et al. (1984), “Attractive Quality and Must-Be Quality”, Journal of The Japanese Society for Quality Control, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 147–156.Google Scholar
Khan, T., Pitts, M. and Williams, M.A. (2016), “Cross-Cultural Differences in Automotive HMI Design : A Comparative Study Between UK and Indian Users ’ Design Preferences”, Journal of Usability Studies, Vol. 11 No. 2, pp. 45–65.Google Scholar
Lindley, J. and Coulton, P. (2015), “Back to the future: 10 years of design fiction”, ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, pp. 210–211. https://doi.org/10.1145/2783446.2783592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Löfgren, M., Witell, L. and Gustafsson, A. (2011), “Theory of attractive quality and life cycles of quality attributes”, TQM Journal, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 235–246. https://doi.org/10.1108/17542731111110267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MaaS Global Oy (2019), “Whim”, available at: https://whimapp.com/ (accessed 6 November 2019).Google Scholar
Mahadevan, K., Somanath, S. and Sharlin, E. (2018), “Communicating awareness and intent in autonomous vehicle-pedestrian interaction”, CHI ’18 Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, Montreal, QC, Canada, available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mattelmäki, T., Vaajakallio, K. and Koskinen, I. (2014), “What Happened to Empathic Design?”, Design Issues, Vol. 30 No. 1, pp. 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1162/desi_a_00249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nordhoff, S. et al. (2017), “User acceptance of automated shuttles in Berlin-Schöneberg: A questionnaire study”, Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, Vol. 58 No. August, pp. 843–854. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2018.06.024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasouli, A. and Tsotsos, J.K. (2019), “Autonomous Vehicles That Interact With Pedestrians: A Survey of Theory and Practice”, IEEE Transactions on Intelligent Transportation Systems, IEEE, pp. 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1109/tits.2019.2901817Google Scholar
Sauerwein, E. et al. (1996), “The Kano Model: How to Delight Your Customers”, International Working Seminar on Production Economics, Vol. 1 No. 4, pp. 313–327.Google Scholar
Schoettle, B. and Sivak, M. (2014), “A survey of public opinion about connected vehicles in the U.S., the U.K., and Australia”, 2014 International Conference on Connected Vehicles and Expo, ICCVE 2014 - Proceedings, pp. 687–692. https://doi.org/10.1109/iccve.2014.7297637CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singapore Department of Statistics. (2015), Highlights of General Household Survey 2015, Singapore.Google Scholar
Stadler, S. et al. (2019), “Designing Tomorrow’ s Human-Machine Interfaces in Autonomous Vehicles: An Exploratory Study in Virtual Reality”, Proceedings of the 5th International Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality Conference.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stadler, S. et al. (2019), “A Tool, not a Toy: Using Virtual Reality to Evaluate the Communication Between Autonomous Vehicles and Pedestrians”, in tom Dieck, M.C. and Jung, T.H. (Eds.), Augmented Reality and Virtual Reality, Springer Nature Switzerland AG, Manchester, England, pp. 203–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-06246-0_15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Toyota. (2018), “Toyota Concept-i | The Car of the Future”, available at: https://www.toyota.com/concept-i/ (accessed 19 April 2018).Google Scholar
Ulahannan, A. et al. (2019), “Using the Ideas Café to Explore Trust in Autonomous Vehicles”, in Ho, A.G. (Ed.), Proceedings of the AHFE 2018 International Conference on Human Factors in Communication of Design, Vol. 796, Springer International Publishing, Orlando, Florida, USA, pp. 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93888-2Google Scholar
van Boeijen, A. et al. (Eds.). (2013), Delft Design Guide: Design Methods, BIS Publishers, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
Verberne, F.M.F., Ham, J. and Midden, C.J.H. (2012), “Trust in Smart Systems”, Human Factors, Vol. 54 No. 5, pp. 799–810. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720812443825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verma, H. et al. (2019), “Engaging Pedestrians in Designing Interactions with Autonomous Vehicles”, CHI EA ’19 Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, Glasgow, Scotland UK, available at: https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3312864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vntana, . (2017), “Vntana”, available at: https://vntana.com/ (accessed 6 November 2019).Google Scholar
Waytz, A., Heafner, J. and Epley, N. (2014), “The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle”, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Elsevier Inc, Vol. 52, pp. 113–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2014.01.005CrossRefGoogle Scholar