Design and Evaluation of a Touch-Based Personalizable In-Vehicle User Interface

REFERENCES

• Antona, M., Savidis, A., & Stephanidis, C. (2006). A process-oriented interactive design environment for automatic user-interface adaptation. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 20, 79–116.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Barnum, C. M., & Palmer, L. A. (2010, April). More than a feeling: understanding the desirability factor in user experience. In CHI’10 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 4703–4716). ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Benedek, J., & Miner, T. (2002). Measuring desirability: New methods for evaluating desirability in a usability lab setting. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation.
   Google Scholar
• Binder, T. (2007). Why design: Labs. Proceedings of the 2nd Nordic Design Research Conference.
   Google Scholar
• Blom, J. O., & Monk, A. F. (2003). Theory of personalization of appearance: Why users personalize their PCs and mobile phones. Human–Computer Interaction, 18, 193–228.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buchenau, M., & Suri, J. F. (2000). Experience prototyping. Proceedings of the 3rd conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques, 424–433.
   Google Scholar
• Burnett, G. E., & Porter, J. M. (2001). Ubiquitous computing within cars: Designing controls for non-visual use. International Journal of Human–Computer Studies, 55, 521–531.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caird, J. K., & Horrey, W. J. (2011). Handbook of driving simulation for engineering, medicine and psychology (Chapter 5). Alberta, Canada: CRC Press.
   Google Scholar
• Davidsson, S., & Alm, H. (2014) Context adaptable driver information—Or, what do whom need and want when? Applied Ergonomics, 45, 994–1002.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Desmond, P. A., & Matthews, G. (2009). Individual differences in stress and fatigue in two field studies of driving. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 12, 265–276.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dingus, T. A., Hulse, M. C., & Barfield, W. (1998). Human–system interface issues in the design and use of advanced traveller information systems. In W. Barfield & T. A. Dingus (Eds.), Human factors in intelligent transportation systems (pp. 359–395). London, UK: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Fan, H., & Poole, M. S. (2006). What is personalization? Perspectives on the design and implementation of personalization in information systems. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 16, 179–202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Floyd, C. (1984). A systematic look at prototyping. In R. Budde (Ed.), Approaches to prototyping, proceedings of the working conference on prototyping (pp. 1–18). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
   Google Scholar
• Frayling, C. (1993). Research in art and design. Royal College of Art Research Papers, 1(1), 1–5.
   Google Scholar
• Gkouskos, D., Normark, C. J., & Lundgren, S. (2014). What drivers really want: Investigating dimensions in automobile user needs. International Journal of Design, 8, 59–71.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grane, C., & Bengtsson, P. (2013). Driving performance during visual and haptic menu selection with in-vehicle rotary device. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 18, 123–135.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green, P., Cullinane, B., Zylstra, B., & Smith, D. (2003). Typical values for driving performance with emphasis on the standard deviation of lane position: A summary of the literature ( Tech. Rep. UMTRI–2003–42). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.
   Google Scholar
• Hallnäs, L., & Redström, J. (2002). From use to presence: On the expressions and aesthetics of everyday computational things. ACM Transactions on Computer–Human Interaction, 9, 106–124.
   Google Scholar
• Hancock, P. A., Pepe, A. A., & Murphy, L. L. (2005). Hedonomics: The power of positive and pleasurable ergonomics. Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications, 13, 8–14.
   Google Scholar
• Harvey, C., Stanton, N. A., Pickering, C. A., McDonald, M., & Zheng, P. (2011). A usability evaluation toolkit for in-vehicle information systems (IVISs). Applied Ergonomics, 42, 563–574.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hassenzahl, M. (2004). The interplay of beauty, goodness, and usability in interactive products. Human–Computer Interaction, 19, 319–349.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hills, B. L. (1980). Vision, visibility, and perception in driving. Perception, 9, 183–216.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horrey, W. J., Lesch, M. F., Kramer, A. F., & Melton, D. F. (2009). Effects of a computer-based training module on drivers’ willingness to engage in distracting activities. Human Factors, 51, 571–581.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jameson, A. (2007). Adaptive interfaces and agents. In J. A. Jacko & A. Sears (Eds.), Human–computer interaction handbook (pp. 433–458). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Jamson, S., & Carsten, O. (Eds.). (2002). HASTE Deliverable 1: Development of experimental protocol. Report of European Project HASTE (Human machine interface And the Safety of Traffic in Europe).
   Google Scholar
• Jordan, P.W. (2000). Designing pleasurable products: An introduction to the new human factors. London, UK: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Kauvo, K., Tarkiainen, M., Koskinen, H., Kompfner, P., & Amditis, A. (2006). In-vehicle integration of nomadic devices. Proceedings of the 13th ITS World Congress, 8–12.
   Google Scholar
• Koskinen, I., Binder, T., & Redström, J. (2008). Lab, field, gallery, and beyond. Artifact, 2, 46–57.
   Google Scholar
• Krippendorff, K. (2006). The semantic turn: A new foundation for design. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Lancaster, R., & Ward, R. (2002). The contribution of individual factors to driving behaviour: Implications for managing work-related road safety (Research Report 020). Halesowen, UK: Entec UK Limited, Health and Safety Executive.
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, J. R. (1995). IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: Psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 7, 57–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Löwgren, J., & Stolterman, E. (2004). Thoughtful interaction design: A design perspective on information technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Mano, H., & Oliver, R. L. (1993). Assessing the dimensionality and structure of the consumption experience: evaluation, feeling, and satisfaction. The Journal of Consumer Research, 20, 451–466.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marcus, A. (2004). The next revolution: Vehicle user interfaces. Interactions, 11(1), 40–47.
   Google Scholar
• Mugge, R., Schifferstein, H. N., & Schoormans, J. P. (2006). A longitudinal study on product attachment and its determinants. In K. M. Ekström & H. Brembeck (Eds.), E–European advances in consumer research, 7 (pp. 641–647). Duluth, MN: Association for Consumer Research.
   Google Scholar
• Norman, D. A. (2004). Emotional design: Why we love (or hate) everyday things. New York, NY: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Norman, D. A. (2011). Living with complexity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Normark, C. J., & Gärling, A. (2011). Assessment of automotive visual display guidelines and principles: A Literature review. The Design Journal, 14, 446–474.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Normark, C. J., & Gustafsson, A. (2014). Design and evaluation of a personalizable interface in a vehicle context. Journal of Design Research, 12, 308–329.
   Google Scholar
• Normark, C. J., & Mankila, J. P. (2013). Personalizable in-vehicle systems, technology acceptance and product attachment. International Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 2, 262–280.
   Google Scholar
• Normark, C. J., Tretten, P., & Gärling, A. (2009). Do redundant head-up and head-down display configurations cause distractions. Proceedings of the 5th International Driving Symposium on Human Factors in Driver Assessment and Design, 398–404.
   Google Scholar
• Overbeeke, K. C. (2007, 26 October). The aesthetics of the impossible. Inaugural lecture, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Eindhoven. Retrieved from http://www.tue.nl/bib/
   Google Scholar
• Redström, J. (2006). Towards user design? On the shift from object to user as the subject of design. Design Studies, 27, 123–139.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Redström, J. (2008). RE: Definitions of use. Design Studies, 29, 410–423.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rydström, A., Bengtsson, P., Grane, C., Broström, R., Agardh, J., & Nilsson, J. (2005). Multifunctional systems in vehicles: A usability evaluation. Proceedings of CybErg 2005: The fourth international cyberspace conference on ergonomics, 768–775.
   Google Scholar
• Rydström, A., Broström, R., & Bengtsson, P. (2012). A comparison of two contemporary types of in-car multifunctional interfaces. Applied Ergonomics, 43, 507–514.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Saariluomaand, P., & Jokinen, J. P. P. (2014). Emotional dimensions of user experience: A user psychological analysis. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 30, 303–320.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanders, E.B.-N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4, 5–18.
   Google Scholar
• Schröer, B., Löhmann, S., & Lindemann, U. (2011). Creating user experience by novel interaction forms: (Re) combining physical actions and technologies. User Experience in Cars, Workshop Proceedings of Interact 2011, 5–9.
   Google Scholar
• Seeger, H. (1980). Technisches design. Grafenau, Bavaria: Expert Verlag.
   Google Scholar
• Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Someren, M. W., Barnard, Y. F., & Sandberg, J. A. (1994). The think aloud method – A practical guide to modelling cognitive processes. London, UK: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Stevens, A., Quimby, A., Board, A., Kersloot, T., & Burns, P. (2002). Design guidelines for safety of in-vehicle information systems. Project report PA 3721/01. London: Transport Research Laboratory.
   Google Scholar
• Stolterman, E. (2008). The nature of design practice and implications for interaction design research. International Journal of Design, 2, 55–65.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tractinsky, N., Abdu, R., Forlizzi, J., & Seder, T. (2011). Towards personalisation of the driver environment: investigating responses to instrument cluster design. International Journal of Vehicle Design, 55, 208–236.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tractinsky, N., & Zmiri, D. (2006). Exploring attributes of skins as potential antecedents of emotion in HCI. In P. A. Fishwick (Ed.) Aesthetic computing (pp. 405–422). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tretten, P., Normark, C. J., & Gärling, A. (2009). Warnings and placement positions in automobiles. Proceedings of the 17th Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association.
   Google Scholar
• Ullmark, P. (2011). Research and design practice—An exploratory update of Donald Schön. Proceedings of the Nordic Design Research Conference.
   Google Scholar
• Van Velsen, L., Huijs, C., & Van der Geest, T. (2008). Eliciting user input for requirements on personalization: The case of a Dutch ERP System. International Journal of Enterprise Information Systems, 4(4), 34–46.
   Google Scholar
• Van Velsen, L., Van der Geest, T., & Klaassen, R. (2011). Identifying usability issues for personalization during formative evaluations: A comparison of three methods. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 27, 670–698.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Van Velsen, L., Van der Geest, T., Klaassen, R., & Steehouder, M. (2008). User-centered evaluation of adaptive and adaptable systems: A literature review. The Knowledge Engineering Review, 23, 261–281.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weightman, D., & McDonagh, D. (2003). People are doing it for themselves. Proceedings of the 2003 International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces, 34–39.
   Google Scholar
• Wierwille, W. W. (1993). Visual and manual demands of in-car controls and displays. In B. Peacock & W. Karwowski (Eds.), Automotive ergonomics (pp. 299–321). London, UK: Taylor and Francis.
   Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, J., Forlizzi, J., & Evenson, S. (2007). Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 493–502.
   Google Scholar