Chinese handwriting while driving: Effects of handwritten box size on in-vehicle information systems usability and driver distraction

References

• Chen Z, Rau PLP, Chen C. 2014a. The effects of human finger and Chinese character on Chinese handwriting performance on mobile touch devices. Hum Factors. 56(3):553–568. doi:10.1177/0018720813503007
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen Z, Rau PLP, Chen C. 2014b. How to design finger input of Chinese characters: a literature review. Int J Ind Ergonom. 44(3):428–435. doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2013.11.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen Z, Rau PLP. 2017. The role of size of input box, location of input box, input method and display size in Chinese handwriting performance and preference on mobile devices. Appl Ergon. 59(Pt A):215–224.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Costagliola G, De Rosa M, Fuccella V. 2017. Handwriting on smartwatches: an empirical investigation. IEEE Trans Human-Mach Syst. 47(6):1100–1109. doi:10.1109/THMS.2017.2754938
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dingus TA, Guo F, Lee S, Antin JF, Perez M, Buchanan-King M, Hankey J. 2016. Driver crash risk factors and prevalence evaluation using naturalistic driving data. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 113(10):2636–2641. doi:10.1073/pnas.1513271113
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eren AL, Burnett G, Large DR, Harvey C. 2018. Understanding the effects of peripheral vision and muscle memory on in-vehicle touchscreen interactions. IET Intel Transport Syst. 12(6):434–439. doi:10.1049/iet-its.2017.0229
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fitts PM. 1954. The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. J Exp Psychol. 47(6):381–391.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gao Q, Zhu B, Rau PLP, Vyas S, Chen C, Li H. 2013. User experience with Chinese handwriting input on touch-screen mobile phones. Paper presented at: The Proceedings of the 5th International Conference of Cross-Cultural Design. July 21–26, Las Vegas, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Harvey C, Stanton NA, Pickering CA, McDonald M, Zheng P. 2011. A usability evaluation toolkit for in-vehicle information systems (IVISss). Appl Ergon. 42(4):563–574. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2010.09.013
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Horrey WJ, Wickens CD, Consalus KP. 2006. Modeling drivers’ visual attention allocation while interacting with in-vehicle technologies. J Exp Psychol Appl. 12(2):67–78. doi:10.1037/1076-898X.12.2.67
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jacobson MT, Matthews P. 1996. Generating uniformly distributed random Latin squares. J Combin Des. 4(6):405–437. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6610(1996)4:6<405::AID-JCD3>3.0.CO;2-J
   Google Scholar
• Jung S, Park J, Park J, Choe M, Kim T, Choi M, Lee S. 2021. Effect of touch button interface on in-vehicle information systems usability. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 37(15):1404–1422. doi:10.1080/10447318.2021.1886484
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim H, Kwon S, Heo J, Lee H, Chung MK. 2014. The effect of touch-key size on the usability of in-vehicle information systems and driving safety during simulated driving. Appl Ergon. 45(3):379–388. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2013.05.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kujala T. 2013. Browsing the information highway while driving: three in-vehicle touch screen scrolling methods and driver distraction. Pers Ubiquit Comput. 17(5):815–823. doi:10.1007/s00779-012-0517-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee SC, Kim YW, Ji YG. 2019. Effects of visual complexity of in-vehicle information display: age-related differences in visual search task in the driving context. Appl Ergon. 81:102888. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2019.102888
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Onate-Vega D, Oviedo-Trespalacios O, King M. 2020. How drivers adapt their behaviour to changes in task complexity: the role of secondary task demands and road environment factors. Transp Res Part F Traffic Psychol Behav. 71:145–156. doi:10.1016/j.trf.2020.03.015
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Peng Y, Boyle LN. 2015. Driver’s adaptive glance behavior to in-vehicle information systems. Accid Anal Prev. 85:93–101. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2015.08.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ren X, Zhou X. 2009. The optimal size of handwriting character input boxes on PDAs. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 25(8):762–784. doi:10.1080/10447310903025511
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tu H, Ren X. 2013. Optimal entry size of handwritten Chinese characters in touch-based mobile phones. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 29(1):1–12. doi:10.1080/10447318.2012.668130
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wickens CD. 2008. Multiple resources and mental workload. Hum Factors. 50(3):449–455. doi:10.1518/001872008X288394
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhong Q, Guo G, Zhi J. 2022a. Address inputting while driving: a comparison of four alternative text input methods on in-vehicle navigation displays usability and driver distraction. Traffic Inj Prev. 23(4):163–168. doi:10.1080/15389588.2022.2047958
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhong Q, Zhi J, Guo G. 2022b. Dynamic is optimal: effect of three alternative auto-complete on the usability of in-vehicle dialing displays and driver distraction. Traffic Inj Prev. 23(1):51–56. doi:10.1080/15389588.2021.2010052
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhong Q, Zhi J, Guo G. 2022c. Influence of in-vehicle information system interaction modes on driving behavior. J Saf Environ. 22(3):1406–1411.
   Google Scholar
• Zhou J, Rau PLP, Salvendy G. 2014. Older adults’ text entry on smartphones and tablets: investigating effects of display size and input method on acceptance and performance. Int J Hum Comput Interact. 30(9):727–739. doi:10.1080/10447318.2014.924348
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ziakopoulos A, Theofilatos A, Papadimitriou E, Yannis G. 2019. A meta-analysis of the impacts of operating in-vehicle information systems on road safety. IATSS Res. 43(3):185–194. doi:10.1016/j.iatssr.2019.01.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar