3.8 Proceedings Paper

Context-Based Interface Prototyping: Understanding the Efect of Prototype Representation on User Feedback

Publisher

ASSOC COMPUTING MACHINERY
DOI: 10.1145/3411764.3445159

Keywords

prototyping; virtual reality; user studies; prototype representation; automated vehicles; human-machine interfaces

Funding

  1. Sydney Institute for Robotics and Intelligent Systems (SIRIS)
  2. ARC [DP200102604]
  3. Australian Research Council [DP200102604] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study compares the effects of three eHMI prototype representations (real-world VR, computer-generated VR, real-world video) on user experience and trust towards automated vehicles. The research found that different prototype representations have varying impacts on participants' perceptions and experiences.
The rise of autonomous systems in cities, such as automated vehicles (AVs), requires new approaches for prototyping and evaluating how people interact with those systems through context-based user interfaces, such as external human-machine interfaces (eHMIs). In this paper, we present a comparative study of three prototype representations (real-world VR, computer-generated VR, real-world video) of an eHMI in a mixed-methods study with 42 participants. Quantitative results show that while the real-world VR representation results in higher sense of presence, no significant differences in user experience and trust towards the AV itself were found. However, interview data shows that participants focused on different experiential and perceptual aspects in each of the prototype representations. These differences are linked to spatial awareness and perceived realism of the AV behaviour and its context, affecting in turn how participants assess trust and the eHMI. The paper offers guidelines for prototyping and evaluating context-based interfaces through simulations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available