skip to main content
10.1145/1978942.1979011acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Usability of car dashboard displays for elder drivers

Authors Info & Claims
Published:07 May 2011Publication History

ABSTRACT

The elder population is rising worldwide; in the US, no longer being able to drive is a significant marker of loss of independence. One of the approaches to helping elders drive more safely is to investigate the use of automotive user interface technology, and specifically, to explore the instrument panel (IP) display design to help attract and manage attention and make information easier to interpret.

In this paper, we explore the premise that dashboard displays can be better designed to support elder drivers, their information needs, and their cognitive capabilities. We conducted a study to understand which display design features are critically linked to issues of divided attention and driving performance. We found that contrast of size and reduced clutter are instrumental in enhancing driving performance, particularly for the elder population. Surprisingly, our results showed that color elements have a negative effect on driving performance for elders, while color elements and fills slightly improve performance. We conclude with design implications generated from this work.

References

  1. Baldassi, S., & Burr, D. C. "Pop-out" of targets modulated in luminance or colour: the eVect of intrinsic and extrinsic uncertainty. Vision Research, 44 (2004), 1227--1233.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Baldwin, C. L. Designing in-vehicle technologies for older drivers: Application of sensory-cognitive interaction theory. Theoretical Issues In Ergonomic Science, 3(4) (2002), 307--329.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Ball, K. and Owsley, C. Increasing mobility and reducing accidents of older drivers, in K. W. Schaie and M. Pietrucha (eds), Mobility and Transportation in the Elderly (New York: Springer) (2000), 213--250.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Ball, K., Owsley, C., Stalvey, B., Roenker, D. L., Sloane, M. E., & Graves, M. Driving avoidance and functional impairment in older drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 30(3) (1998), 313--322.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  5. Beck, J. Textural segmentation. In: Organization and Representation in Perception, Beck J, ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum (1982), 285--317.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Booher, H. R. Relative comprehensibility of pictorial information and printed words in proceduralized instructions. Human Factors, 17 (1975), 266--277.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Campbell, J. L., Richman, J. B., Carney, C. and Lee, J. D. In-vehicle display icons and other information elements: Volume I: Guidelines, Federal Highway Administration, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Carney, C., Campbell, J. L. and Mitchell, E. A. In-vehicle display icons and other information elements: Literature review, Federal Highway Administration, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Christ, R. E. Research for evaluating visual display codes: An emphasis on colour coding. In Easterby, R. and Zwaga, H. eds. Information design: The design and evaluation of signs and printed materials, John Wiley & Sons (1984), 209--228.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Collia, D., Sharp, J. and Giesbrecht, L. The 2001 national household travel survey: A look into the travel patterns of older Americans. Journal of Safety Research 34 (2003), 461--470.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Connor, C. E., Egeth, H. E. and Yantis, S. Visual attention: Bottom-up vs. top-down. Current Biology, 14 (2004), 850--852.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Dingus, T. A., Hulse, M. C., Mollenhauer, M. A., Fleischman, R. N., Mcgehee, D. V. and Manakkal, N. Effects of age, system experience, and navigation technique on driving with and Advanced Traveler Information System, Human Factors, 39 (1997), 177--199.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Green, P. Visual and Task Demands of Driver Information Systems. The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, Technical Report UMTRI-98-16. Ann Arbor, MI, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Hakamies-Blomqvist, L., Siren, A. and Davidse, R. Older drivers - a review. VTI rapport 497A, Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, 2004.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Ito, T. and Miki, Y. Japan's Safety Guideline on In-Vehicle Display Systems in Proceedings of the Fourth ITS World Congress. VERTIS, 1997.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Julesz, B. A brief outline of the textion theory of human vision. Trends in Neuroscience (1984), 41--45.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Kim, S. and Dey, A. K. Simulated augmented reality windshield display as a cognitive mapping aid for elder driver navigation. In Proc. CHI 2009, 133--142. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Kumar, M. and Kim, T. Dynamic speedometer: dashboard redesign to discourage drivers from speeding. Ext. Abstracts CHI 2005, 1573--1576. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Lee, J., Forlizzi, J., and Hudson, S. E. Studying the effectiveness of MOVE: a contextually optimized in-vehicle navigation system. In Proc. CHI 2005, 571--580. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Mayer, D. and Laux, L. Evaluating Vehicle Displays for Older Drivers. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, 1992.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. McDougall, S., de Bruijn, O. and Curry, M. Exploring the effects of icon characteristics: Concreteness, complexity and distinctiveness. The J. of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 6(4) (2000), 291--306.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. McGehee, D. V. New design guidelines aim to reduce driver distraction. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Bulletin, Vol. 44, No. 10, (2001), 1--3.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Monash University Accident Research Centre. (2006). The Elderly and Mobility: A Review of the Literature. Sponsored by Swedish Road Administration (SRA), Report No. 255.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Rockwell, T. H. Spare Visual Capacity in Driving - Revisited: New Empirical Results of an Old Idea in Vision in Vehicles II. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V. (North-Holland) (1988), 317--314.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Salthouse, T. A., Hancock, H. E., Meinz, E. J. and Hambrick, D. Z. Interrelations of age, visual acuity, and cognitive functioning. J Gerontol Psychol Sci; 51B (1996), 317--330.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Somervell, J., McCrickard, D. S., North, C. and Shukla, M. An evaluation of information visualization in attention-limited environments. In Proc. VISSYM 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Suen, S. L. & Sen, L. Mobility Options for Seniors. In Transportation in an Aging Society: A Decade of Experience. Transportation Research Board (2004), 97--113.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Treisman, A. M. and Sato, S. Conjunction search revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16 (1990), 451--478.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Treisman, A. Selection for perception for selection for action: A reply to Van der Heijden. Visual Cognition, 3 (1996), 353--357.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Treisman, A. Feature binding, attention and object perception. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Series B, 353 (1998), 1295--1306.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Tufte, E. Envisioning Information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press, 1990. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. The assessment of older drivers capabilities: A review of the literature. Interim report for the GM/US DOT project entitled: Improvement of Older Driver Safety through Self-Evaluation, Report No. UMTRI-98-24, 1998.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. VICS Promotion Council, VICS Promotion Council Safety Committee Report on Information Display. (Chapter 2 "Safety" Group). Tokyo, Japan: VICS Promotion Council, 1993.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Wierwille, W. W., Antin, J. F., Dingus, T. A., and Hulse, M. C. Visual Attentional Demand of an In-Car Navigation Display System in Vision in Vehicles II. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V. (North-Holland) (1988), 307--316.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Wierwille, W. W. Visual and manual demands of in-car controls and displays. In B. Peacock and W. Karwowski (Eds.), Automotive Ergonomics. Taylor & Francis: Washington, D.C. (1993), 299--320.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Zwaga, H. and Easterby, R. S. Developing effective symbols for public information. In Easterby, R. & Zwaga, H. (eds.). Information design: The design and evaluation of signs and printed material, J. Wiley & Sons (1984), 277--297.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Usability of car dashboard displays for elder drivers
    Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '11: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 2011
      3530 pages
      ISBN:9781450302289
      DOI:10.1145/1978942

      Copyright © 2011 ACM

      Permission 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 commercial 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, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 7 May 2011

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '11 Paper Acceptance Rate410of1,532submissions,27%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader