Link to the Paper: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2516559 This study of in-vehicle menu design produced 3 Design takeaways: 1. Afford Interruption. 2. Don't afford shortcuts. 3. Slow designs may prompt users not to make sequential actions. See: https://vimeo.com/65194100 for live view of the conditions.

1. Comparing three novel multimodal touch interfaces for
infotainment menus

2. “The New Standard”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-oE3ZzkqxY

3. “How can we use sound to improve the
driving experience?”
The “experience” is some combination of allowing the user to engage in
secondary activities while always prioritizing safety.

4. Voice
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bJgRFRl7_Y

5. The Goal
Demonstrate a device that has the
following qualities:
Reduce the negative impact of
secondary task on driving
performance or total visual
demand,
At an acceptable cost for
secondary navigation speed.
How
Compare them experimentally
against common methods (i.e.
direct touch) on a common task
(i.e. menu navigation).
The Study

6. 4 interfaces
see them in
action

7. Measuring....
- Driving Performance
- Total Visual Demand
- Speed of operating the menu
see this in action
While.....
Selecting items which
are either 1 – 3 levels
deep in a hierarchical
menu
(same video as on previous slide)

8. Results

9. Serial Swiping had significantly
better driving performance than the rest.
(lowest deviation)

10. ...But under Direct Touch users were twice as
fast to complete the menu operation task as
all the others.
2 TIMES AS FAST!!!!!
Best Driving Performance!!!!!

11. Total visual demand of the “visual based”
Direct Touch screen was equal to that of the
multimodal Serial Swipe.
.` =

12. No significant differences in the distribution
of glance lengths either, but definitely some
longer looks

13. Gaze Percentage:
Time Looking at the Interface
/ Total Task completion time.

14. Same total visual demand
distributed over a much shorter
amount of time =
Worse Driving Performance

15. Results Part 2:
Diving deeper

16. ~2.5 seconds
~1.25 seconds
That’s an average of
about 1~ second of
waiting around before
hitting the target.
~4 seconds
~4 seconds
Users begin working
immediately and in parallel to
driving.
Time To
Complete
while driving
while not driving.

17. In the lane change task every ~10 seconds
a command is sent.
Often the user can execute a changing of
the menu with little risk of missing a
command.

18. but the story may change for multiple-step tasks.
It is likely the results would not have been significant if multiple
step tasks were not introduced.

19. no change in total task
time between 2 and 3
step tasks!
The willingness to
commit such
actions so speedily
in succession is the
real problem.

20. Users are either...
Adding on one more step and
not waiting at all between one of
the steps
or...
waited on average less between
each selection simply because
they were given more work.

21. User’s exhibiting wonderful stair-
case like sub-tasking.
Compare to our winner:

22. Lessons Learned:
3 lessons for designing in the
vehicle

23. Because Direct Touch is faster, the user may be
tempted to fit more selections
before the next command,
1.
and maybe make a miss.

24. Lesson 1
Built in slowness may be beneficial.
Afford returning eyes to the road ( a
punctuated “staircase.”)
winnerslosers

25. For direct touch, user’s eyes and hand are near the
target after the first selection – making the subsequent
selection easier to complete.
Returning their hands and/or eyes to the wheel (i.e. the
right thing to do) would result in more total effort.
2.

26. Don’t afford “shortcuts,”
afford a “staircase.”
Lesson 2
hint: slowness could accomplish this, but so could other things

27. For the GRUV prototypes, work is lost if you
remove your hand from the touchpad. In other
words, regaining your position is too difficult.
It’s exactly the opposite for Serial Swipe, which
does not require “starting over” when interrupted.
3.

28. Lesson 3
Afford interruption.
Progress must not be lost if
interrupted.

29. Discussion
Questions

30. Discussion Question
How could these principles be applied to context where
safety should be considered when wearing Google Glass?
1. Built in slowness 2.Design out “shortcuts” 3. Design for interruption
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZdkIVS53Uw
driving construction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWK-Uinxn40

31. Discussion Question
Can voice do it all? I’d argue no.
In the following example, a user can choose up to 3 ways
of doing the same thing.
So then, how do you afford the “right mode switching”
without suffering the costs of modes?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-oE3ZzkqxY

32. Discussion Question
Is the touchpad where it’s at – how can the
touchpad realize its full potential ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3SpNJT88_o