Citation

Francois M, Fort A, Osiurak F, Crave P, Navarro J. Safety Sci. 2024; 174: e106482.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2024, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.ssci.2024.106482

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

In the field of in-vehicle interaction design, three concepts of dashboards were compared in terms of efficiency and distraction. The concepts were defined using three design processes differing in level of user involvement: User-Centered Design (UCD) and two different Participatory Design (PD) methods. In the industry, there is a trend towards more and more user involvement in design, yet there is a deficiency of empirical and rigorously substantiated evidence supporting this shift. Furthermore, certain advantages are universally associated with Participatory Design, regardless of the specific method employed, despite the notable variations among these methods. Twenty-seven truck drivers were asked to perform eleven different tasks in a simulated drive in order to compare three concepts of instrument clusters: a concept created in a user-centered design process (UCD, defined by HMI professionals and assessed by drivers), a concept created during a participatory workshop (PDWS, with several drivers), and their own concept (PDind defined in an individual participatory design session).

RESULTS showed that PD concepts resulted in lower efficiency and higher distraction compared to the UCD concept. Moreover, significant differences existed in the PD outcomes for some tasks, refuting previous literature that suggested the universality of PD benefits. In this context, the application of participatory design to in-vehicle interfaces is being called into question. The potential production of less efficient and more distracting interfaces poses a risk in a domain where keeping eyes on the road is critical for road safety.

Language: en

Keywords

Commercial vehicles dashboards; Distraction; HMI design; Interface evaluation; Participatory ergonomics