Experimental evaluation of touch screen interaction for in-car application

Transkript

1 Experimental evaluation of touch screen interaction for in-car application Severina Popova Klaus Bengler Institute of Ergonomics

2 Outline Occlusion method Experimental procedure and test persons Experiments and results: 1 out of N 2-Dimensional (2D) List selection Number editing Questionnaire results and occlusion values 2

3 Status In-vehicle functions increase (information, communication, entertainment and navigation) Currently functions operated manually by different devices/technologies following different interaction philosophies Driver distraction shall be avoided 3

4 Status Quo Concentration of functionality in menues To be Questioned Is there an objective difference between input modalities? 4

5 Input Devices 10.1 Lenovo Ideapad Touch 5

6 Occlusion method ISO

7 Occlusion method baseline t Total Task Time (TTT) 7

8 Occlusion method occluded t Total Shutter Open Time (TSOT) 8

9 Occlusion method R = Total Shutter Open Time (TSOT) Total Task Time (TTT) 9

10 Test procedure Uniform instruction for participants (written) Gathering person s data (age, gender, sight, handedness, experience) Practice rounds (occlusion) Each experiment with and without occlusion (order randomized) Questionnaires (ISO , AttrakDiff-2) 10

11 Sequence example: experiment controll b/o 1out of N touch screen base 1out of N touch screen occluded 1 out of N rotary knob base 1out of N rotary knob occluded 2D rotary knob base 2D rotary knob occluded 2D touch screen drag&drop base 2D touch screen drag&drop occluded 2D touch screen tap base 2D touch screen tap occluded list touch screen base list touch screen occluded list rotary knob base list rotary knob occluded number edit touch screen base number edit touch screen occluded number edit rotary knob base number edit rotary knob occluded 11

12 Test persons 20 subjects (75% male, 25% female) Average age 29 years (22 up to 54) 30% eyeglasses, 15% contact lens Two persons color blind (red/green) No one left-handed 12

13 Subject s dailylife usage of controls usage touch screen usage rotary knob mentioned 5 4 mentioned seldom never seltdom sometimes often 0 never seldom sometimes often 13

14 Subject s dailylife usage of controlls experience for touch screen from: (multiple answers possible) experience for rotary knob from: (multiple answers possible) mobile phone 7 experiments, test set-ups 6 Audi 8 navigation tool car 2 4 BMW 8 point of information ATM 1 2 cars 2 PDA 1 radio 1 general 1 14

15 1 out of N rotary knob touch big=1.4cm small=1cm 15 1ausN extern öffnen

16 4,50 Average time to select right item 4,00 3,50 3,00 1,17 seconds 2,50 2,00 0,60 0,61 standard deviation 1,50 1,00 0,50 0,14 0,11 0,14 0,00 0,69 0,70 0,79 1,79 1,78 2,89 touch screen big4x4 touch screen small4x4 touch screen small8x8 rotary knob big4x4 rotary knob small4x4 rotary knob small8x8 16

17 1 out of N: error rate using touch screen 9,0 8,0 7,0 6,0 % 5,0 4,0 Base Occlusion 3,0 2,0 1,0 0,0 3,0 2,3 4,3 7,9 5,3 8,9 4,2 6,4 big4x4 small4x4 small8x8 overall 17

18 9,0 1 out of N: error rate using rotary knob 8,0 7,0 6,0 % 5,0 4,0 Base Occlusion 3,0 2,0 1,0 0,0 0,9 3,8 1,9 3,2 2,2 3,2 1,7 3,4 big4x4 small4x4 small8x8 overall 18

19 2D-positioning rotary knob drag&drop tap white inner area = target 19 2D extern öffnen

20 Sekunden 8,00 7,00 Lehrstuhl für Ergonomie 2D: average time to hit target 6,00 5,00 1,63 1,72 4,00 standard deviation 3,00 0,71 0,91 2,00 1,00 0,25 0,18 0,00 0,91 0,80 3,03 2,84 5,28 5,10 touch tap; target Ø3,2mm touch tap; target Ø6,5mm touch drag&drop; target Ø3,2mm touch drag&drop; target Ø6,5mm rotary knob; target Ø3,2mm rotary knob; target Ø6,5mm 20

21 80,0 2D: error rate using touch screen and tap interaction 70,0 60,0 50,0 % 40,0 30,0 Base Occlusion 20,0 10,0 0,0 78,8 76,4 33,5 41,9 target Ø3,2mm target Ø6,5mm 21

22 2D: error rate using touch screen and drag&drop interaction 80,0 70,0 60,0 50,0 % 40,0 30,0 Base Occlusion 20,0 10,0 0,0 1,7 12,1 0,6 2,8 target(ø3,2mm) target (Ø6,5mm) 22

23 80,0 2D: error rate using rotary knob cursor 70,0 60,0 50,0 % 40,0 30,0 Base Occlusion 20,0 10,0 0,0 3,9 7,2 2,2 2,8 Ziel (Ø3,2mm) Ziel (Ø6,5mm) 23

24 List selection short long persons had to scroll sometimes rotary wrap around cursor (first last) 24 Liste extern öffnen

25 6,00 List: average time for right selection 5,00 4,00 seconds 3,00 2,03 1,71 standard deviation 2,00 0,44 0,57 1,00 0,00 1,61 3,11 2,04 3,29 touch screen; list (7 items) touch screen; list (14 items) rotary knob; list (7 items) rotary knob; liste(14 items) 25

26 List: error rate using touch screen 6,0 5,0 4,0 % 3,0 Base Occlusion 2,0 1,0 0,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,5 3,0 4,3 short list (7) long list (14) overall 26

27 6,0 List selection: error rate using rotary knob 5,0 4,0 % 3,0 Base Occlusion 2,0 1,0 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,0 0,5 0,8 0,8 short list (7) long list (14) overall 27

28 Number editing sliders; about 0.9mm between two different values 28 Werte extern öffnen

29 12,00 Number editing: average time to enter right value 10,00 8,00 seconds 6,00 2,65 3,89 standard deviation 4,00 2,27 1,02 1,15 1,07 2,00 0,00 5,54 6,24 4,25 2,77 2,89 2,78 touch screen; horizontal slider touch screen vertical slider touch screen; spin box slider rotary knob; horizontal visualisation rotary knob; vertical visualisation rotary knob; spin box visualisation 29

30 Number editing: error rate using touch screen 10,0 9,0 8,0 7,0 % 6,0 5,0 4,0 Base Occlusion 3,0 2,0 1,0 0,0 2,0 4,6 2,5 8,7 1,0 0,5 1,8 4,6 horizontal slider vertical slider spin box overall 30

31 Number editing: error rate using rotary knob 10,0 9,0 8,0 7,0 6,0 % 5,0 4,0 Base Occlusion 3,0 2,0 1,0 0,0 0,5 1,0 0,5 2,0 3,5 2,5 1,5 1,8 horizontal slider vertical slider spin box overall 31

32 Questionnaire ISO Interquartile ranges touch screen rotary knob 32

33 Attrak-Diff2 rotary knob too self oriented self-oriented desired hedonic quality (HQ) neutral task-oriented rotary knob avg. value confidence rectangle (95%) superfluous too task-oriented pragmatic quality Michael (PQ) Krause 33

34 Attrak-Diff2 touch screen too self oriented self-oriented desired hedonic quality (HQ) neutral task.-oriented touch screen avg. value confidence rectangle (95%) superfluous too task-oriented pragmatic quality(pq) 34

35 order experiment section controll R avg R SD 1 1out of N small8x8 rotary knob 0,71 0,05 2 num.editing spin box rotary knob 0,73 0,09 3 num.editing vertical slider rotary knob 0,75 0,10 4 2D target Ø6,5mm rotary knob 0,76 0, out of N small4x4 rotary knob 0,77 0,08 6 Num.editing horizontal slider rotary knob 0,78 0,11 7 Num.editing spin box touch screen 0,78 0, out of N big4x4 rotary knob 0,79 0,10 9 2D Target Ø6,5mm touch screen (Drag&Drop) 0,79 0,14 10 list selection 14 items rotary knob 0,79 0, D target Ø3,2mm rotary knob 0,80 0, D target Ø3,2mm touch screen (Drag&Drop) 0,85 0, out of N small4x4 touch screen 0,88 0, D target Ø3,2mm touch screen (Tap) 0,89 0, out of N big4x4 touch screen 0,89 0,09 16 list selection 7 items rotary knob 0,90 0,13 17 num.editing horizontal slider touch screen 0,91 0,30 18 list selection 7 items touch screen 0,92 0,15 19 num.editing vertikal slider touchscreen 0,94 0, D target Ø6,5mm touch screen (Tap) 0,94 0, out of N small8x8 touch screen 0,95 0,23 22 list selection 14 items touch screen 1,02 0,22 35

36 Summary Touch 1 out of N F A R 2D positioning F R Rotary select list item number editing A R F R F = faster A = more accurate R = higher resumability 36

37 Experimental evaluation of touch screen interaction for in-car application Thanks for your attention Research Associate Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Chair in Ergonomics Boltzmannstraße 15 D Garching Tel Fax