Marie Williams and Paul Green
Several design reviews and two formal experiments examined driver responses to route guidance displays. In the design reviews, single and small groups of drivers were shown displays and asked to explain them. This resulted in interface revisions and design guidelines.
In a subsequent experiment, 60 drivers at a licensing office were shown plan, aerial, and perspective views of displays for 9 situations (T-turn left, etc.) and were asked to explain what they meant. There were few errors. Driver preferences were plan, aerial, and perspective view, in that order.
In a laboratory experiment, 12 additional drivers (6 age 30 or younger, 6 age 65 or older) in a vehicle mockup were simultaneously shown slides of intersections (photographed from the driver's viewpoint) and slides of a navigation display. Drivers indicated whether the two images were for the same or different type of intersection (cross, Y, T, etc.).
The response time data indicated head-up displays were better than console-mounted displays (1524 versus 1630 ms), and that aerial views were slightly but not significantly better than plan views (1501 versus 1523 ms), but significantly better than perspective views (1706 ms). Responses to intersections shown as solid objects were more rapid than to those shown as outlines (1557 versus 1597 ms). Error, eye-fixation, and preference data supported these results.
|UMTRI-92-21 Full Report (.pdf)|
Close This Window