skip to main content
10.1145/3292147.3292218acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesozchiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

A framework for designing interactions between pedestrians and driverless cars: insights from a ride-sharing design study

Published:04 December 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Previous work has highlighted the need for human factors research to not only focus on the passengers inside driverless cars but also consider others who will interact with the car in an urban environment such as pedestrians. In this paper, we position this area of research as a new opportunity for HCI and propose a framework to guide the design of the interactions between driverless cars and pedestrians. The framework draws on HCI literature and our findings from a design study, which focused on designing for the intent and awareness of driverless cars when picking up passengers in a ride-sharing scenario. We designed various interaction design proposals as mockups and tested their acceptance through three rounds of user evaluations. The framework was developed after the second evaluation round and was then applied to revise our design solutions and used in the final evaluation round. The framework offers guidance for breaking down use cases into stages of interactions, specifying the information channels and the interactions between driverless cars and pedestrians, as well as reflecting on how well each solution addresses the user needs.

References

  1. Chia-Ming Chang, Koki Toda, Daisuke Sakamoto, and Takeo Igarashi. 2017. Eyes on a Car: an Interface Design for Communication between an Autonomous Car and a Pedestrian. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. ACM, 65--73. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Michael Clamann, Miles Aubert, and Mary L Cummings. 2017. Evaluation of vehicle-to-pedestrian communication displays for autonomous vehicles. Technical Report.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Ashley Colley, Jonna Häkkilä, Bastian Pfleging, and Florian Alt. 2017. A Design Space for External Displays on Cars. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications Adjunct. ACM, 146--151. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Scott Davidof, Min Kyung Lee, Anind K Dey, and John Zimmerman. 2007. Rapidly exploring application design through speed dating. In International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing. Springer, 429--446. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Christopher Frayling. 1993. Research in art and design. (1993).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Nikhil Goel and John Badalamenti. 2016. Lighting the Way Toward Seamless Pickups with Uber Beacon. https://www.uber.com/newsroom/beacon/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Franz Keferböck and Andreas Riener. 2015. Strategies for negotiation between autonomous vehicles and pedestrians. Mensch und Computer 2015-Workshopband (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. T Lagstrom and Victor Malmsten Lundgren. 2015. AVIP-Autonomous vehicles interaction with pedestrians. Master of Science Thesis, Chalmers University of Technology (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Karthik Mahadevan, Sowmya Somanath, and Ehud Sharlin. 2018. Communicating Awareness and Intent in Autonomous Vehicle-Pedestrian Interaction. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 429. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Milecia Matthews, Girish Chowdhary, and Emily Kieson. 2017. Intent Communication between Autonomous Vehicles and Pedestrians. arXiv preprint arXiv:1708.07123 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Anantha Pillai et al. 2017. Virtual Reality based Study to Analyse Pedestrian Attitude towards Autonomous Vehicles. (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Toni Robertson and Lian Loke. 2009. Designing situations. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual Conference of the Australian Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group: Design: Open 24/7. ACM, 1--8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Dirk Rothenbücher, Jamy Li, David Sirkin, Brian Mok, and Wendy Ju. 2016. Ghost driver: A field study investigating the interaction between pedestrians and driverless vehicles. In Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on. IEEE, 795--802.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Friederike Schneemann and Irene Gohl. 2016. Analyzing driver-pedestrian interaction at crosswalks: A contribution to autonomous driving in urban environments. In Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV), 2016 IEEE. IEEE, 38--43.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Azim Shariff, Jean-François Bonnefon, and Iyad Rahwan. 2017. Psychological roadblocks to the adoption of self-driving vehicles. Nature Human Behaviour 1, 10 (2017), 694.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Lucy A Suchman. 1987. Plans and situated actions: The problem of human-machine communication. Cambridge university press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Matthew Sweeney, Thomas Pilarski, William Payne Ross, and Chenggang Liu. 2018. LIGHT OUTPUT SYSTEM FOR A SELF-DRIVING VEHICLE. US Patent App. 15/803, 184.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Martin Tomitsch. 2018. Making Cities Smarter: Designing Interactive Urban Applications. Jovis Verlag GmbH, Berlin.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Christopher Paul Urmson, Ian James Mahon, Dmitri A Dolgov, and Jiajun Zhu. 2015. Pedestrian notifications. US Patent 8,954,252.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Stephan AG Wensveen, Johan Partomo Djajadiningrat, and CJ Overbeeke. 2004. Interaction frogger: a design framework to couple action and function through feedback and feedforward. In Proceedings of the 5th conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques. ACM, 177--184. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Philipp Wintersberger, Andreas Riener, Tamara von Sawitzky, and AnnaKatharina Frison. 2018. System Transparency: An Approach to Increase Trust in Automated Vehicles. In Position paper submitted to CHI 2018 workshop "Interacting with Autonomous Vehicles: Learning from other domains". Available at https://hci.sbg.ac.at/sites/autonomous-vehicles-chi2018/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. John Zimmerman, Jodi Forlizzi, and Shelley Evenson. 2007. Research through design as a method for interaction design research in HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM, 493--502. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A framework for designing interactions between pedestrians and driverless cars: insights from a ride-sharing design study

      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 Other conferences
        OzCHI '18: Proceedings of the 30th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction
        December 2018
        639 pages
        ISBN:9781450361880
        DOI:10.1145/3292147

        Copyright © 2018 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: 4 December 2018

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • short-paper

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate362of729submissions,50%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader