![Gartner Hype Cycle for emerging technologies [6].](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Omayma-Alqatawneh/publication/331652175/figure/fig1/AS:735322073751554@1552325852908/Gartner-Hype-Cycle-for-emerging-technologies-6_Q320.jpg)
Content uploaded by Omayma Alqatawneh
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Omayma Alqatawneh on Mar 11, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Towards the adoption of Self Driving Cars
Omayma Alqatawneh1, Alex Coles1 and Ertu Unver1
1 University of Huddersfield, United Kingdm
omayma.alqatawneh@hud.ac.uk
Abstract. Self-Driving Vehicles (SDV’s) are part of a critical shift that articu-
lates a technological leap forward. SDV’s propose solutions to current transpor-
tation problems in order to change how people address mobility. Previous stud-
ies show that people generally have an optimistic stance towards autonomous
vehicles. The user interface is essential to the way people perceive the driving
experience. Innovative means for user interface development and interaction
design are required as the number of factors influencing the adoption of tech-
nology. This three-year research investigated through literature review the cur-
rent user interface, then analysed the lacked developments to meet the customer
requirements. This paper is highlighting the need for multimodal in-car interac-
tion design that could in the future be implemented for self-driving cars. Fur-
thermore, investigating the User Acceptance (UA) and User Experience (UX)
factors is poised to help understand the technology acceptance tendency, and
would help the manufacturer to develop an efficient interface that meets the us-
er needs.
Keywords: Self-Driving Cars, User Experience, User Acceptance, Car Enter-
tainment, Driver Information System, In-Car interaction.
1 Introduction
Self-Driving Vehicles are part of a critical shift that articulates a technological leap
forward, proposing solutions to current transportation problems in order to change
how people address mobility. Studies show that people generally have an optimistic
stance towards autonomous vehicles [1, 2]. The automotive horizon has accelerated
and provided an extraordinary initiative that depends on the consumers, needs and
preferences together leading to the transportation of the future. The National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration states that SDV’s are “vehicles in which operation oc-
curs without direct driver input to control the steering, acceleration, and braking” [3].
In this kind of vehicle, the driver is not required to observe the roadway while operat-
ing in self-driving mode constantly. However, this definition assumes that the vehicle
will always have a driver, where this assumption is not essential in the current exper-
2
iments autonomous technologies are already able to perform all of the standard func-
tions for a vehicle to run safely from A to B without any user on board at all.
For many decades’ automobile industries development has recorded different stages
for vehicles driving levels. Level 0, where cars have no automation, everything was
controlled by mechanical means. Up to the promising stage Level 5 where the vehicle
is fully autonomous in all environments and stages. Figure 1 the six autonomous driv-
ing levels
Table 1. the six autonomous driving levels
Level%0%
No# automated# features,#
Driver#fully#in#control#
Level%1%
Driver# assistance,# Driver#
fully#in#control#
Level%2%
Partial# automation.# Driver#
fully#engaged#or#in#control#
Level%3%
Conditional# automation.#
Driver#safety#intervention#
Level%4%
Fully# autonomous# in# lim-
ited#environments# and#condi-
tions#
Level%5%
Fully# autonomous# in# all#
environments#and#conditions##
2 Acceptance of Self-Driving Cars
Various researchers argue that Self-Driving Cars (SDC’s) have the potential to im-
prove safety and enhance the quality of life [4]; [5]. Conversely, many drivers and
passengers are unwilling to adopt new technology, as it is not common for humans to
have no control, regarding to the ambiguities around issues of safety [4]. Moreover,
this technology determines that the truly transformative benefits are only realised
once the public adopts self-driving vehicles. Furthermore, the usage of SDC’s is not
restricted to enhance the general acceptance of the technology but to investigate
when, how and why to trust the technology. This progress is contingent on the intui-
tive user who shapes the demands of the market. Hence, there is a need to provide a
near future world in which to explore the possibilities and consequences of today
emerging technology.
While there are many ways to adopt SDV’s, the Hype Cycle survey provide open
space to investigate this adoption. The Hype Cycle was developed by the Gartner
organisation (see figure 1) with the aim to explore the life cycle of various technolo-
gies, in order to help the market, define the best time to adopt or acquire new technol-
ogy. According to Gartner, in 2017 autonomous car technology passed the “peak of
inflated expectation” and begin moving towards the “trough of disillusionment” stage
in which negative assumptions will take place[6]. The present research calls this point
‘the crack,’ where the product could either vanish or survive to move on to a different
stage. An increase in negative coverage has already started when an accident involv-
ing an Uber autonomous car that allegedly struck and killed a pedestrian. Relatively
3
Uber and Toyota have suspended their autonomous car testing. Certainly, autonomous
vehicles are the only technology past the inflated expectation peak that has more than
ten years until the expected time to reach the plateau of productivity. Based on the
above, the SDV concept needs a new technique of communication to overcome the
challenge of earning the trust of future customers, as they form the demand in the
technology market and future investments in infrastructure.
Fig. 1. Gartner Hype Cycle for emerging technologies [6].
The need for adopting a novel user interfaces (UIs) system is due to two factors. First
is about the current visual interaction would not be valid for future users as it does not
meet and communicate the alerts efficiently between the car to the passenger. Second,
with the potential of having different passengers on board with different needs and
capabilities, for instance, they may have vision and hearing impairments, they may be
blind or partially sighted. Hence, the UIs should employ multimodal outputs to guar-
antee sufficient communication with the passenger.
Good communication between vehicle and passenger accommodates when to trust or
not trust automated systems. In this context, it is essential for the automated system to
convey the sense of intentions awareness, able to take control at any time or even to
give instructions about how to drive within the passenger’s comfort zone. Achieving
such a result is through a comprehensive Human Machine Interface's (HMI's) present
effective communication with the end user. The UI needs to tell what its utility, how
to use those features, and why these functions are fundamental in the design.
4
A key component of immersive UX is explicitly. For drivers, a fraction of a second
can be the variation between getting into an accident or driving away safely. Studies
show that it takes up to eight seconds for a driver to regain situational awareness,
more three to four seconds for reaction time, during this time the possibility of a colli-
sion is significantly increased [7]. While recent cars technologies propped with safety
features like backup cameras blinking and sensors, there are different types of driver
distraction impede the ability to spot hazards and react in time. Evidence explains that
the distraction caused by mobile phones, for example, can impair driving performance
in many ways. Though, the use of mobile phones has become a necessity for many
people. Since the SDV concept is about that the driver is no longer have a responsibil-
ity of driving process, new means for user interface development and interaction de-
sign are needed. So, what does the suitable in-car technology has to look alike? Eve-
ryday smart technology level? Today, over 80% of the global population has a
smartphone in their pocket, which has created an expectation amongst consumers that
all screens must function at a high level even those in cars [8].
Indeed, the passenger has to be aware in case of any urgent situation that requires
personal interaction. The need for multimodal in-car interaction is increasing to miti-
gate such challenges. Hence, this project aims to understand and fill the gap towards
the system, as there is no place for a trial or errors once the product in the market, the
cost of any failure could be mortal. UI design in the automotive industry is interdisci-
plinary across many areas ranging from navigation, information services, primary
driving control, assisted functions, to entertainment and games. Moreover, the urge to
develop in-car interaction is to ensure their accessibility and usability for all kind of
users, a prospect to increase independent mobility for people with disabilities and the
elderly.
3 Experiment Design: Information Interaction
The automotive industry progression has brought significant technological advances
to support the users riding, leading to safer, reliable, more affordable, and cleaner
vehicles, by providing advanced driving assistance system such as lane keeping, adap-
tive cruise control. As mentioned before, the user could perform more secondary tasks
such as phone, email, looking up information, watching TV. Which is the core of our
project, presents a distinct HMI’s that could meet the customers’ requirements while
they are practicing any activities in the ride. The essential question to ask how to de-
sign systems that make driving safer while providing for the users’ needs? What can
make the car genuinely effective at changing the behavior (adopt the technology) of
their users?
A fundamental element of UX for in-car technology is clarity. The user interface de-
sign features can have a measurable impact on how legible the in-car experience is.
5
Various factors like illumination, colours, and typeface do contribute to understanding
what makes a legible driving experience for drivers and passengers.
A simple example of information interaction when the system notifying the passenger
about the car intention to change the planned route because of traffic or any other
obstacles is to show the navigation path in advance so that the passenger can take
adequate actions if they disagree. Such a solution could be demonstrated through the
advanced heads-up display (HUD), which can adjust for parallax effect based on the
passenger's head position and movement, display these directions or instructions on
the windshield, 3D-mapped to the road ahead, instead of a static route (see figure 2).
As mentioned before this could be the ideal solution if the passenger is not engaging
with a second task, capable and paying attention to the road.
Efficient in-car infotainment hubs have to communicate a variety of details to passen-
gers (no longer responsible for the driving process), and in order for them to be use-
ful, they must be distinct at a glance. Employing action research (AR) methods to
investigate the form of user-centred design, would reflect the user's inquiries in order
to explore the effects of HMI's design on glance and response time across a number of
variables (see figure 3). These variables are divided into external and internal. Where
the external factors are about the colours, illumination, polarity, contrast, and size; the
internal factors are more about weight, stroke, modulation, case, serifs, and width.
These factors contribute directly to the system clarity. Moreover, the display surface
has specific characteristics that influenced by these variables. By example, the polari-
ty as an external factor has two conditions: positive polarity (white shades colour text
on dark shades background) and negative polarity (dark shades text on white shades
background). Testing colour polarity settings are different for HUD and infotainment
screen. Hence, it is a way to examine the legibility of a dark screen with light text
versus a light screen with dark text. Similarly, illumination and other factors have a
particular property contribute to the UX while riding. Indeed, this could help to un-
derstand the technology acceptance tendency.
4 Multimodal In-car Interaction
It is important to understand that what people engage with depends on how it meets
their ongoing activities as well as whether they realise its potential value [9]. The
design of systems that support active engagement will ideally take account of peo-
ple’s practices and contexts as well as their interests. Good design can facilitate pro-
ductive interactions with information.
Moreover, the passengers need to be able to operate the car in the way they want to be
driven to maintain a high level of trust and comfort in the car. This communication
can be verified through visual, auditory, and haptic approaches. The subtleties of the
many possible scenarios and actions while riding the car intends to take can be too
detailed and intricate to express via visual aids adequately. While auditory communi-
6
cation in urgent situations can improve the feedback; care must be taken with the
amount of presented information, to make sure the passenger is not overwhelmed, as
it could take away from the conveniences of autonomous driving [10].
Fig. 2. Heads up display and infotainment screen
Fig. 3. Design structure for HMI's
In our project we suggest that the in-car interaction should be useful for the different
type of passengers, considering their needs. And most importantly regarding safety
matter should communicate effectively in critical and non-critical situations. Since
systems could express in two different contexts: why and how. Accordingly, why is
more about taking an immediate reaction, and how to show what to do [11]. Further-
7
more, this technology determines that the truly transformative benefits are only real-
ised once the public adopts it [2]. Indeed, the usage of SDC’s is not restricted to en-
hance the general acceptance of the technology but to investigate when, how and why
to trust the technology. This progress is contingent on the intuitive user who shapes
the demands of the market [12].
5 Discussion and Conclusion
The motivating shifts that have occurred in recent decades are a substantial change to
how things are seen, defined, categorised, or quantified. Although this change is con-
sidered the hardest one to predict, it is essential to clarify that these technological
improvements do not present a brand-new technology, but developed versions of the
existing one and more integrated with the modern world. Employing the generated
design into SDC’s could help us to bridge the gap between different autonomous lev-
els and the fully autonomous level acceptance. Furthermore, investigating the UI’s
has to cover both relations cars to drivers and vice versa. UA and UX factors could
help to understand the technology acceptance tendency. The results of this project will
contribute on how efficient the information we are providing to the potential user, that
could enhance the technology adoption? What kind of developments are required to
reach the plateau of productivity? To investigate SDV’s is not only to provoke the
general acceptance of the technology but to investigate when, how and why to trust
the technology. The primary component that guarantees the success of this develop-
ment is the final customer since they shape the market.
From the notion of “the paradigm shift” by Thomas Kuhn, who states that “People do
not shift unless they have a vision of what it is they are shifting to” [13]. Further stag-
es in this project are to test the design with the potential users, designers, and manu-
facturer to get quantitative and qualitative data, that could help to develop the design
model. Certainly, determine the right medium to present the technology for the poten-
tial user, has impact trust and safety. AR/VR technologies have grown into automo-
tive marketing in recent years. AR/VR technologies are highly engaging, where the
users can investigate and configure the potential vehicle and interface, they could use.
Thus, using such techniques would reduce the errors and the accidents risk for all
parties
References
1. Becker, F. and K.W. Axhausen, Literature review on surveys investigating the ac-
ceptance of autonomous vehicles. 2017.
2. Howard, D. and D. Dai. Public perceptions of self-driving cars: The case of Berkeley,
California. in Transportation Research Board 93rd Annual Meeting. 2014.
8
3. NHTS, N.H.T.S.A., USDOT Connected Vehicle Research Program: Vehicle-to-Vehicle
Safety Application Research Plan. DOT HS, 2011. 811: p. 373.
4. Schoettle, B. and M. Sivak, A survey of public opinion about autonomous and self-
driving vehicles in the US, the UK, and Australia. 2014.
5. Lutin, J.M., A.L. Kornhauser, and E.L.-L. MASCE, The revolutionary development of
self-driving vehicles and implications for the transportation engineering profession. Insti-
tute of Transportation Engineers. ITE Journal, 2013. 83(7): p. 28.
6. Panetta, K., Top Trends in the Gartner Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies, 2017, in
https://www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/top-trends-in-the-gartner-hype-cycle-for-
emerging-technologies-2017/. 2017, Gartner.
7. Wright, T.J., et al. Experienced drivers are quicker to achieve situation awareness than
inexperienced drivers in situations of transfer of control within a Level 3 autonomous envi-
ronment. in Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting.
2016. SAGE Publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA.
8. Moreno-Munoz, A., Bellido-Outeirino, F. J., Siano, P., & Gomez-Nieto, M. A.
(2016). Mobile social media for smart grids customer engagement: Emerging trends and
challenges. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 53, 1611-1616.
9. Makri, S. and A. Blandford, Coming across information serendipitously–Part 1: A pro-
cess model. Journal of Documentation, 2012. 68(5): p. 684-705.
10. Dey, D. and J. Terken. Pedestrian interaction with vehicles: roles of explicit and implicit
communication. in Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Automotive User
Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications. 2017. ACM.
11. Koo, J., et al., Why did my car just do that? Explaining semi-autonomous driving actions
to improve driver understanding, trust, and performance. International Journal on Interac-
tive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 2015. 9(4): p. 269-275.
12. Yang, J. and J. Coughlin, In-vehicle technology for self-driving cars: Advantages and chal-
lenges for aging drivers. International Journal of Automotive Technology, 2014. 15(2): p.
333-340.
13. Agassi, J., Thomas Kuhn," The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". 1966.
