eSafety Compendium

As shown in Annex E some principles substantially differ as the result of small wordingchanges. For example, the first ESoP Principle on Information Presentation (3.1)originally addressed the visual demand associated with the information presentation on asingle screen. In the AAM guideline the seemingly corresponding principle (2.1)addresses the complete interaction needed to complete a desired task. Thus it is not apure principle on information presentation any more but primarily one on interaction.Moreover the concept of task adopted by the AAM guideline appears to be aproblematic one, since the same task may substantially vary in its duration in terms of theassociated number of interactions (e.g. entering a long vs. a short town name). Muchmore important is that it is the driver who decides which tasks he is going to (repeatedly)perform in which order depending on the traffic situation and other factors. If he isdriving for one hour from point A to point B, he may engage – dependent on the trafficsituation, his motivation and condition - in secondary task performance for ten minutes.He may use the time for one phone call, four times changing the radio station and finallysearching for one title on a CD. Consequently the effective duration of secondary taskperformance cannot be influenced by the system designer – but only the intensity ofinteraction.On the other hand the AAM-Guideline contains some helpful additions and changeswhich could be included in a revised ESoP. The comparison of the ESoP and AAMGuidelines in Annex E also summarises the WG-HMI’s recommendations for changesto the existing ESoP taking into account the AAM Guideline.In October 1990, Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association, Inc. (JAMA) drewup Safety Guidelines for In-vehicle Monitor Systems that were targeted primarily at carnavigation systems. The first report on JAMA’s activity regarding the safety of in-vehicleinformation systems explained the basic sections of the guidelines [1]. In February 2000the guidelines were revised and a new criterion concerning the monitor location of imagedisplay devices was included (30-degree criterion).Currently there are two activities pending in Japan regarding this issue of HMI which arecompletely separate and have not been finalized:1. National Public Safety Commission (NPSC): notification Nr. 12 dated 26 thMay 2002 on guidelines for providing traffic information (distributed as ISOTC22 SC13 WG8 N 365).2. MLIT: Their working group wrote a technical report for the targetperformanceof image display devices. This document (WG8 N366) includes the previousJAMA guideline. Today there is no decision, when and which parts of thisreport become relevant e.g. in form of a regulation.Comparing the ESoP expansions to the JAMA guidelines reveals two differentappoaches: while the ESoP describes generic HMI principles, the JAMA guidelinesconsist of quite specific recommendations for certain applications or functions like ‘mapdisplay’, ‘dynamic traffic information’ and ‘FM multiplex broadcast’.Page 297 of 490