Thesis - Teknisk Design

More documents

Recommendations

Info

market because the inherent usability benefits of compatibility with other productsmay be lost (Jordan, P. W. 1998).FOUR YEARS IN POSSESSION OF A DRIVER’S LICENSEThe primary activity accomplished by the participants of that study is driving, but themain interest of the study is the secondary task, navigating through an in-vehicletouch screen. Therefore, no attention must be paid to the driving task. To avoid anyinterference between both activities, the participants have to be used to drive a carwithout paying too much attention to the mechanical movements needed to driveit; otherwise the recorded data could be incorrect. For example, the eye trackingcould record a new driver looking into the touch screen when what he or she isactually doing is to look to the change of gears to make sure the change he o she isdoing is the right one. Also there is a spread thought that new drivers rely much morein vision than any other driver, and this could condition data.Domain knowledgeHaving knowledge of a task that it is independent of the product that is being usedto complete the task could affect on the performance of the user (Jordan, P. W.1998).NO OWNERSHIP OF THE SAME MODEL AS THE ONE AT THE VOLVOIncluding domain knowledge in your design is often seen as a good fact but in thiscase it could be prejudicial for the interest of this project. If one of the participants inthe study already have had the same car in which is based the simulator, he or shewill be familiar with the disposition of the tools. So, when asked to make somethingthe participant would automatically try to do as usual, looking for the regularcontrols. This kind of actions will affect the data recorded from the study. That is whyparticipants on the study must not have ownership of the same model of the usedVolvo.Age and genderTaking into consideration age and gender, it is really important to be able to find thetarget market in which this technology will fit. Age can be a factor, because everyyounger generation is more used to interaction with technology with which theygrown up. Young people are more likely to accept high technology devices whilstelderly people might not (Jordan, P. W. 1998).TOP AGE OF 40The study might be compromised by the reluctance of participant to use technologyor the unfamiliarity to use those kinds of devices. Because of that, the range ofpeople attending this study must not go above 40 years old. It is considered thatpeople to 40 year might have used tablets at least once in life so it will be easier forthem to get used to use it. Moreover, this will equilibrate for the young people whoare not attending the study, 22 year old and younger, due to the experience on the46
primary activity. These people are more likely to accept the technology and tofound easier the interaction with it.Requirements related to the simulator and measurersThere is another requirement that is related with the simulator itself. As it will be saidlater in this report an eye tracking will be used to get some data. Do to the operationof that measurer there is the next requirement.NO WEAR EYEGLASSESTo ensure good quality eye tracking data the participants in the study could notwear eyeglasses 3 .The global participant´s requirementsAll the participant´s requirements mentioned above are summarized in the tablebelow (Table 4.1). For a participant to be able to take part of the study must fulfil allthe minimum requirements.REQUIREMENTAges of driving car licenseOwnership of the used model VolvoAgeVALUE> 4 yearsNo< 40 yearsEyeglassesNo*Table 4.1 Participant´s requirements for the usability study*Due to some technical problems during the study eye tracker was no longer userand this requirement was no longer needed.4.4 MethodologyThe methodology followed in a usability study depends highly on the type of productbeing tested. It is an indubitable statement the fact that performance with a productis likely to improve significantly in relation to the number of times a task with it isrepeated. So usability improves over time if the product is used. This fact was stressedby Jordan at al. (1991) who have presented a model of usability with threecomponents depending on the number of times the product is used. Later (1994) thismodel has been enlarged by two more components. In the following section a briefview into that model is carried out.3 Annie Rydström (Volvo Car Corporation).47
Page 1:
Design and evaluation of hapticfeed
Page 4 and 5: Design and evaluation of haptic fee
Page 6 and 7: AbstractDesign and evaluation of ha
Page 8 and 9: THE GLOBAL PARTICIPANT´S REQUIREME
Page 10 and 11: directions, hence, a driver, while
Page 12 and 13: these interactions are already chos
Page 14 and 15: Haptic’s lecturesStartTouch scree
Page 16 and 17: as part of human’s skills in the
Page 18 and 19: Among the weaknesses of these devic
Page 20 and 21: Back to the general capacitive touc
Page 22 and 23: Enablesmultitouching*Cleaned withcl
Page 24 and 25: Maruyama, S. 2003). At that point,
Page 26 and 27: “TOUCH CLICK” FEEDBACKA relativ
Page 28 and 29: unlimited variations of vibrations,
Page 30 and 31: COMPARISON BETWEEN HAPTIC FEEDBACK
Page 32 and 33: 3Results from the analysis oftheore
Page 34 and 35: Figure 3.1 Requisites for an in-veh
Page 36 and 37: 3.2 SECOND QUESTION:Which haptic fe
Page 38 and 39: First step intohaptic feedbackNo ov
Page 40 and 41: The deviceThe device that has been
Page 42 and 43: herself why should the original int
Page 44 and 45: method from Immersion. This method
Page 46 and 47: create the virtual. That is related
Page 48 and 49: THE RADIOThe radio has five buttons
Page 50 and 51: is a check box. Only one check box
Page 52 and 53: EfficiencyThe efficiency is the amo
Page 56 and 57: Components of usabilityHere it will
Page 58 and 59: Figure 4.2 Notional learning curve,
Page 60 and 61: o If he or she has a car?o Which br
Page 62 and 63: SpeedAffects cognitive workload?DAL
Page 64 and 65: Deviation of normative pathTask 2:
Page 66 and 67: Deviation of normative pathFigure 4
Page 68 and 69: Participant 32520151050Effort ofAtt
Page 70 and 71: Participant 3 Happiness Stimulation
Page 72 and 73: Analysis of usability study5With th
Page 74 and 75: solved, although once one individua
Page 76 and 77: Discussion6The discussion will be c
Page 78 and 79: confirmation on release. When the u
Page 80 and 81: ReferenceAlexander, J., Marshall, M
Page 82 and 83: Immersion Corporation 3. What is Mo
Page 84 and 85: Appendix IUHL Effect Library listII
Page 86 and 87: Power21 Triple Click - High Power 3
Page 88 and 89: 71 Alert 9 - High Power72 Alert 10
Page 90 and 91: 122 Engine 4 - Mid Power Infinite R
Page 92 and 93: Participant Characteristic’s Form
Page 94 and 95: Interview on LearnabilityFirst test
Page 96 and 97: ‣ Time on task ………………
Page 98 and 99: DALI QuestionnaireInstructions:Thro
Page 100 and 101: Effort of attentionorVisual demandE
Page 102 and 103: Tactile demandorInterferenceTactile
Page 104 and 105:
Weighted rating:Study: …………
Page 106 and 107:
XXIII
Page 108:
CHALMERS UNIVERTITY OF TECHNOLOGYSE
show all

Thesis - Teknisk Design

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?