Adjunct Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications 2015
DOI: 10.1145/2809730.2809737
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Advanced traffic light interface

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
2

Year Published

2017
2017
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
3
1
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 2 publications
0
3
2
Order By: Relevance
“…No significant effect of gender in the evaluations of the systems' attributes was found, a result that differs from the findings by Frank et al (2015), in which a small sample of males and females (N = 12) rated the HMIs differently. It is plausible that considering the small size of their sample, results could have been biased by few extreme scoring individuals thus underlining gender differences in user's acceptance.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 98%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…No significant effect of gender in the evaluations of the systems' attributes was found, a result that differs from the findings by Frank et al (2015), in which a small sample of males and females (N = 12) rated the HMIs differently. It is plausible that considering the small size of their sample, results could have been biased by few extreme scoring individuals thus underlining gender differences in user's acceptance.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 98%
“…It is plausible that considering the small size of their sample, results could have been biased by few extreme scoring individuals thus underlining gender differences in user's acceptance. In contrast with Frank et al (2015), in our study the higher sample size could have reduced the impact of gender on the evaluations of the six HMIs. Furthermore, the distinctive approaches adopted (lab environment vs online survey) and the heterogeneity of HMI concepts could have affect users' evaluation, thus making gender differences more evident in the first study.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 59%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Answers are given on a 5-point Likert-scale. Cronbach's α was α = .85 for the positive affect scale, which argues for a good reliability of the scale (Field 2013). Cronbach's α for the negative affect scale was α = .70, which is slightly below the desired value.…”
Section: Measurement and Data Acquisitionmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…Previous research on waiting times have focused on analysing different waiting situations, reducing waiting time or improving waiting conditions (Durrande-Moreau and Usunier 1999;Nie 2000;Bournes and Mitchell 2002;Kutash and Northrop 2007;Minton 2008;Norman 2008;Zhou and Soman 2008;Ho et al 2014;Asthana et al 2015;Frank et al 2015). The goal is to avoid letting waiting time negatively influence the perception of service providing people.…”
Section: Waiting Situations and The Possibility For Communicationmentioning
confidence: 99%