Investigating Pressure Input and Haptic Feedback for In-Car Touchscreens and Touch Surfaces

Ng, Alexander; Brewster, Stephen

doi:10.1145/3003715.3005420

Cited by 15 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We used the same list-based targeting task as our previous study [15] to allow a comparison of the results. There were ten targets in the list numbered '1' to '10' from top to bottom.…”

Section: Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In our previous lab study [15], we evaluated Pressure Buttons and Dial with and without haptic feedback and found that selection times were significantly quicker with tactile cues and were subjectively preferred. Furthermore, related work has reported the benefits of providing haptic feedback with in-car controls (e.g.…”

Section: Haptic Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Selection time was the duration from the target being displayed onscreen until the selection of the target. The experimental hypotheses were based on the findings from our related lab study [15] …”

Section: Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In our previous study [15], we conducted two experiments to compare different pressure-based input techniques with a standard physical dial.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In our second experiment [15], the input techniques were evaluated inside a moving vehicle where participants, who sat in the front passenger seat, experienced real world driving noises, vibrations and forces to see if haptic feedback was still perceivable and how the input techniques performed compared to the simulator study. Accuracy was high (> 98%) but selection times were slower when compared to the first experiment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

An Evaluation of Input Controls for In-Car Interactions

Brewster

Beruscha

et al. 2017

Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The way drivers operate in-car systems is rapidly changing as traditional physical controls, such as buttons and dials, are being replaced by touchscreens and touch-sensing surfaces. This has the potential to increase driver distraction and error as controls may be harder to find and use. This paper presents an in-car, on the road driving study which examined three key types of input controls to investigate their effects: a physical dial, pressure-based input on a touch surface and touch input on a touchscreen. The physical dial and pressure-based input were also evaluated with and without haptic feedback. The study was conducted with users performing a list-based targeting task using the different controls while driving on public roads. Eye-gaze was recorded to measure distraction from the primary task of driving. The results showed that target accuracy was high across all input methods (greater than 94%). Pressurebased targeting was the slowest while directly tapping on the targets was the faster selection method. Pressure-based input also caused the largest number of glances towards to the touchscreen but the duration of each glance was shorter than directly touching the screen. Our study will enable designers to make more appropriate design choices for future in-car interactions.

show abstract

“…We used the same list-based targeting task as our previous study [15] to allow a comparison of the results. There were ten targets in the list numbered '1' to '10' from top to bottom.…”

Section: Taskmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Haptic Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In our previous study [15], we conducted two experiments to compare different pressure-based input techniques with a standard physical dial.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

An Evaluation of Input Controls for In-Car Interactions

Brewster

Beruscha

et al. 2017

Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Augmented, Virtual and Mixed Reality Passenger Experiences

McGill

et al. 2022

Studies in Computational Intelligence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Challenges in passenger use of mixed reality headsets in cars and other transportation

McGill

Williamson

et al. 2019

Virtual Reality

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper examines key challenges in supporting passenger use of augmented and virtual reality headsets in transit. These headsets will allow passengers to break free from the restraints of physical displays placed in constrained environments such as cars, trains and planes. Moreover, they have the potential to allow passengers to make better use of their time by making travel more productive and enjoyable, supporting both privacy and immersion. However, there are significant barriers to headset usage by passengers in transit contexts. These barriers range from impediments that would entirely prevent safe usage and function (e.g. motion sickness) to those that might impair their adoption (e.g. social acceptability). We identify the key challenges that need to be overcome and discuss the necessary resolutions and research required to facilitate adoption and realize the potential advantages of using mixed reality headsets in transit.

show abstract

Investigating Pressure Input and Haptic Feedback for In-Car Touchscreens and Touch Surfaces

Cited by 15 publications

References 21 publications

An Evaluation of Input Controls for In-Car Interactions

An Evaluation of Input Controls for In-Car Interactions

Augmented, Virtual and Mixed Reality Passenger Experiences

Challenges in passenger use of mixed reality headsets in cars and other transportation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About