Designing Gamified Applications that Make Safe Driving More Engaging

CHI, pp. 2826-2839, 2017.

Cited by: 23|Bibtex|Views38|Links
EI
Keywords:
mental resourcehead-up displayin-vehicle information systemspragmatic qualitydesign lensMore(15+)
Weibo:
This paper presented empirical studies to investigate the design of gamified applications that make driving more engaging

Abstract:

Low levels of engagement while driving can pose road safety risks, e.g., inattention during low traffic or routine trips. Interactive technologies that increase task engagement could therefore offer safety benefits, e.g., through performance feedback, increased challenge, and incentives. As a means to build upon these notions, we chose to...More

Code:

Data:

0
Introduction
  • More than one million people die in car accidents every year [81]
  • Road crash statistics such as these offer evidence of the severe consequences resulting from human error, especially among young drivers [81].
  • Kurzban et al [30] put forward a comprehensive theory, which describes that states like flow, boredom, and fatigue promote the efficient use of mental resources
  • In this theory, called opportunity-cost-model of subjective effort and task performance, the authors argue that these states result from an evolutionary process.
  • The authors propose to tap into interactive technology
Highlights
  • More than one million people die in car accidents every year [81]
  • We found that engagement is associated with economic and anticipatory driving
  • This paper presented empirical studies to investigate the design of gamified applications that make driving more engaging
  • We discussed how the six design lenses data, presentation, time, interface, social context, and road conditions are useful to bring into focus user needs and contextual requirements throughout the entire design process
  • Three presented user personas alleviate challenges faced by designers who develop driving applications for users with distinct preferences
  • As our prototype evaluations indicated, these tools can support the design of applications that make drivers feel more engaged in the driving task and be less tempted to take risks
Methods
  • 24 drivers participated in the study.
  • The authors deliberately recruited young male adults, since research confirmed that they are susceptible to crashing [81], risky driving [80], phone distractions [88], and feeling disengaged [16].
  • The pre-existing interest in digital games prevalent in this group [6] made exploring gamification promising.
  • The authors recruited participants on the university campus and at car meet-ups.
  • Data saturation [5] determined the sample size, i.e., data collection concluded when minimal new information was obtained from further sessions
Results
  • RESULTS & DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

    The authors' understanding of user requirements was enhanced by viewing the interview data through appropriate design lenses.
  • The authors found that engagement is associated with economic and anticipatory driving
  • Participants said they would typically focus on fuel consumption if they had to pay for petrol themselves or if they were low on fuel (P17, P18, P15, P14).
  • P13 and P14 reported purposely driving over lane markers: “my car is really stiff, I feel every bump so I just try and hit every cat eye.” Five participants praised anticipatory concepts such as CoastMaster, which requires drivers to look ahead and take road characteristics into account.
  • The authors decided to continue the path with a second prototype iteration
Conclusion
  • The authors discuss the work with respect to the research aim of exploring the design of gamified driving applications.
  • Returning to the motivation of the work, the authors discuss the results in light of task engagement and road safety.
  • The authors provided ten concrete design recommendations (Recommendations 1 - 10), which researchers and practitioners can apply and extend in their own work.
  • The authors discussed how the six design lenses data, presentation, time, interface, social context, and road conditions are useful to bring into focus user needs and contextual requirements throughout the entire design process.
  • The authors' contributions pave the way to developing new safety interventions for researchers and practitioners who aim to curb the road toll
Summary
  • Introduction:

    More than one million people die in car accidents every year [81]
  • Road crash statistics such as these offer evidence of the severe consequences resulting from human error, especially among young drivers [81].
  • Kurzban et al [30] put forward a comprehensive theory, which describes that states like flow, boredom, and fatigue promote the efficient use of mental resources
  • In this theory, called opportunity-cost-model of subjective effort and task performance, the authors argue that these states result from an evolutionary process.
  • The authors propose to tap into interactive technology
  • Objectives:

    More work is needed to understand user requirements and contextual constraints in this safetycritical space – a gap this paper aims to address
  • Methods:

    24 drivers participated in the study.
  • The authors deliberately recruited young male adults, since research confirmed that they are susceptible to crashing [81], risky driving [80], phone distractions [88], and feeling disengaged [16].
  • The pre-existing interest in digital games prevalent in this group [6] made exploring gamification promising.
  • The authors recruited participants on the university campus and at car meet-ups.
  • Data saturation [5] determined the sample size, i.e., data collection concluded when minimal new information was obtained from further sessions
  • Results:

    RESULTS & DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

    The authors' understanding of user requirements was enhanced by viewing the interview data through appropriate design lenses.
  • The authors found that engagement is associated with economic and anticipatory driving
  • Participants said they would typically focus on fuel consumption if they had to pay for petrol themselves or if they were low on fuel (P17, P18, P15, P14).
  • P13 and P14 reported purposely driving over lane markers: “my car is really stiff, I feel every bump so I just try and hit every cat eye.” Five participants praised anticipatory concepts such as CoastMaster, which requires drivers to look ahead and take road characteristics into account.
  • The authors decided to continue the path with a second prototype iteration
  • Conclusion:

    The authors discuss the work with respect to the research aim of exploring the design of gamified driving applications.
  • Returning to the motivation of the work, the authors discuss the results in light of task engagement and road safety.
  • The authors provided ten concrete design recommendations (Recommendations 1 - 10), which researchers and practitioners can apply and extend in their own work.
  • The authors discussed how the six design lenses data, presentation, time, interface, social context, and road conditions are useful to bring into focus user needs and contextual requirements throughout the entire design process.
  • The authors' contributions pave the way to developing new safety interventions for researchers and practitioners who aim to curb the road toll
Funding
  • This work was supported under the Australian Research Council’s Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (ARC DECRA) funding scheme (project number DE140101542)
Reference
  • L. Andreone, A. Amditis, E. Deregibus, and S. Damiani. 2005. Beyond context-awareness: drivervehicle-environment adaptivity. From the COMUNICAR Project to the AIDE concept. 16th IFAC WORLD.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Andrés Francisco Aparicio, Francisco Luis Gutiérrez Vela, José Luis González Sánchez, and José Luis Isla Montes. 2012. Analysis and application of gamification. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Interacción Persona-Ordenador, 17.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • A Stevens, A Quimby, A Board, T Kersloot, P Burns. 2004. Design Guidelines for Safety of In-Vehicle Information Systems. TRL Limited.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Aaron Bangor, Philip T. Kortum, and James T. Miller. 2008. An Empirical Evaluation of the System Usability Scale. International journal of human-computer interaction 24, 6: 574–594.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Donna Bonde. 2013. Qualitative Interviews: When enough is enough. Research by Design. Retrieved from http://www.researchbydesign.com.au/media/RBDWhitePaper-Margin-of-Error.pdf
    Findings
  • Jeffrey E. Brand, Pascaline Lorentz, and Trishita Mathew. 2014. Digital Australia 2014 (DA14). Bond University for the Interactive Games & Entertainment Association.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • John Brooke and Others. 1996. SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry 189, 194: 4–7.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • B. Buxton. 2010. Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design. Elsevier Science.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Stephen M. Casner, Edwin L. Hutchins, and Don Norman. 2016. The Challenges of Partially Automated Driving. Communications of the ACM 59, 5: 70–77.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Neelima Chohan. 2015. Young drivers ignore dangerous phone warning. HeraldSun. Retrieved 9 September 2015 from http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/youngdrivers-ignore-dangerous-phone-warning/storyfni0fit3-1227339646687
    Findings
  • M. Csikszentmihalyi. 1997. Finding Flow: The Psychology of Engagement with Everyday Life. BasicBooks.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Edward L. Deci, Robert J. Vallerand, Luc G. Pelletier, and Richard M. Ryan. 1991. Motivation and Education: The Self-Determination Perspective. Educational psychologist 26, 3-4: 325–346.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • E. L. Deci and R. M. Ryan. 2012. Motivation, personality, and development within embedded social contexts: An overview of self-determination theory. The Oxford handbook of human motivation.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • S. Deterding, D. Dixon, R. Khaled, and L. Nacke. 2011. From game design elements to gamefulness: defining gamification. In MindTrek ’11 Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Stefan Diewald, Andreas Möller, Luis Roalter, Tobias Stockinger, and Matthias Kranz. 2013. Gameful Design in the Automotive Domain: Review, Outlook and Challenges. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, 262–265.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Amos Drory. 1982. Individual differences in boredom proneness and task effectiveness at work. Personnel psychology 35, 1: 141–151.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Ronald Ecker, Philipp Holzer, Verena Broy, and Andreas Butz. 2011. EcoChallenge: a race for efficiency. In Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, 91–94.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Shelley A. Fahlman, Kimberley B. Mercer-Lynn, David B. Flora, and John D. Eastwood. 2013. Development and validation of the multidimensional state boredom scale. Assessment 20, 1: 68–85.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Stephen H. Fairclough, Liverpool John Moores, Katie C. Ewing, Liverpool John Moores, Jenna Roberts, and Liverpool John Moores. 2009. Measuring task engagement as an input to physiological computing. In Proc. of Int. Conf. on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction, 1–9.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • J. L. Gabbard, G. M. Fitch, and Hyungil Kim. 2014. Behind the Glass: Driver Challenges and Opportunities for AR Automotive Applications. Proceedings of the IEEE 102, 2: 124–136.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Saul Greenberg, Sheelagh Carpendale, Nicolai Marquardt, and Bill Buxton. 2011. Sketching user experiences: The workbook. Elsevier.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • J. Hamari, J. Koivisto, and H. Sarsa. 2014. Does Gamification Work? -- A Literature Review of Empirical Studies on Gamification. In 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 3025–3034.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Juho Hamari, Jonna Koivisto, and Tuomas Pakkanen. 2014. Do Persuasive Technologies Persuade? - A Review of Empirical Studies. In Persuasive Technology (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), 118–136.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Marc Hassenzahl. 2010. Experience Design: Technology for All the Right Reasons. Synthesis Lectures on Human-Centered Informatics 3, 1: 1–95.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Marc Hassenzahl, Annika Wiklund-Engblom, Anette Bengs, Susanne Hägglund, and Sarah Diefenbach. 2015. Experience-Oriented and Product-Oriented Evaluation: Psychological Need Fulfillment, Positive Affect, and Product Perception. International journal of human-computer interaction 31, 8: 530–544.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Simon Heslop. 2014. Driver boredom: Its individual difference predictors and behavioural effects. Transportation research. Part F, Traffic psychology and behaviour 22: 159–169.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • ISO. 2010. ISO 9241-210:2010 - Ergonomics of human-system interaction -- Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Sheila G. Klauer, Thomas A. Dingus, Vicki L. Neale, Jeremy D. Sudweeks, David J. Ramsey, and Others. 2006. The impact of driver inattention on nearcrash/crash risk: An analysis using the 100-car naturalistic driving study data. Retrieved from https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/55090
    Findings
  • Martin Knobel, Marc Hassenzahl, Melanie Lamara, Tobias Sattler, Josef Schumann, Kai Eckoldt, and Andreas Butz. 2012. Clique Trip: Feeling Related in Different Cars. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS ’12), 29–37.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Robert Kurzban, Angela Duckworth, Joseph W. Kable, and Justus Myers. 2013. An opportunity cost model of subjective effort and task performance. The Behavioral and brain sciences 36, 6: 661–679.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • P. Lessel, M. Altmeyer, M. Müller, and C. Wolff. 2016. Don’t Whip Me With Your Games: Investigating Bottom-Up Gamification.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • James R. Lewis and Jeff Sauro. 2009. The Factor Structure of the System Usability Scale. In Human Centered Design (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), 94–103.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • W. Lidwell, K. Holden, and J. Butler. 2010. Universal Principles of Design, Revised and Updated: 125 Ways to Enhance Usability, Influence Perception, Increase Appeal, Make Better Design Decisions, and Teach Through Design. Rockport Publishers.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Todd Litman. 2015. Autonomous vehicle implementation predictions: Implications for transport planning. In Transportation Research Board 94th Annual Meeting.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Sebastian Loehmann. 2015. Experience Prototyping for Automotive Applications. University of Munich (LMU).
    Google ScholarFindings
  • George F. Loewenstein and Dražen Prelec. 1993. Preferences for sequences of outcomes. Psychological review 100, 1: 91.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Jennifer Mankoff, Anind K. a. K. Dey, Gary Hsieh, Julie Kientz, Scott Lederer, and Morgan Ames. 2003. Heuristic Evaluation of Ambient Displays. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 5: 169–176.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Amanda Rose Markey. 2014. Three Essays on Boredom. Carnegie Mellon University.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Aleksandar Matic, Martin Pielot, and Nuria Oliver. 2015. Boredom-computer Interaction: Boredom Proneness and the Use of Smartphone. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp ’15), 837–841.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Gerald Matthews, Sian E. Campbell, Shona Falconer, Lucy A. Joyner, Jane Huggins, Kirby Gilliland, Rebecca Grier, and Joel S. Warm. 2002. Fundamental dimensions of subjective state in performance settings: task engagement, distress, and worry. Emotion 2, 4: 315–340.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • S. Matthies, A. Philipsen, and J. Svaldi. 2012. Risky decision making in adults with ADHD. Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry 43, 3: 938–946.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • R. McCall and V. Koenig. 2012. Gaming concepts and incentives to change driver behaviour. In Ad Hoc Networking Workshop (Med-Hoc-Net), 2012 The 11th Annual Mediterranean, 146–151.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Rufeng Meng, Chengfeng Mao, and Romit Roy Choudhury. 2014. Driving Analytics: Will it be OBDs or Smartphones? Zendrive Inc. Retrieved from http://blog.zendrive.com/103460130120/
    Locate open access versionFindings
  • Alexander Meschtscherjakov, Christine Döttlinger, Christina Rödel, and Manfred Tscheligi. 2015. ChaseLight: ambient LED stripes to control driving speed. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, 212–219.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Alexander Meschtscherjakov, Alina Krischkowsky, Katja Neureiter, Alexander Mirnig, Axel Baumgartner, Verena Fuchsberger, and Manfred Tscheligi. 2016. Active Corners: Collaborative In-Car Interaction Design. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS ’16), 1136– 1147.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Matthew B. Miles, A. Michael Huberman, and Johnny Saldaña. 2013. Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Brian W. Miller. 2015. Using Reading Times and EyeMovements to Measure Cognitive Engagement. Educational psychologist 50, 1: 31–42.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Ann J. Morrison, Peta Mitchell, and Margot Brereton. 2007. The Lens of Ludic Engagement: Evaluating Participation in Interactive Art Installations. In Proceedings of the 15th ACM International Conference on Multimedia (MM ’07), 509–512.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • NHTSA. 2016. Distracted Driving 2014. Retrieved from https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublic ation/812260
    Findings
  • Jakob Nielsen. 1994. Usability engineering. Elsevier.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Carl Jörgen Normark. 2015. Vehicle interaction tailored to you. Interactions 22, 1: 32–36.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • ita Orji and Karyn Moffatt. 2016. Persuasive technology for health and wellness: State-of-the-art and emerging trends. Health informatics journal.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • S. Oviatt. 2003. Multimodal interfaces. The humancomputer interaction handbook
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Sarah Pink, Pink Sarah, Kerstin Leder Mackley, Mitchell Val, Hanratty Marcus, Escobar-Tello Carolina, Bhamra Tracy, and Morosanu Roxana. 2008. Applying the lens of sensory ethnography to sustainable HCI. ACM transactions on computerhuman interaction: a publication of the Association for Computing Machinery 20, 4: 1–18.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Danil V. Prokhorov, Steven F. Kalik, and Chenna K. R. Varri. 2011. System and method for reducing boredom while driving. US Patent. Retrieved from http://www.google.com/patents/US7982620
    Findings
  • J. Pruitt and T. Adlin. 2010. The Persona Lifecycle: Keeping People in Mind Throughout Product Design. Elsevier Science.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Andry Rakotonirainy, Frank Feller, and Narelle L. Haworth. 2008. Using in-vehicle avatars to prevent road violence. Pervasive and mobile computing: 70– 74.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Susann Rohwedder and Robert J. Willis. 2010. Mental Retirement. The journal of economic perspectives: a journal of the American Economic Association 24, 1: 119–138.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • SAE International. 2014. J3016: Taxonomy and Definitions for Terms Related to On-Road Motor Vehicle Automated Driving Systems. Retrieved 4 July 2016 from http://standards.sae.org/j3016_201401/
    Findings
  • N. Schaffer. 2008. Heuristic evaluation of games. Game Usability: Advice from the Experts for Advancing.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Erwin Schoitsch, Christoph Schmittner, Zhendong Ma, and Thomas Gruber. 2016. The Need for Safety and Cyber-Security Co-engineering and Standardization for Highly Automated Automotive Vehicles. In Advanced Microsystems for Automotive Applications 2015, Tim Schulze, Beate Müller and Gereon Meyer (eds.). Springer International Publishing, 251–261.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Ronald Schroeter, Jim Oxtoby, and Daniel Johnson. 2014. AR and Gamification Concepts to Reduce Driver Boredom and Risk Taking Behaviours. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, 1–8.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Ronald Schroeter, Jim Oxtoby, Daniel M. Johnson, and Fabius Steinberger. 2015. Exploring boredom proneness as a predictor of mobile phone use in the car. In Proceedings of 27th Australian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (OZCHI 2015).
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Ronald Schroeter, Andry Rakotonirainy, and Marcus Foth. 2012. The social car: new interactive vehicular applications derived from social media and urban informatics. In Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, 107–110.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Ronald Schroeter and Fabius Steinberger. 2016. Pokémon DRIVE: Towards increased situational awareness in semi-automated driving. In Proc. OzCHI 2016.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Katie Seaborn and Deborah I. Fels. 2015/2. Gamification in theory and action: A survey. International journal of human-computer studies 74: 14–31.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • M. Sivak. 1996. The information that drivers use: is it indeed 90% visual? Perception 25, 9: 1081–1089.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Tim Smith, Harsha Vardhan, Barnaby Malet, and David Mingay. 2014. Are we there yet? Thoughts on in-car HMI. ustwo. Retrieved from http://cdn.ustwo.com/automotive/AreWeThereYet_V1.0.pdf
    Findings
  • Alessandro Soro, Andry Rakotonirainy, Ronald Schroeter, and Sabine Wollstädter. 2014. Using Augmented Video to Test In-Car User Experiences of Context Analog HUDs. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, 1–6.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Fabius Steinberger, April Moeller, and Ronald Schroeter. 2016. The Antecedents, Experience, and Coping Strategies of Driver Boredom in Young Adult Males. Journal of safety research.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Fabius Steinberger, Patrick Proppe, Ronald Schroeter, and Florian Alt. 2016. CoastMaster – An Ambient Speedometer to Gamify Safe Driving. In Proceedings of Automotive User Interfaces 2016.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Fabius Steinberger, Ronald Schroeter, and Diana Babiac. 2017. Engaged Drivers – Safe Drivers: Gathering Real-Time Data from Mobile and Wearable Devices for Safe-Driving Apps. In Automotive User Interfaces - Creating Interactive Experiences in the Car, Gerrit Meixner and Christian Mueller (eds.). Springer.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Fabius Steinberger, Ronald Schroeter, and Verena Lindner. 2015. From gearstick to joystick – Challenges in designing new interventions for the safety-critical driving context. In OzCHI 2015 Workshop on Ethical Encounters in HCI.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Fabius Steinberger, Ronald Schroeter, Verena Lindner, Zachary Fitz-Walter, Joshua Hall, and Daniel Johnson. 2015. Zombies on the Road: A Holistic Design Approach to Balancing Gamification and Safe Driving. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, 320–327.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Melanie Swan. 2012. Sensor Mania! The Internet of Things, Wearable Computing, Objective Metrics, and the Quantified Self 2.0. Journal of Sensor and Actuator Networks 1, 3: 217–253.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Sarah-Kristin Thiel, Marcus Foth, and Ronald Schroeter. 2015. Ad Hoc Communities on the Road: Serendipitous Social Encounters to Enhance Tourist Experiences. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Australian Special Interest Group for Computer Human Interaction (OzCHI ’15), 643–652.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Tim J. W. Tijs, Dirk Brokken, and Wijnand A. IJsselsteijn. 2008. Dynamic Game Balancing by Recognizing Affect. In Fun and Games, Panos Markopoulos, Boris de Ruyter, Wijnand IJsselsteijn and Duncan Rowland (eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 88–93.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Atiyeh Vaezipour, Andry Rakotonirainy, and Narelle Haworth. 2015. Reviewing In-vehicle Systems to Improve Fuel Efficiency and Road Safety. Procedia Manufacturing 3: 3192–3199.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Mark Vollrath, Anja Katharina Huemer, Carolin Teller, Anastasia Likhacheva, and Jana Fricke. 2016. Do German drivers use their smartphones safely?—Not really! Accident; analysis and prevention 96: 29–38.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Barry C. Watson, Angela Watson, Victor Siskind, and Judy J. Fleiter. 2009. Characteristics and predictors of high-range speeding offenders. Proceedings of 2009 Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • WHO. 2015. Global status report on road safety 2015. World Health Organization.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Mikael Wiberg. 2013. Methodology for materiality: interaction design research through a material lens. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 18, 3: 625–636.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Timothy D. Wilson, David A. Reinhard, Erin C. Westgate, Daniel T. Gilbert, Nicole Ellerbeck, Cheryl Hahn, Casey L. Brown, and Adi Shaked. 2014. Social psychology. Just think: the challenges of the disengaged mind. Science 345, 6192: 75–77.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Eray Yağdereli, Cemal Gemci, and A. Ziya Aktaş. 2015. A study on cyber-security of autonomous and unmanned vehicles. The Journal of Defense Modeling and Simulation: Applications, Methodology, Technology 12, 4: 369–381.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • R. M. Yerkes and J. D. Dodson. 1908. The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit‐formation. The Journal of comparative neurology.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Chuang-Wen You, Martha Montes-de-Oca, Thomas J. Bao, Nicholas D. Lane, Hong Lu, Giuseppe Cardone, Lorenzo Torresani, and Andrew T. Campbell. 2012. CarSafe: A Driver Safety App That Detects Dangerous Driving Behavior Using Dual-cameras on Smartphones. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp ’12), 671–672.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • John Zimmerman, Jodi Forlizzi, and Shelley Evenson. 2007. Research Through Design As a Method for Interaction Design Research in HCI. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’07), 493–502.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • 2012. State of the road: Mobile phones and driving fact sheet. CARRS-Q. Retrieved from https://www.police.qld.gov.au/EventsandAlerts/campai gns/Documents/mobile_phones_and_distraction_fs.pdf
    Locate open access versionFindings
Your rating :
0

 

Best Paper
Best Paper of CHI, 2017
Tags
Comments