The Research-Practice Gap: An Explanatory Factor for Automotive HMI Customers’ Complaints?
Automotive HMI development was historically feature and technology-driven. Over time, we witnessed a shift in focus from physical to cognitive issues, especially due to technology evolution and embedded HMI complexification. This made adapting automotive HMI development process a necessity to address human factors and cognitive ergonomics challenges in design/evaluation phases. It is in this context that car manufacturers enhanced the traditional systems engineering logic (V like model) thanks to the User-Centered Design cycle (UCD). But, despite this user centric approach, some customers’ complaints and usability issues concerning automotive HMI are reported. Why is it so? To answer this question a research is underway. In this article, we (1) describe the work that led us to consider the research-practice gap as a candidate factor explaining why the user centric approach fails and (2) describe what we are planning to do as next steps.
KeywordsResearch-practice gap Automotive HMI Infotainment systems Usability methods Customers’ complaints Systems engineering process
This work is funded by the French “National Association of Research and Technology” (ANRT), grant number 2016/0738, and conducted in the Renault’s research center located in Guyancourt (France).
We would like to think all the “Cognitive ergonomics & HMI” team’s members within this work is carried out for their valuable time.
- 1.Schmidt A, Dey AK, Kun AL, Spiessl W (2010) Automotive user interfaces: human computer interaction in the car. Presented at CHI 2010 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 3177–3180Google Scholar
- 2.Becker S, Hanna P, Wagner V (2014) Human machine interface design in modern vehicles. In: Crolla D, Foster DE, Kobayashi T, Vaughan N (éds) Encyclopedia of automotive engineering. Wiley, Chichester, pp 1–16Google Scholar
- 3.Winner H, Hakuli S, Lotz, F, Singer, CT (2015) Handbook of driver assistance systems: basic information, components and systems for active safety and comfortGoogle Scholar
- 4.Renault’s Standard (2017) Customer performance engineering. Document n° RPIFFPV3P20110005Google Scholar
- 5.Bhise VD (2012) Ergonomics in the automotive design process. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
- 6.Leonard D, Rayport JF (1997) Spark innovation through empathic design. Harv Bus Rev 75:102–115Google Scholar
- 7.Wixon D, Holtzblatt K, Knox S (1990) Contextual design: an emergent view of system design. Presented at the proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 329–336Google Scholar
- 8.ISO 9241-210 (2009) Ergonomics of human system interaction-Part 210: human-centred design for interactive systems. International Standardization Organization (ISO), SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
- 11.SBD Automotive (2014) Connected car USA usability benchmarkingGoogle Scholar
- 12.ISO 16982 (2002) Ergonomics of human-system interaction — usability methods supporting human-centred design. International Standardization Organization (ISO)Google Scholar
- 14.ISO 9186-1 (2014) Graphical symbols – test methods – Part 1: method for testing comprehensibility. International Standardization Organization (ISO)Google Scholar
- 15.Campbell JL, Richman J B., Carney C, Lee JD (2004) In-vehicle display icons and other information elements. Volume I: guidelines (No. FHWA-RD-03-065)Google Scholar
- 17.Stanton N, Salmon PM, Rafferty LA (2013) Human factors methods: a practical guide for engineering and design. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.Google Scholar
- 20.Harvey C (2009) Development of a method for evaluating the usability of in-vehicle information systems (IVISs). Presented at the IFIP conference on human-computer interaction. Springer, pp 856–859Google Scholar
- 23.Paul CL (2008) A modified Delphi approach to a new card sorting methodology. J Usabil Stud 4(1):7–30Google Scholar