One advantage of highly automated vehicles is drivers can use commute time for non-driving tasks, such as work-related tasks. The potential for an auto-mobile office—a space where drivers work in automated vehicles—is a complex yet underexplored idea. This paper begins to define a design space of the auto- mobile office in SAE Level 3 automated vehicles by integrating the affinity diagram (AD) with a computational representation of the abstraction hierarchy (AH). The AD uses a bottom-up approach where researchers starting with individual findings aggregate and abstract those into higher-level concepts. The AH uses a top-down approach where researchers start with first principles to identify means-ends links between system goals and concrete forms of the system. Using the programming language R, the means-ends links of AH can be explored statistically. This computational approach to the AH provides a systematic means to define the design space of the auto-mobile office.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AyoubJ.ZhouF.BaoS.YangX. J. (2019). From manual driving to automated driving: A review of 10 years of AutoUI. In 11th International ACM Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, AutomotiveUI 2019 (pp. 70–90).
2.
BabbarS.BeharaR.WhiteE. (2002). Mapping product usability. International Journal of Operations and Production Management.
3.
BisantzA. M.VicenteK. J. (1994). Making the abstraction hierarchy concrete. International Journal of Human - Computer Studies, 40(1), 83–117.
4.
BurnsC. M.BisantzA. M.RothE. M. (2004). Lessons from a comparison of work domain models: Representational choices and their implications. Human Factors, 46(4), 711–727.
5.
FeratiM.MuranoP.GiannoumisG. A. (2018). Universal design of user interfaces in self-driving cars. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 587, 220–228.
6.
HahslerM.HornikK.BuchtaC. (2008). Getting things in order: An introduction to the R package seriation. Journal of Statistical Software, 25(3), 1–34.
HowardD.DaiD. (2014). Public perceptions of self-driving cars. In In Transportation research board 93rd annual meeting (pp. 1–16).
9.
JanssenC. P.BoyleL. N.KunA. L.BrumbyD. P.BrewsterS.ChuangL. L. (2019). Exploring the concept of the (future) mobile office. In 11th International ACM Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, AutomotiveUI 2019 (pp. 465–467).
10.
KamarajA. V.KatrahmaniA.LiM.LeeJ. D. (2020). A Data Analytics Approach to Persona Development for the Future Mobile Office. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL.: Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
11.
KunA. L.BollS.SchmidtA. (2016). Shifting gears: User interfaces in the age of autonomous driving. In IEEE Pervasive Computing (Vol. 15, pp. 32–38). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Inc.
12.
LefcourtH. M. (1991). Locus of control. Measures of Personality and Social Psychological Attitudes. Elsevier.
13.
LindM. (2003). Making sense of the abstraction hierarchy in the power plant domain. Cognition, Technology & Work, 5(2), 67–81.
14.
LuceroA. (2015). Using affinity diagrams to evaluate interactive prototypes. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (pp. 231–248).
15.
MacLeanA.YoungR. M.BellottiV. M.MoranT. P. (1991). Questions, options, and criteria: Elements of design space analysis. Human–Computer Interaction, 6(3–4), 201–250.
16.
PatriarcaR.BergströmJ.Di GravioG.. (2017). Defining the functional resonance analysis space: Combining abstraction hierarchy and FRAM. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 165, 34–36.
17.
PolitisI.BrewsterS.PollickF. (2015). Language-based multimodal displays for the handover of control in autonomous cars. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications - AutomotiveUI ’15 (pp. 3–10).
18.
RasmussenJ. (1985). The role of hierarchical knowledge representation in decision making and system management. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, SMC-15(2), 234–243.
19.
ReisingD. V. C. (2000). The abstraction hierarchy and its extension beyond process control. In Proceedings of the XIVth Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association and 44th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Association. Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
20.
SalminenK.FarooqA.RantalaJ.SurakkaV.RaisamoR. (2019). Unimodal and multimodal signals to support control transitions in semiautonomous vehicles. In Proceedings - 11th International ACM Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications, AutomotiveUI 2019.
21.
SalmonP. M.ReadG. J. M.StevensN.WalkerG. H.BeanlandV.McClureR.… StantonN. A. (2019). Using the abstraction hierarchy to identify how the purpose and structure of road transport systems contributes to road trauma. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 3, 100067.
22.
SalmonP. M.ReganM.LennéM. G.StantonN. A.YoungK. (2007). Work domain analysis and intelligent transport systems: Implications for vehicle design. International Journal of Vehicle Design, 45(3), 426–448.
23.
SingletonP. A. (2019). Discussing the “positive utilities” of autonomous vehicles: will travellers really use their time productively?Transport Reviews, 39(1), 50–65.
