A user study of auditory versus visual interfaces for use while driving

  • Authors:

  • Jaka Sodnik;Christina Dicke;Sašo Tomazič;Mark Billinghurst

  • Affiliations:

  • Human Interface Technology Laboratory New Zealand, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand and Faculty of Electrical Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Trzaska 25, ...;Human Interface Technology Laboratory New Zealand, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand and Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences II, Department of Psycholog ...;Faculty of Electrical Engineering, University of Ljubljana, Trzaska 25, Ljubljana, Slovenia;Human Interface Technology Laboratory New Zealand, University of Canterbury, Private Bag 4800, Christchurch, New Zealand

  • Venue:
  • International Journal of Human-Computer Studies
  • Year:
  • 2008

Quantified Score

Hi-index 0.00

Visualization

Abstract

This paper describes a user study on interaction with a mobile device installed in a driving simulator. Two new auditory interfaces were proposed and their effectiveness and efficiency were compared to a standard visual interface. Both auditory interfaces consisted of spatialized auditory cues representing individual items in the hierarchical structure of the menu. In the first auditory interface all items of the current level of the menu were played simultaneously. In the second auditory interface only one item was played at a time. The visual interface was shown on a small in-vehicle LCD screen on the dashboard. In all three cases, a custom-made interaction device (a scrolling wheel and two buttons) attached to the steering wheel was used for controlling the interface. The driving performance, task completion times, perceived workload and overall user satisfaction were evaluated. The experiment proved that both auditory interfaces were effective to use in a mobile environment, but were not faster than the visual interface. In the case of shorter tasks, e.g. changing the active profile or deleting an image, the task completion times were comparable for all interfaces; however, both the driving performance was significantly better and the perceived workload was lower when using the auditory interfaces. The test subjects also reported a high overall satisfaction with the auditory interfaces. The latter were labelled as easier to use, more satisfying and more adequate for performing the required tasks than the visual interface. The results of the survey are not surprising as there is a stronger competition for the visual attention between the visual interface and the primary task (driving the car) than in the case of using the auditory interface. So although both types of interfaces were proven to be effective, the visual interface was less efficient as it strongly distracted the user from performing the primary task.