There was considerable discussion back around page 100 et. seq, about the comparative safety of touchscreen and voice command systems versus physical controls, and how to test them. At the beginning of a long post giving examples, I replied as follows:
GRA wrote: SageBrush wrote:
As to resistance to change, please point to anyone here who is resistant to change which demonstrably improves functionality, safety and/or reliability, or else reduces cost while maintaining the same level of functionality/safety/reliability.
How would you like "demonstrably" to occur ?
Will a well powered, randomized, double blinded study of monkeys suffice ?
Adequate statistical data for safety and reliability, combined with comparative tests by a broad spectrum of users, both experienced and inexperienced, and with starting attitudes towards the different methods varying from one extreme to the other, plus those who have no initial opinion either way. Pretty much the same as any other human factors interface is tested. But anyone can start by comparing the time it takes to do the same function while timing it with a stopwatch (most cell phones probably come with this app), first sitting in a parked car,and then repeating it on the road, on first acquaintance and then after you have familiarity. Consumer Reports has done such tests of many car control interfaces, and the results vary considerably. . . .
The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety has had the University of Utah do another such study, testing auditory/vocal, visual/manual and cognitive demands, the effect of control locations, and implementations by different manufacturers on 30 different vehicles:
of Using In-Vehicle
which I've quoted from and linked to here: http://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.p ... 61#p507361
Some of the more important conclusions:
Univ. of Utah study finds many infotainment systems too distracting to be used when vehicle in motion. . . .
The researchers found drivers using features such as voice-based and touch-screen technology took their hands, eyes and mind off the road for more than 24 seconds to complete tasks.
Previous research from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration found that the risk of a crash doubles when a driver takes his or her eyes off the road for two seconds. . . .
In the new study, programming navigation was the most distracting task—taking drivers on average 40 seconds to complete. When driving at 25 mph, a driver can travel the length of four football fields during the time it could take to enter a destination in navigation—all while distracted from the important task of driving.
Text messaging was the second most distracting task; audio entertainment and calling and dialing were the easiest to perform and did not significantly differ in overall demand. . . .
Second, we found that the overall workload associated with each mode of IVIS interaction was
greater than the high workload referent. Interactions using the center stack were significantly less
demanding than auditory vocal interactions, which were less demanding than center console
interactions. Interestingly, using voice-based commands to control IVIS functions resulted in lower
levels of visual demand than the SuRT task. However, the benefits of reduced visual demand were
offset by longer interaction times. Auditory vocal interactions took significantly longer than any other
IVIS interaction (an average of 30 seconds in our testing). . . .
The Model S was one of the vehicles tested, and along with 10 other vehicles came in almost exactly average, while 7 of the 30 vehicles in the test came in well below average (i.e. a better than average score) and 12 well above average (a worse score).
I strongly advise anyone who is interested in/concerned about the safety of using various types of controls while driving to read the study.