Reducing the Attentional Demands of In-Vehicle Touchscreens with Stencil Overlays

Vehicle manufacturers are increasingly using touchscreens to support driver access to controls. However, input mechanisms displayed on touchscreens lack the tactile sensations of physical controls, creating risks of greater demand for visual attention. These risks can potentially be mitigated by restoring some degree of tactile feedback to touchscreen interaction. This paper describes a study that examines whether touchscreen target selection during simulated driving is improved by overlaying the touchscreen with a see-through 3D printed stencil that allows underlying touchscreen controls to be located or guided by feel. Results showed that touchscreen targets were selected more quickly and with shorter periods of visual attention towards the touchscreen when the stencil was present than when it was absent. Subjective preferences also favoured the stencil condition. The work demonstrates the value of adding tactile feedback to touchscreen interaction, and shows that stencils are a simple and effective way to reduce attentional demands.

[1]  Wolfgang Krautter,et al.  An evaluation of the influence of haptic feedback on gaze behavior during in-car interaction with touch screens , 2017, 2017 IEEE World Haptics Conference (WHC).

[2]  David Lindlbauer,et al.  GelTouch: Localized Tactile Feedback Through Thin, Programmable Gel , 2015, UIST.

[3]  Andreas Butz,et al.  pieTouch: a direct touch gesture interface for interacting with in-vehicle information systems , 2009, Mobile HCI.

[4]  Omer Tsimhoni,et al.  Address Entry While Driving: Speech Recognition Versus a Touch-Screen Keyboard , 2004, Hum. Factors.

[5]  Tom Wellings,et al.  Assessing subjective response to haptic feedback in automotive touchscreens , 2009, AutomotiveUI.

[6]  BuxtonWilliam,et al.  Issues and techniques in touch-sensitive tablet input , 1985 .

[7]  Andreas Butz,et al.  HapTouch and the 2+1 state model: potentials of haptic feedback on touch based in-vehicle information systems , 2010, AutomotiveUI.

[8]  Timo Ojala,et al.  Guided touch screen: enhanced eyes-free interaction , 2016, PerDis.

[9]  David R. Large,et al.  Can in-vehicle touchscreens be operated with zero visual demand? An exploratory driving simulator study , 2015 .

[10]  S. Hart,et al.  Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research , 1988 .

[11]  Stephen A. Brewster,et al.  An Evaluation of Input Controls for In-Car Interactions , 2017, CHI.

[12]  Yang Li,et al.  Experimental analysis of touch-screen gesture designs in mobile environments , 2011, CHI.

[13]  Chris Harrison,et al.  Providing dynamically changeable physical buttons on a visual display , 2009, CHI.

[14]  Jan O. Borchers,et al.  MudPad: tactile feedback and haptic texture overlay for touch surfaces , 2010, ITS '10.

[15]  Albrecht Schmidt,et al.  Gestural interaction on the steering wheel: reducing the visual demand , 2011, CHI.

[16]  Brad A. Myers,et al.  EdgeWrite: a stylus-based text entry method designed for high accuracy and stability of motion , 2003, UIST '03.

[17]  Pertti Saariluoma,et al.  Effects of menu structure and touch screen scrolling style on the variability of glance durations during in-vehicle visual search tasks , 2011, Ergonomics.

[18]  Meredith Ringel Morris,et al.  Touchplates: low-cost tactile overlays for visually impaired touch screen users , 2013, ASSETS.

[19]  Daniel M. Johnson,et al.  Enhancing physicality in touch interaction with programmable friction , 2011, CHI.

[20]  William Buxton,et al.  Issues and techniques in touch-sensitive tablet input , 1985, SIGGRAPH '85.

[21]  Philippe A. Palanque,et al.  Turbulent Touch: Touchscreen Input for Cockpit Flight Displays , 2017, CHI.

[22]  Jacob Cohen.  Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 1969, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[23]  Stephen A. Brewster,et al.  An Evaluation of Touch and Pressure-Based Scrolling and Haptic Feedback for In-Car Touchscreens , 2017, AutomotiveUI.