This deliverable, "Reviews of knowledge on Human Centred Design (HCD) applied to IVIS and ADAS systems", is a result of HUMANIST TF C WP C.3 "Development of ergonomic design criteria" work. The objective was to provide guidelines or code of best practices to ensure that IVIS and ADAS are designed to ensure usability and safety requirements. The deliverable is to viewed as a living document which will be revised as part of the TFC work and a revised version will be issued as Deliverable C7 "Final Reviews of knowledge on Human Centred Design applied to IVIS and ADAS systems" (due month 44) Thus, there will be room for improvements, consolidations and extension of the application of HCD to the design of ADAS and IVIS. Two important "tools" have been used in this task; the theoretical framework provided by Joint Cognitive model of Driver-Vehicle-Environment (Chapter 2) and a description of User (Human) Centred Design approach (Chapter 4). A theoretical framework can be a useful tool in many aspects (e.g. understanding observed problems, develop ideas on how to resolve problems, and for evaluating the implementation of problem solving ideas). However, so far we are still waiting for models or theories that are both comprehensive and deep and that capture the interaction between driver- vehicle and environment. The current DVE model is based on Cognitive Engineering but new development in e.g. neurobiology can possibly contribute to an even better understanding of driver behaviour. Criticism is a valuable tool to improve what we have so far thus chapter 3 constitute a critical review of the current DVE. However, no new DVE model is proposed here. There are other important instruments that can contribute to improve the design of in-vehicle driver support systems like IVIS and ADAS e.g. standards and guidelines. However, it seems like the current recommendations as in the European Statement of Principles (ESoP) do not provide sufficient guidance on the implementation of IVIS and specifically ADAS (Chapter 5). Even so, it does provide very useful ideas on the implementation of the design process. The following chapters (6 - 9) consist of descriptions and review methods that have been used or are proposed for use in the design of IVIS and ADAS. These systems cover both qualitative and quantitative methods; all of them require participation of users which is well in line with the Human Centred Design approach. Most methods are more applicable to IVIS than ADAS as they focus on the evaluation of a more explicit interaction between the user/driver and the support system. IVIS is more informative while ADAS are more directly coupled to the driving task or even intervene with the driver's control of the vehicle. Such a close interaction does not require traditional displays while they at the same time are more time critical. It can be questioned whether the proposed objectives have been achieved or not. It seems like the current review does not provide enough knowledge and experience in order to specify definite guidelines and best practice. There remains quite a lot of work to be done before we know which method is best suited for what part of the design process. However, we can say that both quantitative and qualitative methods should be used (further work in C7). Furthermore, we need to carefully consider the limitations of the methods and how they can be used both in the different phases of the development and for different aspects of the driving task. Finally, it should be noted that we have not at all considered how to incorporate various user groups in the design process but a general recommendation is to not rely too much on young healthy male drivers. The deliverable ends with chapter 10 and 11 which provide a discussion and some conclusion concerning the work carried out here. (A). http://www.noehumanist.org/documents/Deliverables/TFC/C-5-HUMANIST_VTI_…
Samenvatting