Instrument Panel Controls in Sedans: What Drivers Prefer and Why
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
UMTR1-89-15 Instrument Panel Controls in Sedans: What Drivers Prefer and Why Paul Green Gretchen Paelke Kimberley Clack JULY 1989 The University of Michigan UMTRI Transportation Research Institute 1. Rmrt No. 2. Accossim No. 3. Ruicimt'r Cotolq No. UMTRI-89- 15 4. Title and Subtitle 5. R.port Date INSTRUMENT PANEL CONTROLS IN SEDANS: July 1989 WHAT DRIVERS PREFER AND WHY 6. Prfomiy Or~izotianCode 389822 8. Pe&miy Orponizatiam Report No. 7- Paul Green, Gretchen Pael ke, and Kimberlev Clack . - . UMTRI-89-15 9. Pu(mins 0r)mia.ciam N- md Mess 10. WorC Unit No. (TRAIS) The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute 11. Contract or Grant No. 2901 Baxter Road DRDA-89-0086 Ann Arbor, MI 48109 - 2150 13. TIP. of R.port ond Period Covered 12. $ansuing Agmey NI. mi Address Chrysl er Motors Corporation Final R&D Programs Admini stration 12000 Chrysl er Drive 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Hiqhl and Park, MI 48288-1118 IS. Sup~l-try Not.* / Supported by the Chrysler Challenge Fund I Fifty-four drivers, ranging in age from 19 to 77, sat in a mockup of a sedan I I with a Velcro@-coveredinstrument panel. Drivers placed switches they preferred fori 9 functions (cruise onloff, wiper, etc.) where they wanted them. There were 245 switch designs (stalk controls, pushbuttons, etc.) to choose among. Drivers also 'described the motion to operate each control and said why particular locations, switches, and motions were preferred. When the design was completed, drivers ireached for each control while operating a driving simulator. ! Drivers preferred hub-mounted cruise controls (rocker or pushbutton for ,on/off, pushbutton for set), ceiling-mounted dome light switches (rocker), stalk- lmounted wiperlwasher controls, column-mounted hazard switches (rocker), column- ,mounted ignition switches, and placing the headlights and panel brightness ,switches low on the left side of the panel. Most commonly, drivers said they ;preferred locations and switches because those items were expected or familiar, but ;the switches or locations they chose matched what was in their current cars less than half of the time. Except for switch preferences (which were linked to torso size), 1 what drivers wanted was unrelated to their experience with vehicles, their age, sex, or physical characteristics. I J 17. Koy Wuds 18. bishihtciocl Stat-rt Human factors, ergonomics, human engineering, instrument panels, control s, automobiles, preferences, cars, engineering psychology I - 19. kcurity Clrsif. (01 this -1 m. kanity Classif. (oi this pqm) 21. No. of Poges 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 241 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT TABLE OF CONTENTS iii LlST OF FIGURES vii LlST OF TABLES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Background Questions Addressed How the Data Were Collected Key Findings Implications for Future Vehicle Design PREFACE INTRODUCTION Background Research Issues TEST PLAN Test Participants Test Equipment and Materials 1985 Chrysler Laser Mockup Switches Computer for Recording Preferences Coding Forms List of Reasons Driving Simulator Miscellaneous Test Activities and Their Sequence RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Driver Preferences and Reasons For All Functions Location Preferences Switch Preferences Met hod of Operation Preferences Combined Preferences Why Locations Were Preferred Why Switch Types Were Preferred - Table of Contents - Driver Preferences and Reasons for Individual Functions Cruise Control On/Off Cruise Control Set Dome Light Front Windshield Washer Front Windshield Wiper Hazard Headlights On/Off Ignition Panel Brightness How Did the Preferred Locations and Switches Differ from the Controls in Participants' Cars? Preferred vs. Actual Locations Preferred vs. Actual Switches How Did Preferences Differ for Controls on Pod-Based Versus Conventional lnstrument Panels? How Did Driver Characteristics Influence Their Preferences for Locations and Switches? Biographical Factors Physical Characteristics Experience Factors CONCLUSIONS Which Locations, Switches and Methods of Operation Did Drivers Prefer? Why Were Various Locations and Switches Preferred? How Did the Preferred Locations and Switches Differ from the Controls in Participants' Cars? How Did Preferences Differ for Controls on Pod-Based Versus Conventional lnstrument Panels? How Do Driver Characteristics Influence Their Preferences for Controls? How Could the "Potato Head" Test Procedure Be Improved? What Further Studies Should Be Conducted? Hub-Mounted Controls Direction-of-Motion Stereotypes Preferences for Displays Test Sample Demographics "Potato Head" As a Design Aid - Table of Contents - Closing Thoughts REFERENCES APPENDIX A List of Vehicles Driven By Participants APPENDIX B Physical Description of Participants APPENDIX C Participant Biographical Data APPENDIX D List of Switches Tested APPENDIX E Participant Recruiting lnstructions APPENDIX F lnstructions to Participants APPENDIX G Participant Consent Form APPENDIX H Participant Biographical Form APPENDIX I Sample Cluster Designs APPENDIX J Dialog with a Typical Participant APPENDIX K Preferred vs. Actual Controls - Table of Contents - LIST OF FIGURES 1. General Arrangement of the Equipment 2. Pictures of the Chrysler Mockup 3. Front View of the Sedan lnstrument Cluster 4. Side View of the Sedan lnstrument Cluster 5. Driver Surrounded by Switches 6. Large Switch Board 7. Medium Switch board 8. Small Switch Board 9. Sample Screen Used in Data Collection 10. Zones Where Controls Could Be Mounted 11. One-Directional Operating Codes 12. Driving Simulator 13. Picture of a Simulated Road 14. lnstrument Panels, Consoles, and Steering Wheel Pooled Zones 15. Stalk Control and Steering Column Pooled Zones 16. Ceiling Panel Pooled Zones 17. Seat Position vs. # Participants 18. Near Visual Acuity vs. # Participants 19. Standing Height vs. # Participants 20. Seated Head Height vs. # Participants 21. Seated Eye Height vs. # Participants 22. Shoulder-Elbow Length vs. # Participants 23. Elbow-Wrist Length vs. # Participants 24. Hand Length vs. # Participants 25. Index Finger Width vs. # Participants 26. Weight vs. # Participants 27. A Typical lnstrument Panel Design. 28. A "Futuristic" lnstrument Panel Design. - List of Figures - LIST OF TAB LES 1. Summary of Preferences for Conventional Instrument Panels 2. Summary of Preferences from the Previous Experiment 3. Method of Operation Codes 4. Experimenter's List of Reasons 5. Participant's List of Reasons 6. List of Anthropometric Measurements 7. Secondary Controls Tested 8. Six Questions Asked for Each Control 9. Summary of Preferred vs. Actual Locations for Controls 10. Preferred vs. Actual Locations for Cruise OnIOff 11. Preferred vs. Actual Locations for Cruise Set 12. Preferred vs Actual Locations for the Dome Light Switch 13. Preferred vs. Actual Locations for the Front Windshield Washer 14. Preferred vs. Actual Locations for the Front Windshield Wiper 15. Preferred vs. Actual Locations for the Hazard Switch 16. Preferred vs. Actual Locations for the Headlights OnIOff 17. Preferred vs. Actual Locations for the Panel Brightness 18. Preferred vs. Actual Switches Overall 19. Preferred vs. Actual Switches for Cruise OnIOff 20. Preferred vs. Actual Switches for Cruise Set 128 21. Preferred vs. Actual Switches for the Dome Light Switch 128 22. Preferred vs. Actual Switches for the Front Windshield Washer Switch 129 23. Preferred vs. Actual Switches for the Front Windshield Wiper Switch 129 24. Preferred vs. Actual Switches for the Hazard Switch 129 25. Preferred vs. Actual Switches for the Headlights OnIOff 130 26. Preferred vs. Actual Switches for the Panel Brightness 130 27. Sex Differences in Preferences for Switches 135 28. Age Differences in Preferences for Switches 136 29. Location Preferences as a Function of Sex 136 30. Location Preferences as a Function of Age 31. Location Preferences and the Role of Eyewear 32. Summary of Pooled Zone ANOVAs 33. Anthropometric Measures and Pooled Zone Preferences 34. Summary of Switch Preferences ANOVAs 35. Anthropometric Measures and Switch Preferences 36. Summary of Preferences for Conventional Instrument Panels 37. Summary of Driver Physical Characteristics 38. Correlation of Physical Dimensions 39. Summary of Biographical Data 40. Types of Vehicles People Had Operated 41. Hand Locations Reported While Driving 170 - List of Tables - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Green, P., Paelke, G., and Clack, K. (1989). Mstrument Panel Controk Sems: What Drivers Prefer and Why (Technical Report UMTRI-89- 15). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, July. Background Contemporary automobile design is customer-driven. People are more likely to buy products that have been designed to suit them. The experiment described in this report examines driver preferences for controls in a sedan. The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute (UMTRI) has produced two previous reports on this topic. In the first (Green, Kerst, Ottens, Goldstein, and Adams, 1987, Driver Preferences for Secon~&ry Contr&) data was collected on a instrument panel for a future sports car. The instrument panel had pods near the steering wheel on which controls could be placed. The content of the second report is indicated by its title (Green and Goldstein, 1989, merAnalvsis of rlver Preferences for Se- Controls). This report examines a second instrument panel design not considered in the previous two reports, namely a flat (conventional) instrument panel commonly found in sedans. It also examines why drivers have particular preferences. Understanding why is important if the results of the