InsuranceTelematicsHMI_Report2014

Advanced Auto Safety Report – Driver Distraction, ADAS & HMI

2014

Extract

Comprehensive analysis of driver distraction research, regulatory developments and HMI design challenges to help identify winning strategies for connected cars

to mitigate driver distraction yet deliver an enthralling user experience.

For more information, visit www.telematicsupdate.com/hmireport

advancEd auto SafEty rEport 2014 – drivEr diStraction, adaS & HMi | 2

inSu

ra

nc

E tElEMa

ticS

SafEt

y r

Epo

rt

Overview

Leading companies that provided expert insight

Safety has always been top of the agenda in the mind of automakers, and recently it has been propelled to new heights with the development of safety specific functions. There are already vehicles on the road with L1 and L2 capabilities – with L3 being the next step for the automakers. It’s the perfect time to conduct in-depth research, to ensure strategies are in line with industry trends and developments.

This report takes a step by step approach, taking the reader through all aspects that require consideration when devising safety solutions. These range from driver distraction, through to ADAS and autonomous features.

The report draws on in-depth interviews with more than 30 industry specialists, and an exclusive Telematics Update survey of international market sentiments drawing on the answers of 352 executives. Telematics Update then turned these insights into an impartial assessment of the market.


inSu

ra

nc

E tElEMa

ticS

SafEt

y r

Epo

rt

Key reasons to purchase this report

driver distraction: Understand what driver distraction is and what its many causes and effects are. Get a solid overview of the

most important driver distraction studies to date. Rethink your views on the safety of voice-based interfaces

and the relative dangers of cognitive driver distraction.

Guidelines and regulations: Get to know the most important regulatory bodies and professional organizations in the area of driver

distraction and HMI design. Learn about their latest regulatory efforts and understand how to keep up with

their ever-evolving and, at times, conflicting demands.

consumer electronics and mobile trends: Consider the many consumer electronics trends pushing their way into modern cars and the various HMI

design/driver distraction challenges they engender.

interfaces and interactions: Learn about the latest advances in interface technologies – from natural voice processing and large touch-

screens to gesture controls and augmented reality – and what advantages they offer modern HMIs for safe and

exciting use.

Strategies for mitigating driver distraction through HMi design: Understand how to combine various interfaces and interactions into overall strategies for managing driver

distraction. Review product simplification and personalization plus multimodal interfaces and context-aware

HMIs.

driver distraction and automated driving: Realize that until self-driving cars are commercially available, distraction will continue to be a significant

concern. Understand the situations where a driver’s attention will still be required, from ADAS warnings to

retaking control of the vehicle.


inSu

ra

nc

E tElEMa

ticS

SafEt

y r

Epo

rt

Industry reviews

“It is increasingly the case that the design of the human-machine interface (HMI) will dictate the success of new technology systems within the driving context. This report provides a comprehensive, interesting and informative analysis of the HMI design issues for contemporary and future vehicles. As such, it will be an important source of knowledge for OEMs, first-tier suppliers and research organizations.”

Gary Burnett, associate professor in human factors, faculty of Engineering, the university of nottingham

“This report provides a comprehensive analysis of HMI, in-vehicle infotainment and driver distraction. The in-depth research compiled by these industry experts sheds insight into the current and future trends of this rapidly evolving industry.”

chris ruff, president and cEo, uiEvolution

“A well-written report that delivers on the difficult task of pulling together a coherent story on the current trends and research related to driver distraction and automotive HMI design. Even automotive HMI experts will get some useful nuggets from this thought-provoking report.”

Scott pennock, senior standards manager, Qnx

“I have participated in the creation and review of numerous industry reports and find Telematics Update unique in content and process. By reading this report, you can obtain important insights from industry thought leaders who have a global perspective. You can not only understand the industry dynamics updated on trends and technology, but can look behind the data to see where the industry is going and how to focus your efforts.”

david Mcnamara, president, MtS


inSu

ra

nc

E tElEMa

ticS

SafEt

y r

Epo

rt

Welcome 3

Industry reviews 4

Thought leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

About Telematics Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Thought Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Acknowledgments 7

List of figures 10

List of tables 12

Introduction 13

Executive summary 15

Chapter 1: Understanding driver distraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191.1 What is driver distraction? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201.1.1 Driver inattention vs. driver distraction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211.2 Sources of driver distraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221.3 Building a picture of driver distraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221.3.1 Experimental studies of driving performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231.3.2 Naturalistic driving studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241.3.3 Crash-based studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261.3.4 Observation-based studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271.4 Rethinking primary vs. secondary tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 281.4.1 Cognitive distraction vs. visual-manual distraction: Which is more dangerous? . . . . . . 291.4.2 Voice control is not the panacea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311.4.3 People and technology influence distracted driving. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341.5 Resources for driver distraction research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Chapter 2: Guidelines and regulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362.1 Organizations and regulators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362.1.1 European Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362.1.2 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382.1.3 Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers (AAM) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392.1.4 International Organization for Standardization (ISO) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402.1.5 Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 412.1.6 Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association (JAMA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422.1.7 International Telecommunication Union (ITU) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432.1.8 EU-US-Japan cooperation in ITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 442.2 Milestones in driver distraction regulation and guidance (past and future) . . . . . . . . 442.3 Regulatory developments for future interfaces and technology . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Contents


inSu

ra

nc

E tElEMa

ticS

SafEt

y r

Epo

rt

Chapter 3: Consumer electronics and mobile trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 463.1 Content and connected services: Strength in numbers? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 483.2 The Internet of Things . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 493.3 Wearable technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 503.3.1 Digital healthcare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 523.4 Cameras everywhere with object recognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Chapter 4: Interfaces and interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 554.1 Sound, voice and speech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 564.1.1 Voice control. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 564.1.2 Sound perception. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 574.2 Augmented reality in Head-Up Displays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 594.3 Large touchscreens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 634.4 Gestural interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 684.5 Touch interaction with haptic feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Chapter 5: Strategies for mitigating driver distraction anddesigning winning HMI in the vehicles of tomorrow . . 705.1 HMI design strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 705.1.1 Simplification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 705.1.2 Personalization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 725.1.2.1 Integration of mobile devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 735.1.2.1.1 Apple . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 745.1.2.1.2 Google . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 755.1.2.1.3 MirrorLink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 765.1.2.2 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 765.1.3 Multimodal interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 775.1.4 Prioritize information in the driver’s line of sight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 815.1.5 Context aware and adaptive HMI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 825.1.5.1 Mental workload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 855.1.5.2 Driver monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 855.1.6 Quality of design implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 875.1.6.1 Font design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 885.2 Process improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 895.2.1 Don’t wait for official distraction guidelines and regulations before acting . . . . . . . . 895.2.2 Improve collaborative partnerships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Chapter 6: ADAS and the future of automated driving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 946.1 Automated technology roadmap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 946.1.1 Legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 966.2 Situation awareness and taking back control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 966.3 The challenge of making ADAS warnings noticed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Industry learnings 100

List of acronyms 104


inSu

ra

nc

E tElEMa

ticS

SafEt

y r

Epo

rt

Figure 1: Percentage of drivers involved in fatal crashes for different age groups in 2012 . . . . . . . 19

Figure 2: Broad views on driver distraction vs. driver inattention (mean values) . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Figure 3: Graphical representation of driver inattention showing driver distraction as a specific type of inattention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Figure 4: Methods of assessing driving performance and driver demand . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 5: Cell phone distraction goes underreported in crash-based studies . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Figure 6: Activities are placed on the continuum based on how essential they are to the driving task and overall workload . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Figure 7: Driver distraction and risk to safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Figure 8: Understanding driver distraction for the purpose of HMI design . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 9: Tasks listed in ascending order for the amount of off-road glance time that occurred during the completion of each task. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Figure 10: Milestones in driver distraction regulation and guidance (past and future) . . . . . . . . . 41

Figure 11: Consumer purchase priorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Figure 12: Consumer interest in ADAS compared with connected services . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Figure 13: Forecast of connectivity penetration in Western Europe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Figure 14: The IoT will connect all kinds of infrastructure, devices and Cloud services . . . . . . . . . 49

Figure 15: Samsung Gear Fit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Figure 16: Google Glass . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Figure 17: Nissan Nismo watch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Figure 18: Smart contact lens prototype for detecting glucose levels in tears . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Figure 19: Importance of different functions for managing driver distraction . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Figure 20: Customer satisfaction with speech recognition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Figure 21: A spatial auditory display aiding the driver by warning him of another vehicle approaching a blind intersection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Figure 22: Head-up display showing typical navigation and speed information . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Figure 23: Theodolite AR app superimposes real time information about position, altitude, bearing, range, and inclination on the iPhone’s live camera image . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Figure 24: Honda’s projected path AR concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Figure 25: Continental’s augmented reality HUD concept displays ADAS and navigation information . . . 61

Figure 26: Land Rover’s augmented reality Transparent Bonnet concept infographic . . . . . . . . . 62

Figure 27: Land Rover’s augmented reality Transparent Bonnet concept . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Figure 28: Customer satisfaction with touch screens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Figure 29: BMW research investigating new interaction concepts on large screens. Left: Enlarge interactive areas. Middle: Offer haptic guidance points. Right: Allow for position-independent touch gestures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Figure 30: The display can be split into two, or a single function like navigation can be shown full screen . 66

Figure 31: Adjusting settings with small target areas can be awkward, although the on/off toggle buttons are easy to swipe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

List of figures


inSu

ra

nc

E tElEMa

ticS

SafEt

y r

Epo

rt

Figure 32: Long lists like media libraries or contacts are easier to scroll on such a tall screen . . . . . . 67

Figure 33: Adjusting some common climate controls like fan speed and direction required you to enter a sub menu 67

Figure 34: Touchpad in new Mercedes C-Class, with multi-touch capability and haptic feedback . . . . . 68

Figure 35: Importance of specified HMI design objectives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Figure 36: Opel Intellilink infotainment system showing favourite contacts, radio stations, playlists and nav locations pinned to bottom row of touch screen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Figure 37: Top five smartphone operating systems by worldwide shipments . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Figure 38: Apple CarPlay in 2015MY Volvo XC90 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

Figure 39: Home screen of ‘Windows in the Car’ smartphone mirroring concept . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Figure 40: Visteon’s multimodal Horizon Cockpit concept with gesture, voice and touch interaction . . . 78

Figure 41: Controlling volume with 3D gesture control in Visteon’s Horizon Cockpit . . . . . . . . . . 80

Figure 42: Mitsubishi multimodal navigation interface for Chinese-language character input . . . . . . 81

Figure 43: Interior of 2015MY Audi TT has fully reconfigurable instrument cluster and no center display . . 82

Figure 44: Aviate intelligent homescreen for Android, and EasilyDo personal assistant for iOS/Android . . 83

Figure 45: Mitsubishi Ultra-easy HMI prototype. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Figure 46: Interior driver monitoring cameras can observe the position of the driver’s head and the viewing angle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Figure 47: Audi TT virtual instrument cluster (2015MY) features a 3D model of the car with a confusing radial menu of icons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Figure 48: Square grotesque Eurostile font vs. humanist Frutiger font highlighting characteristics thought to improve legibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Figure 49: Importance of HMI and driver distraction guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Figure 50: Likely policies that companies will follow to minimize driver distraction . . . . . . . . . . 91

Figure 51: SAE J3106 Levels of driving automation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Figure 52: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) data showing percentage of owners who drive with lane departure warning turned on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Figure 53: IIHS data showing percent change in vehicle damage claims per insured vehicle year for vehicle 5collisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

Figure 54: Breakdown of TU’s April 2014 survey by primary business of respondent . . . . . . . . . 100

Figure 55: Breakdown of TU’s April 2014 survey by job function of respondent. . . . . . . . . . . 101

Figure 56: Breakdown of TU’s April 2014 survey by main target market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Figure 57: Breakdown of TU’s April 2014 survey by geographic region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103


inSu

ra

nc

E tElEMa

ticS

SafEt

y r

Epo

rt

Table 1: Drivers involved in fatal crashes by age in 2012. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Table 2: Broad views on driver distraction vs. driver inattention. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Table 3: Driver distraction and risk to safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Table 4: Understanding driver distraction for the purpose of HMI design . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Table 5: Research groups and organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Table 6: ISO standards produced by ISO/TC 22 Road vehicles /SC 13WG 8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Table 7: ISO standards produced by ISO/TC 204 Intelligent transport systems . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Table 8: SAE-issued standards overseen by the Safety and Human Factors Standards Steering Committee . . 41

Table 9: SAE work-in-progress standards overseen by the Safety and Human Factors Standards Steering Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Table 10: Breakdown of TU’s April 2014 survey by primary business of respondent . . . . . . . . . 101

Table 11: Breakdown of TU’s April 2014 survey by job function of respondent. . . . . . . . . . . 102

Table 12: Breakdown of TU’s April 2014 survey by main target market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Table 13: Breakdown of TU’s April 2014 survey by geographic region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

List of tables


inSu

ra

nc

E tElEMa

ticS

SafEt

y r

Epo

rt

AdvAnced Auto SAfety RepoRt 2014 – dRiveR diStRAction, AdAS & HMi | 70

Strategies for mitigating driver distraction and designing winning HMI in the vehicles of tomorrow

5.

easy-to-use HMI. In general though, companies are

swimming in the same direction in their pursuit of greater

personalization of the in-car experience. They’re focusing

on HMIs that allow multimodal interaction and are more

focused on the driver, as well as HMI that’s adaptive,

context aware and better integrated with ADAS functions.

The sophistication of HMI and supporting technologies

is still, to a large degree, dictated by the price of the

vehicle. Innovations are likely to be replicated over time

by less expensive brands.

5.1 HMi design strategies5.1.1 SimplificationWhen it comes to HMI design and usability, automakers

and suppliers are failing to achieve their own design

This chapter brings together a number of common

strategies that auto companies are using to help

minimize driver distraction related to automotive HMI,

based on what is known about driver distraction and

recent advances in HMI design.

It highlights important trends in technology innovation,

describing why these are vital to future HMI design.

It also identifies knowledge areas where OEMs and

suppliers should focus their attention and resources.

Finally, it makes recommendations for ways that

companies can improve their products and processes.

What has become clear through our research is that auto

companies employ a wide variety of approaches and

tools to try and manage driver distraction and design

1.0 5.02.0 3.0 4.0

Ease of use

Scalability (i.e. making it posible to add new functionality to the system)

Minimizing driver distraction

Integration and control of mobile devices through the vehicle’s HMI

Limiting complexity

Providing freedom over which displays can show which information (i.e. the glass cockpit concept)

Communication of brand identity

Focus on user experience

Optimization for either left or right-hand drive

Note: 1 = disagree; 5 = agree

Figure 35: Importance of specified HMI design objectives

Source: Telematics Update, April 2014

StRA

tegieS fo

R M

itigA

ting

dR

iveR

d

iStRA

ctio

n A

nd

deSig

nin

g


inSu

ra

nc

E tElEMa

ticS

SafEt

y r

Epo

rt


when it comes to the connected vehicle. Ultimately,

though, this may be a blunt instrument, says David

McNamara, president of automotive consultancy MTS.

Instead of denying customers functionality, automakers

can make certain operations configurable or custom-

izable. “In a lot of areas, we do product simplification,”

McNamara says. “But, in today’s world, I don’t think that

fits. I think it’s more about personalization; the ability

to get software platforms that allow you to do exactly

what the customer wants.”

Simplification in this way requires that companies

become sophisticated at understanding how their

customers use in-car technologies. Simplification must

be achieved in ways that won’t annoy users. This is a

classic situation where taking a user-centered approach

to HMI design is needed and should start with having

really solid use cases for each feature implemented.

Having said this, however, customers may be at a

tipping point where they realize there is a usability cost

to having ever more features; automakers would be

wise to monitor these attitudes closely.

“[Simplifying alerts] are the type of thing we, as UX

experts, are going to have to think through,” said Chris

Ruff, President and CEO of UIEvolution. “What is the

best and most immediate way to give the driver the

information they need to react appropriately?”

If automotive companies don’t have strong user

research and UX understanding embedded in their

organization, one suggestion is to collaborate with

non-automotive product design, software, and UX

strategy companies. Collaboration is a topic that we

return to later in this chapter.

Not all HMI design solutions addressing driver distraction

need to be high-cost or high-tech though. Another way

of making the driver’s experience simpler is to present

information or commands in a more natural way that

mirrors how users interact with the real world.

Garmin recently launched a new line-up of its nüvi

navigation devices that use landmarks like gas

objectives, even though they know how important

these are.

Figure 35. shows results from Telematics Update’s 2014

HMI survey. It indicates that the four most- important

design objectives are all user-focused: ease of use,

minimizing driver distraction, limiting complexity and

focusing on user experience. Why then, do customers

still complain that the technologies and HMI in new cars

are complicated, difficult to understand, and difficult to

operate? (J.D. Power 2013)77

One thing auto manufacturers should prioritize is

finding a way to address feature creep, or “featuritis”

as it is also known. As SBD highlighted in its survey,

the majority of respondents with connected cars

complained about there being too many features, (see

section 3.1 for more detail). The point has now been

reached where products are getting so complicated

that customers are actually being turned off, as

Consumer Reports identified in its 2013 auto-reliability

survey.78

Of course, automakers are trying to design vehicles that

appeal to a broad array of consumers, while still differ-

entiating from their competitors. The problem is that

too frequently they try and do this by getting to market

first with a new feature – whether customers are really

calling for it or not. The end result for most customers

is a feeling of being overwhelmed by features whose

purpose isn’t immediately clear.

There is clearly a need to simplify the user’s experience.

One option is to simply remove some functionality.

However, the risk with this is reducing the showroom

‘wow factor’ because customers are constantly

expecting greater choice and more features.

Product simplification is an important strategy to consider

77 J.D.Power,2013.2013J.D.PowerInitialQualityStudy,[Pressrelease]19Jun2013,WestlakeVillage,Calif.:J.D.Power.Availableat:http://autos.jdpower.com/content/press-release/3WScQEz/2013-j-d-power-initial-quality-study.htm[Accessed19May2014].

78 ConsumerReports,2013.High-techautomotiveheadaches,December2013,Yonkers,NY:ConsumerReports.Availableat:http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/magazine/2014/02/high-tech-automotive-headaches/index.htm?EXTKEY=I93YT01&CMP=OTC-YUTBE[Accessed8April2014].

StRA

tegieS fo

R M

itigA

ting

dR

iveR

d

iStRA

ctio

n A

nd

deSig

nin

g


inSu

ra

nc

E tElEMa

ticS

SafEt

y r

Epo

rt


One solution is to allow customization through

favorites and shortcuts, and reconfiguring displays

to change where certain information is found

(Figure 36). David Voss, manager of connected

customer at Opel, is concerned about allowing the

user to have a completely free hand in this because

of safety and distraction issues. “In general I’m not

convinced it would be a good strategy to make

the whole cluster or the whole HUD freely config-

urable,” he said. “What could work though would be

predefined sets of information that people could

choose from.”

Another route to personalization is to rely on

smartphones to bring personalized information

into the car. The advantage of this approach is that

it’s instant and unique to you. “You don’t give your

smartphone to other people,” said Peter Virk, head

of connected technologies and apps at Jaguar Land

Rover. “With your car, you might share it. I share my

car with my wife, and if she gets into the vehicle,

she changes the settings in the radio presets to a

choice that I don’t like.”

stations or traffic signs to indicate the next turn

instead of telling the driver to turn left in three

hundred meters (Stojaspal 2013).79 Audi is also

working on a ‘naturalistic’ guidance system that uses

surrounding landmarks.80

However you look at it, simplicity means different things to

different people, which brings us back to the idea of person-

alizing simplicity and what that means for HMI design.

5.1.2 personalizationThe quest to provide more options for personalizing the

driving experience and HMIs continues to gather steam.

Since being highlighted as an important trend in last

year’s Telematics Update HMI report (Wellings 2013),81

many companies are starting personalization projects.

79 Stojaspal,J.,2013.Telematicsandredesigningthenavigationexperience,[Article]17Apr2013,London:TelematicsUpdate.Availableat:http://analysis.telematicsupdate.com/navigation-and-lbs/telematics-and-redesigning-navigation-experience[Accessed27May2014].

80 Audi,2014.Audi,universityresearchersexplorecarsthatwouldpredictthefuture,adapttodrivers,[PressRelease]Jan9,2014,SanFrancisco:AudiUSA.Availableat:http://audiusanews.com/newsrelease.do;jsessionid=EAC924CD86B979D115068C672A2DF778?&id=3651&mid=1[Accessed20May2014].

81 Wellings,T.,2013.TheAutomotiveHMIReport2013.London:TelematicsUpdate/FCBusinessIntelligenceLtd,Availableat:http://www.telematicsupdate.com/human-machine-interface-report/index2.php[Accessed1Feb2014].

Figure 36: Opel Intellilink infotainment system showing favourite contacts, radio stations, playlists and nav locations pinned to the bottom row of touch screen

Source: Opel

StRA

tegieS fo

R M

itigA

ting

dR

iveR

d

iStRA

ctio

n A

nd

deSig

nin

g


inSu

ra

nc

E tElEMa

ticS

SafEt

y r

Epo

rt


“I don’t think this is the best approach,” he said. “The app

itself has to be adapted to the car and shouldn’t look like

the smartphone app just because people are used to it.”

5.1.2.1 integration of mobile devices The smartphone market surpassed an important

milestone in 2013 when worldwide shipments of

smartphones exceeded the 1 billion mark for the first time,

driven by continued momentum from Android and iOS.

Shipments are forecast to reach 1.24 billion units in 2014, a

23.1% increase from 2013, according to the IDC Worldwide

Quarterly Mobile Phone Tracker (IDC 2014)82 (Figure 37).

The ubiquity of mobile phones and the important role

they occupy in the majority of people’s lives means that

automakers must find ways to safely incorporate them

in the car.

“[Drivers] are using their mobile phones while driving

even if it is banned,” says Otmar Schreiner, head of

interior electronic solutions France and IES research &

82 IDC,2014.SmartphoneMomentumStillEvidentwithShipmentsExpectedtoReach1.2Billionin2014andGrowing23.1%Over2013,AccordingtoIDC[Pressrelease]28May2014,Framingham,MA:InternationalDataCorporation(IDC).Availableat:http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS24857114[Accessed28May2014].

Using the smartphone for personalization solves this

problem. “What we don’t want to do is lock in those

settings in the vehicle,” Virk said. “By bringing the smart-

phone in, we’ll have that personalized experience, so it will

be my favorite music, it will be that last thing I did on the

sofa, and as I got into the car, I just carry on seamlessly.”

Jaguar Land Rover’s new smartphone integration

platform called InControl Apps makes smartphone

content, apps and personalization available in the

car without compromising the look and feel of the

smartphone experience. “Most importantly, the app

that’s projected from the smartphone has the look

and feel from the third-party app vendor,” Virk said,

adding that too many OEMs have taken “an OEM view

of what should third-party apps look like.” But that,

he says, is not what consumers want. “If they want

the Stitcher app, they want the look and feel of the

Stitcher app,” he said.

This is a design issue where there is considerable debate.

Many in the industry are concerned that smartphone

app design has not been done with driver distraction in

mind. David Voss says that you shouldn’t just replicate the

apps people use on their couch and put them in the car.

Figure 37: Top five smartphone operating systems by worldwide shipments

Source: Telematics Update; IDC data

2000

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0

Mill

ions

ofu

nits

shi

pp

ed

2012shipmentvolumes 2014shipmentvolumes2013shipmentvolumes 2018shipmentvolumes

Others 39.3 10 9.3 37.7 Blackberry 32.5 19.2 9.7 4.6 Windowsphone 17.5 33.4 43.3 115.3 IOS 135.9 153.4 184.1 247.4 Android 500.1 793.6 997.7 1,401.30 Total 725.3 1009.6 1,244.10 1,806.30

StRA

tegieS fo

R M

itigA

ting

dR

iveR

d

iStRA

ctio

n A

nd

deSig

nin

g


inSu

ra

nc

E tElEMa

ticS

SafEt

y r

Epo

rt


“The phone will always have more horsepower than

the car,” he said. “This is a race that the car cannot win”

3. Platforms for embedded applications are very

fragmented, and it is, therefore, difficult to attract

service volume

4. When connected services are accessed in the car via

the smartphone, there are never any questions about

whose SIM or data plan is involved

From a safety perspective though, the most-valuable

aspect of screen replication is that it minimizes the

eyes-off road time by allowing drivers to access their

smartphone in the same way they access their car

radio and other controls. As MirrorLink is a standard

that offers integration between a smartphone and

a car’s infotainment system, control is not limited to

touchscreens. Steering- wheel controls and dashboard

buttons can also be configured to work.

One general problem with this technology is that

passengers may be unable to access certain functions

deemed to be dangerous when the car is in motion

because there is no detection of who the driver is.

Acknowledging this at its Phase 2 guidelines public

meeting in March 2014, NHTSA encouraged industry to

develop the capability for the vehicle to automatically

distinguish whether a device is being used by a driver

or a passenger.

Most OEMs have made substantial progress in portable-

device integration over the last year, but it is the entry

of Apple and Google into the ring that has ignited the

imagination of the public (Stevens 2014).83

5.1.2.1.1 AppleFor several years Apple has been working with OEMs,

tier 1 suppliers and the providers of aftermarket

entertainment systems to provide a degree of iPhone

and iPod integration in cars.

83 Stevens,T.,2014.2014’sbattlefordashboardsupremacy:Apple’sCarPlayvs.Google’sOAAvs.MirrorLink,TheCarTechblog,[Blogpost]4March2014,CNETAvailableat:http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_7-57619829-48/2014s-battle-for-dashboard-supremacy-apples-carplay-vs-googles-oaa-vs-mirrorlink/[Accessed21March2014].

development at Continental Automotive. “So to just ban it

is not the solution. This means we need to offer a solution

to make use of the connectivity and multimedia functions

in a safe way, because if we don’t then people will use their

mobile phones anyway, and that is really dangerous.”

One way to minimize distraction and satisfy NHTSA’s

guidelines is by delivering a system that matches the

smartphone for its usability and comfort. Smartphone

users are twice as likely to use their phone’s touch screen

while driving when in-car technology does not meet

their needs, according to Scott Lyons, of business devel-

opment for connected services organization at Ford.

Manufacturers are introducing a number of different

connectivity solutions that enable drivers to use various

features of mobile devices without needing to interact

with the phone’s UI. The most familiar feature of these

solutions is screen replication, or mirroring, where

the smartphone’s UI is available to the driver via the

in-vehicle infotainment system (IVI). This includes the

visual display audio and UI controls. This means apps

run through the smartphone instead embedded apps,

so your personal digital life is available while driving.

Smartphone integration also allows the phone’s

connectivity to be used for other embedded functions.

Of the screen replication technologies, MirrorLink

has been around the longest and is an OS-agnostic

technology, meaning that eventually it may enable

Android, Microsoft, Blackberry and Apple smart-

phones to connect to IVI systems. This is attractive to

automakers who want to give the greatest flexibility to

their customers in how they connect mobile devices.

According to Antti Aumo, marketing director for the

Car Connectivity Consortium, the industry group

developing MirrorLink, there are four main arguments

for using screen duplication technologies:

1. The daily life of the driver is already on the phone,

in their contacts, schedule and friends. Screen

duplication is the easiest way to pull this information

from the phone

2. Portable devices will continue to outperform

embedded systems in terms of processing power.

StRA

tegieS fo

R M

itigA

ting

dR

iveR

d

iStRA

ctio

n A

nd

deSig

nin

g


inSu

ra

nc

E tElEMa

ticS

SafEt

y r

Epo

rt

MethodologySubstantial primary and secondary research has been

carried out by the authors in the process of compiling

this report. The analysis of these studies forms the

backbone of the presented findings. Primary research

comprised detailed semi-structured interviews with

more than twenty senior subject matter experts from

the automotive industry, along with a detailed online

survey conducted by Telematics Update in April 2014

involving 352 respondents. The industry experts who

were interviewed represented a wide cross section of

automotive OEMs, suppliers, research organizations and

technology firms.

The online survey was designed to gather quantitative

data and provide insight on topics important to

the design and development of future automotive

HMI solutions from a wider selection of industry

practitioners. It was completed by 352 people working

from the fields of Management / Strategy, Business

development, Hardware development, Software / App

development, User interface / User experience design,

User interface testing and evaluation / Human factors,

Market research and Consultant / Analyst

project definition

Telematics Update engaged in extensive consultation

Industry learnings

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

Perc

enta

ge

Inte

grat

ed h

ardw

are/

soft

war

e p

rovi

der

Aut

omot

ive

hadw

are

man

ufac

ture

re

Aut

omot

ive

OEM

Des

ign

Con

sult

ing/

rese

arch

Con

sum

er p

rodu

cts

and

serv

ices

(n

on-a

utom

otiv

e)

Con

nect

ed s

ervi

ces/

Con

tent

pro

vide

r

Wire

less

car

rier

Aut

omot

ive

soft

war

e p

rovi

der

Oth

er

Figure 54: Breakdown of TU’s April 2014 survey by primary business of respondent

Note: Multiple answers allowed. Source: Telematics Update, April 2014


inSu

ra

nc

E tElEMa

ticS

SafEt

y r

Epo

rt

with the automotive industry and the broader regulatory

and academic community to define research gaps and

provide the most up-to-date, informed analysis of

industry trends and needs. All research was guided by

the input of an advisory panel of industry consultants

to ensure that the report focused on real-world industry

needs and objectives. Where appropriate, insights

gleaned from these interviews are supported by survey

data and publicly-available secondary research.

report approach

Telematics Update realizes that the state of the industry is

in considerable flux. Companies are putting forward new

business models and new products all the time. At this

point, it is impossible to say which of these approaches

may prove most competitive. In fact, it is precisely this

uncertainty about the relative advantages of alternative

approaches that has led us to create this report. We

have attempted to capture sentiment and consensus

on issues; where considerable debate continues about

optimal business strategies, forecasts and other issues,

this report sets out competing points of view to allow

readers to get a clear sense of possibilities.

answer options response percent response count

Integrated hardware / Software provider 22.1% 76

Consulting / Research 19.5% 67

Automotive OEM 18.3% 63

Connected services / Content provider 16.0% 55

Automotive software provider 13.4% 46

Automotive hardware manufacturer 10.5% 36

Consumer products and services (non-automotive) 9.0% 31

Design 5.8% 20

Wireless carrier 4.7% 16

Other 13.7% 47

Answered question 344

Table 10: Breakdown of TU’s April 2014 survey by primary business of respondent


Management/Strategy Business development Consulatant/Analyst Software/App development Market research Hardware development User interface/User experience design User interface testing and evaluation/Human factors Other

Figure 55: Breakdown of TU’s April 2014 survey by job function of respondent

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% due to roundingSource: Telematics Update, April 2014

38.6%

6.5%2.6%

4.0%

4.3%

5.7%

6.8%

15.3%

16.2%


inSu

ra

nc

E tElEMa

ticS

SafEt

y r

Epo

rt


Management / Strategy 38.6% 136

Business development 16.2% 57

Consultant / Analyst 15.3% 54

Software / App development 6.8% 24

Market research 5.7% 20

Hardware development 4.3% 15

User interface / User experience design 4.0% 14

User interface testing and evaluation / Human factors 2.6% 9

Other 6.5% 23


Table 11: Breakdown of TU’s April 2014 survey by job function of respondent

Note: Percentages may not add up to 100% due to rounding. Source: Telematics Update, April 2014

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Perc

enta

ge

End user Automotive OEM Tier 2 automotive supplier

Tier 1 automotive supplier

Other

Figure 56: Breakdown of TU’s April 2014 survey by main target market

Note: Multiple answers allowed. Source: Telematics Update, April 2014,


End user 46.3% 158

Automotive OEM 45.2% 154

Tier 1 automotive supplier 29.6% 101

Tier 2 automotive supplier 15.2% 52

Other 17.6% 60


Table 12: Breakdown of TU’s April 2014 survey by main target market



inSu

ra

nc

E tElEMa

ticS

SafEt

y r

Epo

rt

About Telematics UpdateTelematics Update is the reference point for automotive telematics, mobile and web industries. By providing

industry-focused news, events and reports, it aims to enable dialogue throughout the industry and drive telematics

forward. For more information about Telematics Update, please visit www.telematicsupdate.com


Europe 56.6% 193

North America 56.6% 193

Asia 43.7% 149

Central & South America 24.9% 85

Australia 15.8% 54

CIS (Russia) 14.7% 50


Table 13: Breakdown of TU’s April 2014 survey by geographic region


60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Perc

enta

ge

Europe North America Central & South America

Asia Australia CIS (Russia)

Figure 57: Breakdown of TU’s April 2014 survey by geographic region


http://analysis.telematicsupdate.com


inSu

ra

nc

E tElEMa

ticS

SafEt

y r

Epo

rt

n Single user: $2195

n regional multi-user: $6995

Ways to order:www.telematicsupdate.com/hmireport

call ruthana foulkes, Head of research+ 44 (0) 207 375 7517 (uK) or 1 800 814 3459 ext. [email protected]

ordEr your rEport in lESS tHan 60 SEcondS

First name

Last name:

Company

Telephone:

Email:

Address:

City

Zip/Postcode

Report Name

Quantity

Payment details:

Name (as it appears on card):

Card Number:

Type of card:

Expiry date: Security Code:

order your copy today at: www.telematicsupdate.com/hmireport

telematics update’s advanced auto Safety report

Documents

InsuranceTelematicsHMI_Report2014