“Driving experience 2.0”
future mobility / Interaction design Project
aka GT-Freeman Project
In the future, the world will possibly be occupied by autonomous vehicles. Assuming that the autonomous vehicles will fulfill the needs of people by taking them from point A to point B, does it mean the excitement or enthusiasm obtained from driving will no longer be acquired? Cars, as a part of the culture, will never vanish or disappear. In addition to the fact that it was designed as a transportation device, there is still a great appreciation from drivers in extending their fun and entertaining elements in the autonomous vehicle market.
The purpose of this study is to provide people with a new option for creating an immersive driver experience in the future autonomous age, it is a potential and hypothetical future context, and needs to be considered as such. Technology-wise, as we knew over a hundred years ago, the classic driving style was based on simple mechanical, physical controls of gears and levers back then. Later on, the newer hydraulic technology was applied to the vehicle control systems, which only give softer control for drivers based on the existing driving style. Many years after that, until now, digital controls are becoming more and more advanced, feasible, and accepted by users. Here is an example of the big trend: nowadays, people most likely prefer to use a touch screen digital smartphone over the classic traditional push-button cellphone. A digital big-screen smartphone gives a much more flexible control possibility, and users can click on the application with their finger directly, zoom in and out of information with merely two-finger swipes, copy and paste specific information with a simple finger touch and move over it into multi-mode capability for mute, flight, or non-internet modes. There are going to be more flexible personal oriented control possibilities coming up in the future.
How to create the next-level driving experiences in the autonomous age?
what if we could turn back time to redesign the driving-oriented vehicle controls?
How would people design the style of vehicle control if they can?
.
.
What are the other styles of controlling or playing out there? Maybe different sports?
Could human body interactions and controls in sports be a good source and media of vehicle control design?
.
How would people control the car with their bodies?
Do people like multiple varieties of driving styles for different situations?
In this study, there are more than one stage of the thesis project development of prototyping and iterations. First, start with an early stage 1 exploration of the thesis project, including observations and interviews to collect data for the primary research. Stage 2, the Design stage, included the Intuitive Test and Checks Test as the main prototyping methods for user testing, validation, and iteration.
Varies types of Sports were included in the research.
In the first stage of the research, the researcher used the videotaping method for observation. Its purpose is to find out critical moments of the actions from each participant. With the use of the observation method in the study, the researcher videotaped the whole procedure. The participants needed not be interrupted or provided with any confusing information throughout the whole process. The researcher had displayed the notes and photos of the most inspiring moment from each participant's footage and placed them on the paper with the timeline
KJ Method, key moment recording chart
The researcher looked at each image of these critical moments and recorded how the participants moved his/her body as well as the feelings in each movement. These keynotes were collected as evidence for the insights that can be used in the research. This videotaping method vividly captured the process of the movements of each participant. With the assistance of the scientific method, each participant's body movements were analyzed, especially the muscle memory related to sports activities. Usually, they were not quickly noticed by the participant. However, using the method of videotaping and the one-on-one interview made the precious moments much more comfortable to be seen through the nuances from different angles captured by the camera.
The Insights and Opportunities Chart
Total of 9 insights
And 52 corresponding opportunities are presented below
Images above are the Insights and Corresponding opportunities.
.
Sample of Key Insights
"People feel more participating with sports when their core body associates in action."
“People started performing well and equipment became an extension of their body."
"People who are performing well when they could handle the action in extreme conditions."
.
The quick sketch ideations chart for each corresponding opportunities
Images above are the quick Ideation sketches for each corresponding opportunities
total of 54 quick sketch ideations were created for 52 opportunities
12 picked interesting ideations directions
The images below are 12 relatively more interesting ideations out of all of the 54 ideations presented above
.
Sample of Key Opportunities
“A fabulous solution would be a platform that allows people to drive the equipment instead of not the equipment driving users.”
“To help the user balanced easier in sports, a fabulous solution could be a piece of equipment or platform that keeps the weight as close to the ground as possible.”
“A fabulous solution would be a field/platform for the sports to be more challenging; it requires more body motion involved actions.”
.
The three key ideations/concepts and corresponding insights and opportunities
Three Main Concepts
Close to the Ground Concept Altitude Concept Unattached Concept
Due to time and budget restrictions, and the concern for the safety of testing participants and project operator, the following ideation is only focused on “Closed to the ground” concept.
Two following more polished design concepts were created based on the “Close to the Ground” Concept
direction a - The “Recline concept”
“Recline concept” - Direction A
Direction B - The “ Active Position Concept”
“ Active Position Concept” - Direction B
The universal driving platform and prototype is designed base on the concept of direction A and B.
The Universal driving platform
The universal driving platform is designed and created to comply with both Direction A and B
a more budget-friendly physical prototype was introduced
The Universal driving platform ideal model in 3D
The Digital prototype
The physical real-scale prototype of Universal driving platform
The physical prototype for user testing
The simplified - Physical prototype mode out of plywood
the Examples of wide variety of driving styles are presented in the image above
The physical model was designed like so to accomplish the driving style acquired from both Direction A and Direction B.
It shows a few examples of platform-capable driving styles from the right-hand side of the image above.
.
After the physical prototype was finished, the researcher would like to dig into the primary research to understand how body motion and action were related to sports.
Let’s dig into -
the styles of controls
For the 6 different sports, “How do professionals use their bodies when playing sports?”
Based on the primary research, the researcher list a quick list of findings, attached below.
The chart of relation between motions of body parts and its corresponding type of sports
This research includes two major categories
Non-machine powered sports & Machine powered sports
Images show what certain body parts does in certain type of sports. Data gained from primary research above.
The chart of the summarised relation between the motion of body parts and the corresponding type of sports
The image above demonstrated the assumption/hypothesis of how certain body parts do in various sports types.
The next step, test this hypothesis/assumption with platform
Wired Testing platform for user testing
Now the testing platform was modified to be as inclusive and modifiable as possible to allow the participants with more choices of postures in their driving.
There were two main types of testing procedures used: firstly, the control group testing procedures designed, and then the experimental group testing. During the control group test, participants were asked to choose the driving equipment that they were familiar with for testing out their most original way of driving. During the experimental group test, participants were given a fully wired and controllable platform, which works like a driving simulator. Therefore, a screen display, a computer, different riding equipment, and control elements were all functional and fully adjustable at the site.
Participant can use
Accelerometer - freedom to mount the accelerometer on anywhere on their body - direction control
Control Levers - freedom for mounting the levers anywhere on chassis to accommodate the desired driving style - speed control
Chassis has rounded bottom - enhance the 360-degree leaning experiences
Adjustable cushions - support and accommodate the desired driving style
Racing games with different map environments - difficulty - racing-oriented map or trick oriented map
The suggested styles of body controls chart
Participants can choose their preferred posture, control styles to operate the testing platform.
They can operate the simulation with their whole body,
The Screenshot of the racing game which our participants will be participating with
(L) The picture on the left is the maps for participants
(M) The picture in the middle is a screenshot of one of the maps participants can play in the simulation.
(R) The picture on the right is a satisfaction questionary for each participant to fill out after the simulation. 1 being very satisfy; 12 being not like it as all.
All participants were asked to try three racing map driving simulations. The first two maps were racing-oriented maps, and the best result would be determined by the shortest time to finish each lap. The third map was a trick-oriented map, and the best outcome would be determined by who had the highest score points within 60 seconds. The easy racing map was the first mandatory map for all participants, which was relatively easy to control. The hard racing map was the second map, in which the corner was much sharper, with more S curves, a much longer trail, a long straight line, and more chances to fly over the cliff. For the hard racing map, participants had the choice to try it or not after trying an easy racing map. Finally, the mandatory trick map for all participants would require a player to do acrobatics tricks, like jumping off the cliff, flying over bridges, shooting up in the air, etc. The harder the trick succeeded, the higher the score they can get. The winner at the end would be the one who had the highest score.
Participants were asked to try each map at least three times, and the best lap time or lap score would be picked based on the best result among all the driving they made in each racing map. At the end of the simulation driving test, the participants would have their best lap time and best lap score recorded for each driving style.
the wired USER TESTING section
During the platform design stage, 7 participants participated in the user testing.
They were people of different genders who came from different backgrounds, ages, experiences, and choices of favorite sports.
They had all been asked to participate in the same test under the same or similar specification and environment
PARTICIPANT ONE
Saurabh
25 years old
He had seven years of driving experience
snow skating enthusiast.
Image Below presents the chassis swing style control which created by the participants
Participant swing the wood chassis to control the direction by mounting accelerometer on the center of the chassis
This specific style of control has three of the most significant features
The most fun / entertaining
The Most preferred / recommending
The best performance
The image shows one of the driving styles that Participant One created.
The image above is the most preferred and most fun driving style. He pushed the Lever on the right and pulled the accelerator for controlling the speed. He also leaned on the Chassis from left to right in order to control the direction.
Image Below presents other styles of control which created by the participants
From the figure above, five different styles of driving were tried by the participant. During the Experimented Group test, he mounted the accelerator on his back and climbed the sensor on the chest. After that, he mounted the sensor in front of the cushion where he sits. During the Controlled Group test, he chose to use the steering wheel and foot paddle simulator for the test.
The chart of lap time; score; the level of entertaining; hardness; recommendation, for all five different stype of driving styles which the participant experienced
The table above shows (from left to right): the photo of the driving test, the best lap time for the easy racing map, the best lap time for the challenging racing map, the best score for the trick map, the fun level, the challenging level, the worth for recommendation level, and the overall preference level. As we can see, the participant performed well with traditional steering wheels and paddles. Thus, we were not surprised when he recommended it. He said, “the seven years of driving experiences had made my body used to steering wheels and paddle control.” However, he managed to get the best lap time with the sensor on the chassis, which shocked the researcher. What he did in that control was that he leaned his body weight on each side to turn. Even though he got used to the traditional driving style, he still believed that the bodyweight leaning control was the most entertaining style of control among all that he tried. No doubt, he did recommend weight-leaning control for steering, too.
Image below presents the testing result comparison between the most featured style of control created by the participant and the traditional style of control
The objects for the data comparison includes the best lap time for both easy and hard racing maps; the best score from jump map. And the user rating will rate the corresponding styles of control in terms of the level of entertaining; hardness; recommendation.
The quick short footage for some moments when the participant doing user testing
User testing Footages
PARTICIPANT TWO
Christian W
37 years old
He had 18 years of driving experience
Soccer enthusiast
Image Below presents the standing and body leading style control which created by the participants
Participant leaning his upper body to control the direction by mounting accelerometer on his body - in this case, the accelerometer mounted on his back
This specific style of control has the most significant feature
The best performance of two maps
The image shows one of the driving styles that participants created.
The Figure above is the driving style for the participant’s best easy map performance and the best trick map score. He levered the gear on the right and pushed and pulled for controlling the speed. Also, he used his back to lean from left to right in order to control the direction.
Image Below presents all six styles of control which created by the participants
The participant tried six different driving styles. During the Experimented Group test, he mounted the accelerometer on his back and then climbed the accelerometer, which was in front of the cushion. In addition, he mounted the sensor on top of his head. After that, he mounted the sensor on his back with a standing posture. During the Controlled Group test, he chose to use the steering wheel and foot paddle simulator for the test.
The chart of lap time; score; the level of entertaining; hardness; recommendation, for all six different stype of driving styles which the participant experienced
The information table above shows the following results (from left to right): the best lap time for the easy racing map, the best lap time for the challenging racing map, the best score for the track map, the fun level, the challenging level, and the self-selected preference level.
As the results indicated, he got his best lap time via traditional steering and paddles driving style, which was not a surprise by his 18 years of driving experience. However, what surprised us was that he did manage to get the best lap time and highest trick map score by mounting an accelerometer at his back with a standing posture. However, neither the steering wheel nor mounting accelerometer on his back was his most preferred style of driving.
Image below presents the testing result comparison between the most featured style of control created by the participant and the traditional style of control
The objects for the data comparison includes the best lap time for both easy and hard racing maps; the best score from jump map. And the user rating will rate the corresponding styles of control in terms of the level of entertaining; hardness; recommendation.
The quick short footage for some moments when the participant doing user testing
PARTICIPANT THREE
Mark L
28 years old
professional racing car driver
pure driving enthusiast
US marine soldier
Image Below presents the arm style control which created by the participants
Participant leaning left arm and some of his upper body weight to control the direction by mounting accelerometer on the cushion underneath
This specific style of control has four of the most significant features
the second best performance
The most fun / entertaining
The easiest
The Most recommending
The image shows one of the driving styles that the participant created.
The figure above revealed the driving style for the participant’s most fun drive. It was also his easiest and most preferred way of driving. The level was on the right and he pushed and pulled to control his driving speed. Also, his arm moved the cushion from left to right in controlling the direction.
Image Below presents all five styles of control which created by the participants
From the figure above, the image shows the five different driving styles the participant tried. During the Experimented Group test, he attempted to install the sensor at the back of his neck. Then he mounted the sensor in front of his neck, and, finally, he mounted the sensor on top of the cushion, which was placed in front of him and where his arm rested. During the controlled group test, he chose to use the steering wheel and foot paddle simulator for the test.
The chart of lap time; score; the level of entertaining; hardness; recommendation, for all five different stype of driving styles which the participant experienced
As we can see, participant #3 performed well with the traditional steering wheel, which is not a surprise because he is a professional racing car driver. However, he unexpectedly managed to achieve his second-best score by leaning his arm in front. This driving style did let him spend only a second slower than using steering wheels. He did tell the researcher that he was surprised by how much he liked the arm-leaning in-front driving style. Another unexpected result was that he obtained his best score when he used his neck and head to drive in the trick map. In general, he was very good at using a steering wheel to control the vehicle, but he managed to get the highest score with the use of neck and head driving style. Further comparison of the best performance may be valuable to investigate to obtain valuable insights into using alternative driving styles in the future.
Image below presents the testing result comparison between the most featured style of control created by the participant and the traditional style of control
The objects for the data comparison includes the best lap time for both easy and hard racing maps; the best score from jump map. And the user rating will rate the corresponding styles of control in terms of the level of entertaining; hardness; recommendation.
The quick short footage for some moments when the participant doing user testing
PARTICIPANT FOUR
Angela Ho
18 years old
full-time student
NO driving experiences
Image Below presents the arm style control which created by the participants
Participant slightly leaning the right arm on cushion to control the direction by mounting accelerometer on her right hand
This specific style of control has four of the most significant features
the best performance
The most fun / entertaining
The next Most recommending
The image shows one of the driving styles that the participant created.
The figure above is the driving style for her best performance, the most fun, and her most preferred way of driving. She pushed and pulled the lever on the left for controlling the speed. Her hand twisted clockwise and anticlockwise for controlling the direction
Image Below presents all five styles of control which created by the participants
From the figure above, the image shows the five different styles of driving that the participant had tried. During the Experimented Group test, she tried mounting the sensor on the back of her neck. After that, she mounted the sensor on the cushion where she leaned her body. Finally, she mounted the sensor on top of her right hand. For the controlled group test, she chose to use a steering wheel and foot paddle simulator for the test.
The chart of lap time; score; the level of entertaining; hardness; recommendation, for all five different stype of driving styles which the participant experienced
According to the results, she performed well when she mounted the sensor on her right hand as well as using her hand turning clockwise and anti-clockwise to drive. She also preferred using her body weight to control by changing the center of her gravity on the body support cushion. A similar result came out when she mounted the sensor on the chassis center, for which she leaned her body to control the center gravity as well. Even though she managed to get her best trick map score by using her neck to drive, which she thought was one of the easiest ways of driving, it was her least favorite style of driving among all other methods. Besides, as a participant who has never driven a car before, her score and lap result using a steering wheel was not good at all, especially compared with her other ways of driving.
Image below presents the testing result comparison between the most featured style of control created by the participant and the traditional style of control
The objects for the data comparison includes the best lap time for both easy and hard racing maps; the best score from jump map. And the user rating will rate the corresponding styles of control in terms of the level of entertaining; hardness; recommendation.
The quick short footage for some moments when the participant doing user testing
PARTICIPANT FIVE
Li Bai
29 years old
Bank Manager
had 10 years driving experiences
Image Below presents the head and neck style control which created by the participants
Participant slightly turn her neck and head to control the direction by mounting accelerometer on top of her head
This specific style of control has three of the most significant features
the best performance
The most fun / entertaining
The next Most recommending
The driving styles that the participant created.
The figure above shows the driving style for participant #5’s best performance in the easy map, trick map, the most fun, the easiest, and most preferred way of driving.
She pushed and pulled the lever on the right to control the speed. Her head leaned slightly leftward or rightward to control the direction.
Image Below presents all four styles of control which created by the participants
There were four different styles of driving that participant #5 had tried. During the Experimented Group test, she tried mounting the sensor on her back first and then mounted the sensor on her chest. After that, she mounted the sensor on her head when she was wearing a hat. For the controlled group test, she chose to use a steering wheel and foot paddle simulator for the test.
The chart of lap time; score; the level of entertaining; hardness; recommendation, for all four different stype of driving styles which the participant experienced
As we can see from Table 5-6 above, participant #5 performed well when she mounted the sensor on her head. When she was using her neck and head to drive, she managed to get her best lap time. In this way, she managed to get 3 seconds faster than using a steering wheel. In the trick map, she accomplished to double the score when she was using a steering wheel. Even though she believes that the steering wheel style of control was still the easiest driving style for her, since she only tried using her head and neck to drive less than three times, the second-best result from using her neck and head control was not bad at all. She even preferred the neck and head style of driving overusing the steering wheel.
Image below presents the testing result comparison between the most featured style of control created by the participant and the traditional style of control
The objects for the data comparison includes the best lap time for both easy and hard racing maps; the best score from jump map. And the user rating will rate the corresponding styles of control in terms of the level of entertaining; hardness; recommendation.
The quick short footage for some moments when the participant doing user testing
PARTICIPANT six
Andrew L
23 years old
university full-time student
had 5 years driving experiences
Image Below presents the right arm movement style control which created by the participants
Participant slightly turn his right arm leftward and rightward to control the direction by mounting accelerometer on the right arm
This specific style of control has three of the most significant features
the best performance / highest score in trick-map
The image shows one of the driving styles the participants created
The image above depicts the driving style for best performance in both the easy map and trick map tests. Participant #6 pushed and pulled the lever on the right to control the speed. His hand twisted clockwise or anticlockwise for controlling the direction.
Image Below presents all five styles of control which created by the participants
In the figure above, the participant tried five different styles of driving. During the Experimented Group test, he firstly mounted the sensor on his back. Secondly, he mounted the sensor on top of his right hand. Thirdly, he mounted the sensor at the lower end of his belly. For the Controlled Group test, he chose to use the steering wheel and foot paddle simulator for the test.
The chart of lap time; score; recommendation, for all five different stype of driving styles which the participant experienced
It is obvious that participant #6 achieved his best lap score when he mounted the sensor at the back of his body for the control. In this case, he was using his entire upper body for direction control, and he did manage to use his upper body and achieved 13 seconds faster than using the steering wheel. Even though he preferred using the steering wheel overusing his right hand turning for controlling, he did manage to achieve the best trick map lap score with it. When he was using his right hand turning for controlling, he broke the historical record by 168% in the Jumping Map race.
Image below presents the testing result comparison between two of the most featured styles of controls created by the participant and the traditional style of control
The objects for the data comparison includes the best lap time for both easy and hard racing maps; the best score from jump map. And the user rating will rate the corresponding styles of control in terms of the level of entertaining; hardness; recommendation.
The quick short footage for some moments when the participant doing user testing
PARTICIPANT sEVEN
Du R
25 years old
university full-time student
had failed to pass the driving test over three times
Image Below presents the sitting and body back leaning style of control which created by the participants
Participant leaning his upper body while sitting to control the direction by mounting accelerometer on top of her back
This specific style of control has three of the most significant features
the best performance
The most fun / entertaining
The image shows one of the driving styles that the participant created.
The image above is the driving style for best performance in the easy map race, trick map race, and the most fun style of driving. She pushed and pulled the lever on the right to control the speed. Her body leaned leftward or rightward for controlling the direction.
Image Below presents all five styles of control which created by the participants
The participant had tried four different styles of driving. During the Experimented Group test, she firstly mounted the sensor on her back. Secondly, she mounted the sensor in front of the body support cushion. Thirdly, she mounted the sensor in front of her left hand. For the controlled group test, she chose to use the steering wheel and foot paddle simulator for the test. During the Experimental Group test, she had tried the necessary test and mounted the sensor on the chassis. However, she did not finish it because it was too hard for her.
The chart of lap time; score; recommendation, for all four different stype of driving styles which the participant experienced
As we can see from the graph above, she achieved her best lap score when she mounted the sensor in front of her left hand, so she could be driving by slightly turning her hand clockwise or anti-clockwise. Even though she managed to get her best trick map score using the steering wheel, her second-best result came from her left-hand control. It is also interesting to see that there was not much difference between the experiments she performed and the one she tried traditional steering wheel control.
Image below presents the testing result comparison between two of the most featured styles of controls created by the participant and the traditional style of control
The objects for the data comparison includes the best lap time for both easy and hard racing maps; the best score from jump map. And the user rating will rate the corresponding styles of control in terms of the level of entertaining; hardness; recommendation.
The quick short footage for some moments when the participant doing user testing
Wired Platform Testing Result - and Analysis
Total Participants - 7
Chart above presents the test result of three different Map simulations - Easy map, hard map, and jump map
The results show that participants who used (1)back & neck, (2) steering wheel, and (3)hand twist driving style during the test were those who were more likely to reach the best performance. On the other hand, those participants who used chassis, back control, arm and cushion, and head during the test had less or limited chances to reach their best performance.
In the same vein, the second-best performance happened when the participant used either the steering wheel or arm and cushion driving styles. We notice that people who used arms and cushions to control the vehicle did receive the best performance for one time only, but they received the second-best performance for seven times. This does suggest that if participants would like to receive better performance, choosing arm and cushion control is one of the smarter choices. On the other hand, those who used the head, chest, and chassis to control the vehicle would not be guaranteed to receive better performance.
As we can see from the data above, a decent number of participants performed at the second-best level when using the traditional driving style, such as arm & cushion and steering wheel. This may come from the fact that most of the participants already had at least a few years of driving experience. However, within the limited three times of driving tests with the self-designed driving styles, more than one participant had performed the second-best result with back neck and hand twist style of controls than they who were using the steering wheel. Besides, even though only seven participants joined the simulation, they still managed to perform their best with body parts, such as their back, arm & cushions, and head, to control their driving. Similarly, the results tend to spread out for those participants who performed the second-best in the test drive. In the second-best performance category, seven participants performed well-using arm and cushion style, while five used a steering wheel for control to reach their second-best performance.
Many participants performed well with the use of the steering wheel in the testing. However, the researcher believes that only three times of test driving actually would limit the chance for participants to be familiar with all the driving styles they designed. Therefore, when conducting the replication of future research, more time for participants to practice each driving style they created should be allowed to promote the result's reliability.
The chart of preferences for three main aspects - fun, intuitive, and preference/ recommendation
Chart above shows the most fun / most entertaining (L), and the least entertaining (R) driving styles for each participants
Chart above shows the easiest / most user intuitive (L), and the most challenging / difficult (R) driving styles for each participants
Chart above shows the most preferred (L), and least preferred (R) driving styles for each participants
The accumulated date for seven participants is displayed in the chart below
The chart shows the accumulated result of participants’ preferred driving styles and recommendations to others
The chart shows the accumulated results of participants’ least preferred driving styles.
Accumulated Data Analysis
As we can see from the data above, the preferences for the body parts used in the driving tests were very spread out. An almost similar amount of participants preferred to use the head, back, chassis, hand twisting, and back neck to control their driving compared with using the traditional steering wheel. It suggests that participants seemed to be happy with the options provided for them to design their driving style if they had the choices. However, the style people preferred the most was using a traditional steering wheel. The new selling point for driving-oriented vehicles for car companies could be providing customers with their personal definable driving system. According to the results, the number of participants who do and do not like using the steering wheel was both taking the lead. This might indicate that if participants were allowed to select their own driving style, the results could be very different depending on individual needs. Therefore, this study again confirms the importance of a needs analysis in the vehicle design field. Future researchers must investigate more participants from diverse backgrounds before genuinely upgrading the functions and services in future tech-integrated vehicle design.
Take the example of one participant's testing data like Christian's; the driving style that he believed to have the most fun of driving is the one he had the worst performance in the driving simulation test for all three maps. Could the familiarity of the driving style be the factor of the results? Also, the same driving style gave the best lap time but was the second most boring driving style for him. Similar situations happened to other participants like Angela Ho. Her driving style that she believed to have the most fun was the one she had the worst lap time in the jump map score. It reminded us that participants who do not know their most fun style of driving may, in the end, find out their driving style that brings great fun level might not lead to their best performance in driving. The disparity between the entertaining level of driving and their driving performance may be valuable for deeper investigation.
People do not know that the most fun style of driving may be different from the most leisure and relaxed style of driving they would have. We take a look at the test result from participant Andrew, the back Control style of driving gave him the most fun of driving, but at the same time, it is also the most difficult and his least preferred style of driving.
People may prefer one driving style, which could be the hardest driving style they picked. If we take a look at the testing data for Angela Ho and Du Rou, their most preferred driving style was the same driving style, which they thought was the hardest style for them. Those participants who may like more challenges in the driving recommended that using more difficult control in the driving may improve the expectation of their driving experiences.
Through the experiment of the self-designed driving style, participants could be benefited and change their concept of driving. We take a look at the participant Du Rou who was 25 years old and had failed the driving test over three times. The data show that the traditional style of driving was her least fun style of driving and the hardest one for her. She thought that the easiest control style for her would be using the Back, Hand, and Arm styles of control. Interestingly, the data showed that both the Back, Hand, and Arm styles of control had given her the least performance in the driving simulation test. Obviously, for some participants, the more comfortable driving style may not support them with better performance driving at the end. If we think of choosing a specific driving style before driving, constructing a personal driving concept may be great preparation for novice drivers like Du Rou. This Universal Testing Platform is an ideal instrument to promote better driving and user experiences.
the performances comparisons between user-designed and traditional/steering wheel driving styles
For example, for Saurabh, his best lap time for the easy map is 0,42,54 with the steering wheel/ traditional driving style; he scored 0,37,64 for the best lap time for the easy map with the driving style he designed.
Therefore the driving style he created helped him to perform 13% faster than the traditional driving style on easy map
user-designed and traditional driving styles performance comparison analysis
As we can see from the image above, compared with using the traditional steering wheel style of driving, there is a possibility that participants can have 13% to 58% of better performance when using their designed style of driving. From the data above, there are 17 testings ‘Percentage of Improvement’ results from the table above among Easy, Challenge, and Jump Map, 11 of them, which is 64.7% of the data showing that the participant performs better when using their own designed style of driving than using traditional steering wheel style of driving. Take the example of participant Mark, who is a driving enthusiast who has driven racing vehicles for many years. It is surprising that when he was trying out the driving simulation with a self-designed driving style, it almost gave him the same performance compared to what he was using a steering wheel for the easy map. Predictably, there was a 17% difference in performance when he tried the hard map. If there were more chances for him to get more familiar with the style of driving he designed, there would be a much higher chance for him to drive the vehicle with the driving style he designed better than he was using the steering wheel. Also, if we take a look at participant Saurabh, the performance when he was using the self-designed style for the Hard map was 10% slower than he was using the steering wheel. However, at the same time, his performance with his self-designed style of driving was 13% faster and 62.5% better in the Easy Map than in Trick Map. A similar testing result happened on other participants as well, like Christian and Du Ruo. Their driving style for the best performance was not always the same in different maps. Thus, the result has given strong suggestions for creating a collaborative driving style that combines multiple different driving styles from each user or different driving situations and purposes to max out the best performance of driving.
Reflection of the data
The participants do not know that their best-performed driving style could be different for each participant in different driving situations and places. Participants may have different driving styles in different modes, such as driving for fun, easy driving, and preferred/comfortable way of driving, which can be very different from the driving style they have for the best performances. The preferred driving style could be the most challenging driving style the participant created. The personally designed driving style could help nearly 65% of driving with better performance and results. It can help participants to have up to 60% better performance when compared with the traditional style of driving.
Participants love the driving style that they created themselves. Seven out of seven participants thought the driving style that they designed by themselves gave them the most significant amount of fun of driving. Five out of seven participants thought that after the whole user testing, the steering wheel style of driving was the least fun style they tried. There is not one single style of control that participants think is the easiest one for all of them. The type of driving style that participants believe is the easiest is very diverse. Three of seven participants think the steering wheel style of driving is the easiest. Two out of seven participants think the chassis and head styles of control are the easiest way of driving. Half of the participants believe the back neck style of controlling style is the hardest for driving. After the short testing, it was not surprised that most of the participants still recommended using steering style for control since they are so used to it, but what a surprise the researcher is that the same amount of participants also recommended using chassis style of control for driving, especially considering they had only tried it in their life for less than an hour. The number of participants who recommend using the steering wheel style of control is the same as using the chassis style of control. The second-largest group of driving style recommendations comes from the head and back control style.
Therefore, as we can see from these findings, the project testing results based on the collected data proved that the driving style people created gives the most significant amount of fun, and participants trusted it. Also, based on the obtained results, the steering wheel style of control is not the most natural driving method according to the participants' perception. Thus, there is an excellent opportunity for this immersive driving experience to benefit people in the future.
The value of Driving Experience 2.0
Nowadays, self-driving technology, smart vehicles, the new ways of passengers’ interaction with a vehicle have become key issues for car industries. However, autonomous vehicles may not fulfill the needs of driving experiences some people would like to have. The purpose of this research is to provide alternative resources and options for those who may not be completely content with autonomous vehicle technology, especially for those who love driving. In this project, the Universal Adaptive Testing Platform is shown to be capable of providing detailed information on each participant’s preferred driving postures that can improve driving performance, physical comforts, and the level of relaxing experience. Based on the results of stage 3 prototype user testing, the researcher would like to provide a picture of the next-generation driving experiences as they should or will look like.
The Driving Experiences 2.0 renders the driving experience superior because drivers will have the planform of opportunity to create and define their ways of driving, for which the control is no longer limited to the steering wheel or paddles. In the autonomous age, assuming car regulations and restrictions can be different or non-existent, the freedom of Driving Experiences 2.0 will easily allow drivers to drive the vehicle in their preferred fashion. The digital, fully customize-able flexible, and adaptable platform system will enable drivers to control the car with any parts of their body with any style of controls by putting the wearable sensors on the corresponding part of the body. This implicit style of the control system will provide a platform of true freedom of immersive full-body driving controls to maximize driving experiences in future scenarios. The testing result has proven that implicit controlling user experiences will benefit car driving experiences to the extent that the researcher believes it is going to be the next evolutionary trend globally defining the next-level driving experiences in the future autonomous scenario. Thus, the Driving Experiences 2.0 will be very valuable and inspirational for car OEMs that believe in providing drivers or car enthusiasts the uncompromised driving experiences in the autonomous future scenario. The testing results from stage 3 prototype user testing have proven the value of such potential.
Driving Experience 2.0 is the term the researcher created as a pioneer proposal that redefines the value of driving experiences from the last 100 years of car history. In the traditional driving environment, when people talked about driving experiences for racing, it was most likely about driving performance, driving techniques, and strategy to help get faster lap times to win the race. When people were talking about driving experiences for a family vehicle, it was most likely about comfort, driving fun, and enjoyment. However, most drivers could only choose either the passionate or laid-back driving style. What could happen if they had integrated driving experiences that combined those very different driving methods in one unit? They could choose to use any way of driving when and where they wanted in one unit. This integrated choice of driving experiences is what the researcher called the base of Driven Experiences 2.0. Surprisingly, no current car manufacturer has ever provided anything similar to the Driving Experiences 2.0 proposal yet. This study can be open the door to a brand new field of driving environments and platforms explorations.
Thus, within the scenario of the autonomous age, the Driving Experiences 2.0 does not only help to create a platform for drivers to develop their styles of driving, but it also provides the possibility for creating a driving style with combined driving experiences, which allows drivers to switch the different driving styles that they created for different situations and environments. This high-value proposal combined with integrated driving style choices and self-defined ways of controlling/driving experiences is what the researcher called the next generation of Driving Experiences 2.0.
The outcome of this project is ultimately the answer to the Driving Experiences 2.0 proposal. It includes creating the universal flexible/adaptive platform and universal testing procedure, which anyone can use to test out their different driving methods. Also, the testing data and procedure will numerically show the participants their performance in each driving style they applied in the test. This will provide the participants with a metric for their best-performance Driving method, such as their most leisure style of driving as well as their preferred way of driving. These diverse data can be the key for the car industry to design the next-generation driving environment and platform. This high-value proposal combines the freedom of personal choices, integrated driving experiences, and self-defined vehicle controlling/driving experiences, which is what the researcher called the next generation Driving Experiences 2.0. The outcomes of this study are eventually the answers to the Driving Experiences 2.0 proposal. The researcher would like to design a universal flexible/adaptive platform and universal testing procedure that anyone can utilize to explore their driving preferences. At the same time, the testing data and testing procedure will be numerically recorded, and, therefore, the participant's performance in each driving style will be analyzed for future personal understanding and marketing usage. In essence, this will give each participant precisely what his/her best performance is, as well as a detailed analysis of their unique postures of driving. For example, they will clearly visualize the difference in controls between their better performance and their preferred ways of driving. These diverse aspects of the resulting data can be insightful information for the car industry to redesign their next-generation driving environment and model.
Project Reflections
Even though the Driving Experiences 2.0 proposal and project is just a starting point in the design, it is valuable to extend this core concept to set up companies’ project design direction in the future. Researchers who support this brand-new field of exploring topics will eventually set a clear path and follow the core value for the strategic and technological approach for vehicle companies with passion. With enough time and budget, the researcher will proceed on a much larger scale of the number of prototypes and iterations. With enough participants and user testing, the data can be more scientifically categorized by gender, age, years of driving experience, job differences, personalities, and so on. Comparing the data from each section of categories will give ever more scientific results for the future candidates of interest. Besides, technology-wise, there can be more personal controlling options for user testing with more resources, budget, and time. For example, the current options for speed control are lever controls, which may limit some styles of control possibilities. In the future, there can be control options available such as pressure gauges; changing the angle of direction can be executed by selecting the pressure level on the pressure gauge, which will expand the options for speed control. In terms of direct control options, currently, the command is operated by wearing a modified controller. The accelerometer in the controllers can be remodified to be made smarter. Therefore, the smaller and more comfortable designs of integrated accelerometer packs will make it much more convenient for participants to wear them on their bodies for future user testing. In terms of the physical testing platform, in the future, there may be the next generation of testing platforms available with lighter weight, more plug-in or off functionality, and more comfortable and ergonomic designs for users. More accessories for personal user controls can be more easily mounted on various locations of the physical platform with more convenient controls.
