Submitted:
04 October 2023
Posted:
05 October 2023
You are already at the latest version
Abstract
Keywords:
1. Introduction
2. Literature Review
2.1. Drivers’ visual and cognitive attention
2.2. Human-computer interaction for drivers
2.3. Ergonomic psychology evaluation of the driver’s experience
2.4. Miryoku engineering
3. Research Objectives
4. Research Methods
4.1. Evaluating experts’ opinions using the EGM
4.2. Evaluating consumers' responses using QTTI
5. Analysis and Results
5.1. Evaluating experts’ preferences using the EGM
5.2. QTTI analysis for surveying consumers' preferences
6. Discussion
7. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- The Free Libary. After stalling in 2019, automotive display touch module market expected to return to healthy growth in 2022, Retrieved September 30, 2023, from: https://www.thefreelibrary.com/After+stalling+in+2019%2C+automotive+display+touch+module+market...-a0604155993.
- Asano, H. (1998) An Hierarchical Representation of the Consumer Value Structure using Qualitative Data. In Report of Modeling the Evaluation Structure of Kansei, 2, 223-231.
- Jian, Y. J. (2022). The Study on the Attractiveness Factors of Car-Borne Operating System Interface (Master thesis). Fo Guang University, Yilan, Taiwan.
- Burnettt, G. E., & Porter, J. M. (2001). Ubiquitous computing within cars: designing controls for non-visual use. Human-Computer Studies, 55, 521-53. [CrossRef]
- Wittmann, M., Kiss, M., Gugg, P., Steffen, A., Fink, M., Pöppel, E., & Kamiya, H. (2006). Effects of display position of a visual in-vehicle task on simulated driving. Applied Ergonomics, 37(2), 187-199. [CrossRef]
- Wania, C. E., Atwood, M. E., McCain, K. E. How do design and evaluation interrelate in HCI research? DIS '06: Proceedings of the 6th conference on Designing Interactive systems, 2006.6, University Park PA USA, 90-98.
- Kantowitz, B. H., & Sorkin, R. D. (1983).Human factors: Understanding.
- Zhou, S. H. A (2011). Combination of the Contexts and Human Emotion: The Development and Evolution of human-computer Interaction Theory. Communication and management research, 11(1), 29-68.
- Wickens, C., Gordon, S., & Liu, Y. (1998). An introduction to human factors engineering, New York: Addison-Wesley-Longman.
- Reuding, T. (2004). Predictive value of assessing vehicle interior design ergonomics in a virtual environment, Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering, 4(2), 109. [CrossRef]
- Karlsson, B. S. A., Aronsson, N.,&Svensson, K. A. (2003). Using semantic environment description as a tool to evaluate car interiors. Ergonomics, 46(13/14), 1408–1422. [CrossRef]
- Shimizu, Y., Yanagishima, T., Jindo, T., & Nagamachi, M. (1989). Analyses of automobile interiors using a semantic differential method, Human Factors and Ergonmics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings, General Sessions, pp. 620–624(5). [CrossRef]
- Khatoon, S. and Rehman, M. (2021), Negative emotions in consumer brand relationship: A review and future research agenda, International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(4), 719-749. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijcs.12665. [CrossRef]
- Ujigawa, M.(2000. The evolution of preference-based design. Research and Development Institute.
- Kelly, G.A. (1955), The psychology of personal construct, 2 volumes, Norton, New York, NY.
- Massato, U. and Gen, M. (1999), Development of evaluation grid method using electronic-mail. A study on users’ preference for gas stations, Journal of Architecture, Planning and Environmental Engineering (Transactions of AIJ), 518, 75-80.
- Miryoku Engineering Forum (1992), Miryoku Engineering, Miryoku Engineering Forum, Kaibundo.
- Dong, W. (2010), The Evaluation Method for Product Form Attractiveness Based on Miryoku Engineering, Applied Mechanics and Materials, 44-47, 86-90 https://www.scientific.net/AMM.44-47.86. [CrossRef]
- Ma, M.Y., Chen, Y. C. and Li, S. R. (2011). How to build design strategy for attractiveness of new products (DSANP), Advances in Information Sciences and Service Sciences, 3(11), 105-114 https://doi.org/10.4156/AISS.vol3.issue11.3.
- Jindo, T., & Hirasago, K. (1997). Application studies to car interior of Kansei Engineering. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 19 (2), 105-114. [CrossRef]
- Sanui, J. (1996), Visualization of users’ requirements: introduction of the evaluation grid method, Proceedings of the 3rd Design & Decision Support Systems in Architecture & Urban Planning Conference, 1, 365-74.
- Asano, H. (1998). An Hierarchical Representation of the Consumer Value Structure using Qualitative Data. In Report of Modeling the Evaluation Structure of Kansei, 2, 223-231.
- Massato, U. and Gen, M. (1999), Development of evaluation grid method using electronic-mail. A study on users’ preference for gas stations, Journal of Architecture, Planning and Environmental Engineering (Transactions of AIJ), 518, 75-80.
- Hayashi, C. (1950). On the quantification of qualitative data from the mathematico-statistical point of view, Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, 2(1), 35-47. [CrossRef]
- Iwabuchi, C. et al. (2001), Data Management and Analysis by Yourself, Humura Publishing, pp. 180-5.
- Sugiyama, K. and Novel, K. (1996), The Basic for Survey and Analysis by Excel: A Collection of Tool for Planning and Design, Kaibundo Publishing, Tokyo, pp. 51-62.
- Tzou, R. C. & Lu, H. P. (2007). Exploring the emotional, aesthetic, and ergonomic facets of innovative product on fashion technology acceptance model. Behaviour & Information Technology, 28(4), 311-322. [CrossRef]
- Reuding, T. (2004). Predictive value of assessing vehicle interior design ergonomics in a virtual environment, Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering, 4(2), 109. [CrossRef]


| Level of questionnaire | First level | Second level | Third level |
|---|---|---|---|
| Type of question | Original evaluation item | Upper level (an image) |
Lower level (a specific trait) |
| The example of a question subject | Convenient | Intuitive | Integrated information system |
| Items | Categories | Category scores | Partial correlation coefficients |
|---|---|---|---|
| Independent | Distinctive functional segments | -0.024 | 0.558 |
| Independent operation of the air conditioner | 0.124 | ||
| Independent operation of the audio equipment | 0.162 | ||
| Clear | Rectangular 10~12 inch display screen | -0.137 | 0.667 |
| Indicator light | 0.090 | ||
| Full touch-screen interface | 0.033 | ||
| C | 0.828 | ||
| R= | 0.722 | ||
| R2= | 0.528 | ||
| Original images | Upper level (reasons) | Lower level (specific attributes) |
|---|---|---|
| Tasteful 53 (1) | Balanced 22 (2) Fashionable 18 (5) Textured 17 (6) |
Symmetric style of air outlets 12 (4) Flat and smooth style 10 (5) Narrow border screen 10 (5) Matte textures 4 (11) Mirror textures 4 (11) Soft textures 17 (3) Metal textures 5 (10) Wood textures 5 (10) |
| Convenient 49 (2) | Intuitive 30 (1) Personalized 19 (4) |
Clear index of operation 10 (5) Integrated information system 9 (6) Physical buttons 7 (8) Custom functions 12 (4) Mobile connectivity 12 (4) Great location of storage space 4 (11) |
| Legible 37 (3) | Independent 21 (3) Clear 15 (7) |
Distinctive functional segments 23 (1) Independent operation of the air conditioner 8 (7) Independent operation of the audio equipment 6 (9) Rectangular 10~12 inch display screen 20 (2) Indicator light 10 (5) Full touch-screen 5 (10) |
| Items | Categories | Category scores | Partial correlation coefficients |
|---|---|---|---|
| Intuitive | Clear index of operation system | -0.035 | 0.704 |
| Integrated information system | -0.052 | ||
| Physical buttons | 0.116 | ||
| Personalized | Custom functions | 0.120 | 0.711 |
| Mobile connectivity | -0.034 | ||
| Great location of storage space | -0.057 | ||
| C | 0.900 | ||
| R= | 0.784 | ||
| R2= | 0.615 | ||
| Items | Categories | Category scores | Partial correlation coefficients |
|---|---|---|---|
| Balanced | Symmetric style of air outlets | 0.038 | 0.367 |
| Flat and smooth style | -0.004 | ||
| Fashionable | Narrow border screen | 0.035 | 0.620 |
| Matte textures | 0.055 | ||
| Mirror textures | -0.014 | ||
| Textured | Soft textures | -0.002 | 0.536 |
| Metal textures | 0.048 | ||
| Wood textures | -0.112 | ||
| C | 0.804 | ||
| R= | 0.728 | ||
| R2= | 0.531 | ||
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).