U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE
Washington, DC 20590
202-366-4000

Skip to content
Facebook iconYouTube iconTwitter iconFlickr iconLinkedInInstagram

Federal Highway Administration Research and Technology
Coordinating, Developing, and Delivering Highway Transportation Innovations

Report
This report is an archived publication and may contain dated technical, contact, and link information
Publication Number: FHWA-RD-98-057

Human Factors Design Guidelines for Advanced Traveler Information Systems (ATIS)and Commercial Vehicle Operations (CVO)

 

CHAPTER 4: GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR ADVANCED TRAVELER INFORMATION SYSTEM (ATIS) CONTROLS

This chapter provides human factors design guidelines relevant to the controls associated with ATIS devices. ATIS controls represent the primary means by which the driver interacts with the system and, therefore, their design is critical to successful use of ATIS devices. The following design topics are included in this chapter:

MANUAL CONTROLS

OTHER

 

SELECTION OF CONTROL TYPE

Introduction: Selection of control type refers to the apparatus by which the driver makes control inputs (i.e., push–buttons, push–pull knobs, rotary knobs (discrete and continuous), levers, slides, thumbwheels, toggle switches, or rocker switches). Selection of appropriate control types is important to decisions regarding control location, because some control types are more suited to particular locations, and, conversely, particular locations are ideal for certain types of controls.

Design Guidelines***

The tables below provides a summary of the suggested control types with respect to various design and human–computer interface characteristics. Recommendations for control selections from the various human factors sources are in good agreement (see References 1, 2, 3, and 4).

Control Function

Suggested Control Type

Selection between two alternatives or discrete positions; e.g., on/off.

Toggle switch, two–position stalk, push–pull knob, push–button, or rocker switch.

Selection among three or more alternatives or discrete positions; e.g., modes of operation for climate controls.

Slide, multipurpose stalk, discrete rotary knob, three–position toggle or rocker switch, push–buttons (for three alternatives only), key pad, or touch screen.

Precise adjustment; e.g., radio volume.

Continuous rotary knob or thumbwheel.

Gross adjustment; e.g., intermittent windshield wiper.

Continuous rotary knob, lever, or touch screen.

Large force application; e.g., column tilt.

Lever.

 

 

Expected Control Location

Suggested Control Type

Panel

Toggle switch, rotary knob, push–pull knob, thumbwheel, slide, push–button, rocker switch, touch screen, or key pad.

Stalk

Rotary on end or in middle of stalk, push–button on end of stalk, or small slide.

Pod

Push–button or thumbwheel.

Steering wheel, side

Stalk or lever.

Steering wheel, front

Push–button.

 

 

Control Task Requirement

Suggested Control Type

Blind operation

Toggle switch, rocker switch, discrete rotary knob, or key pad.

Tactile feedback

Toggle switch, rocker switch, push–to–lock push–button, slide with detents, discrete rotary knob, or key pad.

Visual identification of control position

Toggle switch, rotary, slide, or lever.

Easy check reading in an array of controls

Toggle switch, rotary, slide, or lever.

Fast actuation

Toggle switch, two–position stalk, rocker switch, or push–button.

 

Supporting Rationale: Controls vary not only in terms of their functions, applications, and methods of operations, but also with respect to such characteristics as their relative space requirements, the likelihood of accidental activation, and the ease with which the position of the control can be identified. These characteristics should be considered when determining the method of operation and control type for secondary automotive controls.

Special Design Considerations: Selection of a control type is an iterative process, involving trade–offs between a variety of competing design concerns. In particular, control selection requires an analysis of the following driver–vehicle system considerations (adapted from Reference 1): (1) the function of the control, (2) the desired location of the control, (3) the requirement of the control task, (4) the vehicle environment, and (5) the consequence of driver error.

Cross References:

Control Movement Compatibility

Control Coding

Key References:

    1. Chapanis, A., & Kinkade, R. G. (1972). Design of controls. In H. P. Van Cott & R. G. Kinkade (Eds.), Human engineering guide to equipment design (rev. ed.) (pp. 345–379). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    2. Boff, K. R., & Lincoln, J. E. (Eds.). (1988). Engineering data compendium: Human perception and performance. Wright–Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory.

    3. Woodson, D. E., & Conover, D. W. (1964). Human engineering guide for equipment designers. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    4. MIL–STD–1472D. (1989). Human engineering design criteria for military systems, equipment and facilities. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

*Primarily expert judgement
**Expert judgement with supporting empirical data
***Empirical data with supporting expert judgement
****Primarily empirical data

 

Top

 

CONTROL MOVEMENT COMPATIBILITY

Introduction: Control movement compatibility refers to the expected relationships between control actuation movements and the corresponding movements or changes in the system being controlled. Making control movements consistent with the driver's expectations can decrease reaction times, learning times, and control errors, and increase driver satisfaction with the vehicle's controls.

Design Guidelines***

  • Control movements should correspond to the expectations of the user. See table below for recommended control–movement–to–system –function relationships.

  • Expectations for up–to–increase are probably stronger than those for clockwise–to–increase.

 

Recommended Control Movement–to–System Function Relationship

System Function

Control Movement

On

Up, right, forward, pull

Off

Down, left, rearward, push

Right

Clockwise, right

Left

Counterclockwise, left

Up

Up, rearward

Down

Down, forward

Increase

Up, right, forward, clockwise

Decrease

Down, left, rearward, counterclockwise

 

Supporting Rationale: The control–movement–to–system–function relationships are recommended based on a review of several different human factors sources (see References 1 and 2). The optimum direction of movement for a given control depends on a number of factors, including: (1) the position of the operator relative to the control, (2) the position and direction of movement of any associated display, (3) the change resulting from the control movement, and (4) the control–movement–to–system–function relationships for other controls that the driver uses.

Special Design Considerations: According to Reference 3, it may be necessary to violate one compatibility relationship in order to take advantage of another one in the design of a system. An example of this is the rotary stalk control. In order to increase some parameter using the left–hand stalk, the control must be rotated up or counterclockwise. Although up is the correct movement for increasing a system function, counterclockwise is not. Therefore, the designer must determine which of the driver's expectations is stronger or which can be violated without affecting the driver's ability to effectively use the system.

Cross References:

Selection of Control Type

Control Coding

Key References:

    1. Chapanis, A., & Kinkade, R. G. (1972). Design of controls. In H. P. Van Cott & R. G. Kinkade (Eds.), Human engineering guide to equipment design (rev. ed.) (pp. 345–379). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    2. Sanders, M. S., & McCormick, E. J. (1993). Human factors in engineering and design (5th ed.) New York: McGraw–Hill.

    3. Rogers, S. P., & Campbell, J. L. (1991). Guidelines for automobile hand control locations and actuations based upon driver expectancies and ergonomic principles (TR 947–1). Santa Barbara, CA: Anacapa Sciences, Inc.

*Primarily expert judgement
**Expert judgement with supporting empirical data
***Empirical data with supporting expert judgement
****Primarily empirical data

 

Top

 

CONTROL CODING

Introduction: Control coding refers to the design characteristics of controls that serve to identify the control or to identify the relationship between the control and the function to be controlled. Proper coding of controls will increase the probability that the controls will be quickly and accurately located by drivers, thus reducing the eyes–off–road time.

Design Guidelines***

Use one or more of the following design characteristics to identify controls:

  • Location Coding: In order to ensure discriminable and unique control locations, controls must be separated by distances that are sufficient to avoid confusion among positions (see table below entitled "Recommended Minimum Control Separation Distances").

  • Shape Coding: This is most effective when used in combination with location coding. Errors in the driver's hand position are indicated by the feel of the control.

  • Size Coding: This is most effective when used in combination with location coding. As many as two or three sizes can be used to discriminate controls. In general, size coding is most effective if the diameter of the outermost control is 1/2" (1.27 cm) larger than the next–closest control on the stalk.

 

Recommended Minimum Control Separation1 Distances

ntrol

Push-Buttons (No Array)

Push-Button Arrays

Rocker Switches

Toggle Switches

Thumb-Wheels

Discrete Rotary Controls

Continuous Rotary Controls

Push-Buttons

(No Array)

0.5 in

(1.27 cm)

2.0 in

(5.08 cm)

0.5 in

(1.27 cm)

0.5 in

(1.27 cm)

0.5 in

(1.27 cm)

0.5 in

(1.27 cm)

0.5 in

(1.27 cm)

Push-Button Arrays

2.0 in
(5.08 cm)

2.0 in
(5.08 cm)

1.5 in
(3.81 cm)

1.5 in
(3.81 cm)

1.5 in
(3.81 cm)

2.0 in
(5.08 cm)

2.0 in
(5.08 cm)

Rocker Switches

0.5 in
(1.27 cm)

1.5 in
(3.81 cm)

0.5 in
(1.27 cm)

0.75 in
(1.91 cm)

0.5 in
(1.27 cm)

0.5 in
(1.27 cm)

0.5 in
(1.27 cm)

Toggle Switches

0.5 in
(1.27 cm)

1.5 in
(3.81 cm)

0.75 in
(1.91 cm)

0.75 in
(1.91 cm)

0.5 in
(1.27 cm)

0.75 in
(1.91 cm)

0.75 in
(1.91 cm)

Thumb-Wheels

0.5 in
(1.27 cm)

1.5 in
(3.81 cm)

0.5 in
(1.27 cm)

0.5 in
(1.27 cm)

0.5 in
(1.27 cm)

0.75 in
(1.91 cm)

0.75 in
(1.91 cm)

Discrete Rotary Controls

0.5 in
(1.27 cm)

2.0 in
(5.08 cm)

0.5 in
(1.27 cm)

0.75 in
(1.91 cm)

0.75 in
(1.91 cm)

1.0 in
(2.54 cm)

1.0 in
(2.54 cm)

Continuous Rotary Controls

0.5 in
(1.27 cm)

2.0 in
(5.08 cm)

0.5 in
(1.27 cm)

0.75 in
(1.91 cm)

0.75 in
(1.91 cm)

1.0 in
(2.54 cm)

1.0 in
(2.54 cm)

1Separation is measured between the outermost adjacent edges.

 

Supporting Rationale: Several sources (see Reference 1 and 2) have provided recommendations for minimum distances between controls. Most of these recommendations have been developed for application in environments other than automobiles. However, they provide helpful information regarding location coding and avoidance of inadvertent activation of adjacent controls.

Shape coding is an effective way to increase the identifiability of controls and is most often used on rotary knobs. Most standard human factors references provide graphics showing knob shapes that are rarely confused with one another. See Reference 3 for some of these knob designs.

Size coding is most appropriate when ganged controls are used (i.e., two or more knobs mounted on concentric shafts). Different knob diameters must be used if the ganged controls are to be discriminable from one another. In automobiles, for example, volume and tone controls on the radio system are often ganged. Suggestions for different knob dimensions can be found in References 2 and 4.

There are three methods of texture coding that are rarely confused with one another: smooth, fluted (horizontal lines), and knurled (crisscross pattern). However, different methods and amounts of either fluting or knurling may be confused with each other.

Special Design Considerations: Because drivers are most often operating in–vehicle controls without taking their eyes off the roadway, it is important that they be as easy to locate and activate as possible. Coding can be extremely helpful for accomplishing this. However, in situations where gloves are used, redundant coding using colors and labels may become necessary.

Cross References:

Selection of Control Type

Control Movement Compatibility

Key References:

    1. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (1981). Guidelines for control room design reviews (NUREG–0700). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    2. Boff, K. R., & Lincoln, J. E. (Eds.). (1988). Engineering data compendium: Human perception and performance. Wright–Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Armstrong Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory.

    3. Hunt, D. P. (1953). The coding of aircraft controls (Technical Report 53–221). Wright–Patterson Air Force Base, OH: Wright Air Development Center.

    4. MIL–STD–1472D. (1989). Human engineering design criteria for military systems, equipment, and facilities. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

*Primarily expert judgement
**Expert judgement with supporting empirical data
***Empirical data with supporting expert judgement
****Primarily empirical data

 

Top

 

SELECTION OF KEYBOARDS FOR ATIS DEVICES

Introduction: Selection of keyboards for ATIS devices refers to trade–offs and heuristics associated with fixed–function vs. variable–function keyboards. As discussed in Reference 1, examples of a fixed–function keyboard include cash register terminals and hand–held calculators; examples of a variable–function keyboard include keyboards for video games with different controls for different games, shifted keys of computer keyboards, and, in general, "soft" keys that can be changed via software control.

Design Guidelines** (From Reference 1)

Use fixed–function keyboards when:

  • One set of functions is frequently employed

  • Functions must be executed quickly

  • Correct function selection is critical

Use variable–function keyboards when:

  • Several subsets of functions are frequently used

  • Pacing of entries is not forced

  • Sophisticated prompting and feedback are available

 

Advantages and Disadvantages of Fixed– and Variable–Function Keyboards (from Reference 1)

 

Fixed–Function Keyboards

Variable–Function Keyboards

Advantages

Simplicity of operation

Function is evident from key

Minimal software support

Logical key grouping

Fewer keys

Less visual search

Less arm/hand movement

Can be modified by software changes

Disadvantages

Numerous functions require numerous keys

Frequent visual search

Frequent arm/hand movement

Changes require hardware modification

Increased function selection time

Decreased clarity of key labeling

Increased prompting and feedback requirements

Increased training requirements

 

Supporting Rationale: The guidelines provided above reflect a review and analysis of fixed– vs. variable–function keyboards reported in Reference 1. They reflect common usage of both fixed– and variable–function keyboards, as well as general heuristics for their selection.

Special Design Considerations: It may be desirable to design ATIS devices so that they include both fixed– and variable–function keyboard elements. Functions that are common across ATIS tasks such as "Enter" or "Back" or "On/Off" might best be accomplished by using dedicated, fixed–function (or "hard") controls. Functions that involve selecting from among alternatives that vary from task to task (selection of: system functions, map scale, travel mode, etc.) might be best accomplished by using nondedicated, variable–function (or "soft") controls.

Also, while many devices can provide the driver with the ability to communicate with an ATIS (e.g., touch screens, speech controls, trackballs, push–buttons), keyboards are best for tasks that involve great amounts of text input, such as entering addresses for Routing and Navigation applications or entering preferences and services selection information for Motorist Services applications.

Cross References:

Selection of Control Type

Key References:

    1. Greenstein, J. S., & Arnaut, L. Y. (1987). Chapter 11.4: Human factors aspects of manual computer input devices. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors (pp. 1450–1489). New York: J. Wiley & Sons, Inc.

*Primarily expert judgement
**Expert judgement with supporting empirical data
***Empirical data with supporting expert judgement
****Primarily empirical data

 

Top

 

DESIGN OF SPEECH–BASED CONTROLS

Introduction: Design of speech–based controls refers to systems that recognize human speech and treat speech commands as inputs to the ATIS system. As discussed in Reference 1, automatic speech recognition (ASR) systems may be characterized with respect to three sets of design characteristics. First, speaker–dependent systems recognize speech from only one speaker that has been calibrated to the system; speaker–independent systems can recognize speech from many speakers. Second, isolated word recognition systems require that speakers provide a pause or gap between words in a message; continuous speech recognition systems do not require any pause between words. Third, ASR systems vary with respect to the size of the vocabulary that they recognize.

Design Guidelines**

  • Speech controls should be used to aid complex tasks that involve high cognitive, visual, and/or manual requirements.

  • Vocabulary sets for ASR systems should be familiar to drivers and should avoid using similar–sounding words or phrases.

  • Drivers should be provided with immediate feedback of the recognition results or the system's response to the speech input.

 

Issues to Consider When Designing ASR Systems

Task–Related Issues

Environment–Related Issues

Operator–Related Issues

  • Single versus Dual Task

  • Workload

  • Head Movement Requirements

  • Driving Situation (e.g., effects of stress)

  • Requirements for Feedback

  • Vocabulary Requirements

  • External Noise (e.g., traffic, road noise)

  • Internal Noise (e.g., entertainment system, conversation)

  • Vibration

  • Acceleration/Deceleration G–forces

  • Age

  • Articulation

  • Regional Accents

  • Level of Training

  • Gender

 

Supporting Rationale: Reference 2 provides considerable discussion of issues and research related to speech controls; the guidelines presented above have been adapted from design principles presented in Reference 2 and, to a lesser extent, Reference 1. The guidelines presented above reflect limited experience in the use of speech as a control device from two technical domains: (1) military information systems and flight control, and (2) the telecommunications field. Case studies and anecdotal results from several applications of speechcontrols can be found in References 1 and 2. Although various commercial speech recognition systems have been developed for automotive applications, published empirical results are few and have not always provided consistent design guidance.

Special Design Considerations: As noted in Reference 2, key issues in the design and implementation of ASR systems include:

  • Recognition accuracy: Lower accuracies will reduce system performance and user acceptance.

  • Background noise: Ambient noise (traffic, radio, speech displays) can interfere with ASR system performance.

  • Speech variability: Human speech varies considerably with respect to volume, frequency, pitch, and tone under different conditions. Speech variability can contribute to reduced recognition of speech.

  • Task selection: Selection of tasks for which speech should be used must reflect task characteristics and a clear understanding of the trade–offs associated with using speech controls vs. manual controls.

Cross References:

ATIS Design for Special Populations

Key References:

    1. McMillan, G. R., Eggleston, R. G., & Anderson, T. R. (1997). Nonconventional controls. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (pp. 729– 771). New York: J. Wiley & Sons.

    2. Simpson, C. A., McCauley, M. E., Roland, E. F., Ruth, J. C., & Williges, B. H. (1987). Speech controls and displays. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors (pp. 549–574). New York: J. Wiley & Sons.

*Primarily expert judgement
**Expert judgement with supporting empirical data
***Empirical data with supporting expert judgement
****Primarily empirical data

 

Top

 

PROVIDING DESTINATION PREVIEW CAPABILITY

Introduction: Providing destination preview capability refers to providing the user with the capability to recenter (slew) the map and to change the range scale (magnification) to enable full preview of route details. The user of an electronic map displaying route information may desire to preview the origin, destination, or any segment of the route. The system design should, however, distinguish clearly between a recentered map mode (i.e., vehicle in center of display) and the normal display mode (i.e., vehicle moves relative to stationary map) showing current position of the user/vehicle. Failure to clearly distinguish between these two modes can result in confusion about current location.

Design Guidelines**

Allow ATIS users to preview a detailed depiction of the destination or other key nodes or segments of a planned route. This capability can be provided by the combination of a map recentering (slew) function and a map scale (magnification) function.

Function

Map Slew/Recenter

Map Scale Control

Map Mode Status Indicator or Lock–Out

Description

Car in Center of Display, Geographic Definition, Definition of Map Segment

Control of X, Y Scaling in Miles/Kilometers

Caution When Not Vehicle–Centered

Example Implementation

Touchscreen, or Joystick, or Trackball

Multistage Toggle Button or Knob, Up and Down Arrows

Indicator Light, Recenter Button or Function Available Only When Stopped

 

Grand View of Long Route; Detailed View of One Node Recentered

Grand View of Long Route; Detailed View of One Node Recentered

 

Important Note: The map display depicted above is provided solely to augment this Design Guideline by illustrating general design principles. It may not be suitable for your immediate application without modification.

Supporting Rationale: As described in Reference 1, the utility of electronic maps is multiplied by incorporating the combination of a map scale control and recenter function. The combination of scale control and a recentering function enables the user to preview any area of the map in greater detail. The user can have a Ahigh level overview of a long route or a closer look at more detailed features pertinent to turns, areas of potential navigation errors, the destination, or other areas of interest. With the magnified view, the map must be recentered to achieve a detailed view of a more distant map location.

Special Design Considerations: In–vehicle navigation displays typically depict the vehicle near the center of the display screen. When the user recenters the map, the vehicle symbol will no longer be in the normal location relative to the screen. This can lead to user confusion about current vehicle location, particularly if the user=s attention is turned elsewhere after recentering. The benefits derived from empowering users to recenter the map must be weighed against the potential for misinterpretations of current location. Protection against this type of error can be designed into the system by displaying a caution indicator or by locking out the recenter function when the vehicle is in motion. If users are allowed to slew or recenter the map while in motion, a simple one–button return to the normal, user–vehicle–centered mode is recommended. A mode that allows the vehicle to always remain in the center of the screen may also be provided.

Cross References:

Selection of Control Type

Control Movement Compatibility

Key References:

    1. Clarke, D. L., McCauley, M. E., Sharkey, T. J., Dingus, T. A., & Lee, J. D. (1996). Development of human factors guidelines for advanced traveler information systems and commercial vehicle operations: Comparable systems analysis. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA –RD–95–197).

*Primarily expert judgement
**Expert judgement with supporting empirical data
***Empirical data with supporting expert judgement
****Primarily empirical data

 

Top

 

FHWA-RD-98-057

 

Previous | Table of Contents | Next

 

Privacy Policy | Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) | Accessibility | Web Policies & Notices | No Fear Act | Report Waste, Fraud and Abuse
U.S. DOT Home | USA.gov | WhiteHouse.gov

Federal Highway Administration | 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE | Washington, DC 20590 | 202-366-4000
Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center | 6300 Georgetown Pike | McLean, VA | 22101