1、SAE Technical Standards Board Rules provide that: “This report is published by SAE to advance the state of technical and engineering sciences. The use of this report is entirelyvoluntary, and its applicability and suitability for any particular use, including any patent infringement arising therefro
2、m, is the sole responsibility of the user.”SAE reviews each technical report at least every five years at which time it may be reaffirmed, revised, or cancelled. SAE invites your written comments and suggestions.TO PLACE A DOCUMENT ORDER: +1 (724) 776-4970 FAX: +1 (724) 776-0790SAE WEB ADDRESS http:
3、/www.sae.orgCopyright 2002 Society of Automotive Engineers, Inc.All rights reserved. Printed in U.S.A.SURFACEVEHICLE400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001RECOMMENDEDPRACTICEJ2365ISSUEDMAY2002Issued 2002-05Calculation of the Time to Complete In-Vehicle Navigation and Route Guidance TasksFo
4、rewordA measure of usability and safety of a product is the time required to use that product to complete tasksof interest (Rubin, 1994). There is considerable data on task completion times for conventional controls anddisplays such as the headlights, windshield wipers, the speedometer, the fuel gau
5、ge, and audio systems(Kurokawa, 1990; Green, 1999d). Current evidence is that navigation and route guidance systems have somefunctions that can take significantly more time to use than conventional controls and displays (Kurokawa, 1990;Green, 1999a,c; Tijerina, Parmer, and Goodman, 1998). Furthermor
6、e, at various points in the design of a product,there may be alternative user interfaces under consideration, and ease of use (as measured by task completiontime) should be one of the selection criteria. Therefore, the determination of task completion time is useful. Task completion times can be det
7、ermined using a sample of drivers to complete tasks of interest. However, thatprocess may require a completed design, available only late in development, and obtaining a suitable driversample may be cumbersome. As an alternative, the method described in this recommended practice may be usedto calcul
8、ate static total task times, early in the design.TABLE OF CONTENTS1. Scope . 22. References . 22.1 Applicable Publications 22.2 Related Publications . 33. Definitions. 54. Calculation Method. 6Appendix A Operator Times 9Appendix B Calculation Example . 10Appendix C Tabular Summary of Example Calcula
9、tion . 19Copyright SAE International Provided by IHS under license with SAENot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-SAE J2365 Issued MAY2002-2-1. ScopeThis SAE Recommended Practice applies to both Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) andaftermarket route-guid
10、ance and navigation system functions for passenger vehicles. This recommendedpractice provides a method for calculating the time required to complete navigation system-related tasks.These estimates may be used as an aid to assess the safety and usability of alternative navigation and routeguidance s
11、ystem interfaces to assist in their design. This document does not consider voice-activatedcontrols, voice output from the navigation system, communication between the driver and others, or passengeroperation.2. References2.1 Applicable PublicationsThe following publications form a part of this spec
12、ification to the extent specifiedherein.2.1.1 ACM PUBLICATIONAvailable from Association for Computing Machinery, Headquarters Office, One AstorPlaza, 1515 Broadway, New York, NY 10036-5701, Tel: (+1) 212-869-7440, www.acm.org.Card, S.K., Moran, T.P., and Newell, A. (1980). The Keystroke-Level Model
13、for User Performance Timewith Interactive Systems, Communications of the ACM, July, 23(7), 396-410.2.1.2 LAWRENCE ERLBAUM A SSOCIATES AND HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION PUBLICATIONSAvailable fromLawrence Earlbaum Associates, http:/ 10 Industrial Avenue, Mahway, NJ 07430P2262,Fax: (+1) 201-236-0072/Toll
14、Free, 1-800-9-BOOKS-9.Card, S.K., Moran, T.P., and Newell, A. (1983). The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction,Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Olson, J.R. and Nilsen, E. (1987-1988). Analysis of the Cognition Involved in Spreadsheet SoftwareInteraction, Human-Computer Interaction, 3,
15、309-349.2.1.3 INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SOCIETY OF A MERICA P UBLICATIONAvailable from Intelligent TransportationSociety of America (ITSA), http:/www.itsa.org/, 400 Virginia Avenue SW., Suite 800, Washington, DC20024-2730, Tel: (+1) 202-484-4847 Fax: (+1) 202-484-3483.Green, P. (1999a). The 15-Seco
16、nd Rule for Driver Information Systems, ITS America Ninth AnnualMeeting Conference Proceedings, Washington, D.C.: Intelligent Transportation Society of America,(CD-ROM).2.1.4 HUMAN F ACTORS AND ERGONOMICS S OCIETYAvailable from Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, http:/hfes.org, Box 1369, Santa Mo
17、nica, CA 90496-1369, Tel: (+1) 310-394-1811, Fax: (+1) 310-394-2410.Green, P. (1999b). Estimating Compliance with the 15-Second Rule for Driver-Interface Usability andSafety, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 43rd Annual Meeting, SantaMonica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics So
18、ciety (CD-ROM).2.1.5 UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH INSTITUTE PUBLICATIONSAvailable from theUniversity of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, www.umtri.umich.edu, 2901 Baxter Road, AnnArbor, MI 48109-2105 USA, Tel: (+1) 734-764-2172, Fax: (+1) 734-936-1081.Green, P. (1999c).
19、Navigation System Data Entry: Estimation of Task Times (Technical Report UMTRI-99-17), Ann Arbor, MI, The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.Green, P. (1999d). Visual and Task Demands of Driver Information Systems (Technical Report UMTRI-98-16), Ann Arbor, MI: The University of
20、 Michigan Transportation Research Institute.Manes, D., Green, P., and Hunter, D. (1998). Prediction of Destination Entry and Retrieval Times UsingKeystroke-Level Models, (Technical Report UMTRI-96-37, also released as EECS-ITS LAB FT97-077), Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Transportation R
21、esearch Institute.Copyright SAE International Provided by IHS under license with SAENot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking permitted without license from IHS-,-SAE J2365 Issued MAY2002-3-Nowakowski, C. and Green, P. (2000). Prediction of Menu Selection Times Parked and While DrivingUsing the SA
22、E J2365 Method (Technical Report 2000-49), Ann Arbor, MI, The University of MichiganTransportation Research Institute. Nowakowski, C., Utsui, Y., and Green, P. (2000). Navigation System Evaluation: The Effects of DriverWorkload and Input Devices on Destination Entry Time and Driving Performance and
23、TheirImplications to the SAE Recommended Practice (Technical Report UMTRI-2000-20), Ann Arbor, MI,The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute.2.1.6 NORTH HOLLAND PUBLICATIONAvailable from North Holland Publishing, c/o Elsevier Science, http:/www.elsevier.nl/, Elsevier Science, Regio
24、nal Sales Office, Customer Support Department, P.O., Box 945,New York, NY 10159-0945 USA, Tel: (+1) 212-633-3730, Toll-Free number for North American customers:1-888-4ES-INFO (437-4636), Fax: (+1) 212-633-3680.Kieras, D. E. (1997). A Guide to GOMS Model Usability Evaluation Using NGOMSL. In M. Helan
25、der, T.Landauer, and P. Prabhu (Eds.), Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction. (Second Edition).Amsterdam: North-Holland, 733-766.2.1.7 VIRGINIA POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE AND STATE UNIVERSITY PUBLICATIONAvailable from UMI, 300 North ZeebRoad, P.O. Box 1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346.Kurokawa, K. (1990).
26、Development of an Evaluation Program for Automotive Instrument Panel Design(unpublished Ph.D. dissertation), Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.2.1.8 WILEY PUBLICATIONAvailable from Wiley, http:/ Corporate Headquarters, 605 Third Avenue,New York, NY 10158-0012, Tel:
27、(+1) 212-850-6000, Fax: (+1) 212-850-6088.Rubin, J. (1994). Handbook of Usability Testing, New York, NY: Wiley.2.1.9 MCGRAW-HILL P UBLICATIONAvailable from McGraw-Hill, General Customer Service, The McGraw-HillCompanies, P.O. Box 182604, Columbus, OH 43272, Tel: (+1) 877-833-5524, Fax: (+1) 614-759-
28、3759, http:/mcgraw-.Schwab, J.L. (1971). Methods Time Measurement (section 5, chapter 2) in Maynard, H.B (ed). IndustrialEngineering Handbook, New York: McGraw-Hill.2.1.10 VERTIS PUBLICATIONAvailable from Intelligent Transportation Society of America (ITSA), http:/www.itsa.org/ 400 Virginia Avenue S
29、W., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20024-2730, Tel: (+1) 202-484-4847Fax: (+1) 202-484-3483.Tijerina, L., Parmer, E., greater magnification of a map display; determining the location of a point of interest; and canceling routeguidance.3.7 Subgoal Change in system or device state necessary to achieve a go
30、al. Examples include reach to adevice, entering a street name, entering a street address.3.8 TaskSequence of control operations (i.e., a specific method) leading to a goal or subgoal at which the driverwill normally persist until the goal is reached. Example: Obtaining guidance by entering a street
31、address usingthe scrolling list method until route guidance is initiated.3.9 MethodDescription of how a goal is accomplished. Example, a location might be entered using (1) thestreet address method (entering the city, street, building number, and routing criteria) or (2) the intersectionmethod (ente
32、ring the city, the first street name, the second street name, and routing criteria).3.10 Total Task TimeTime to complete a task. 3.11 Static Total Task TimeTotal task time measured in a stationary vehicle, buck, or mock-up in which asubject is only performing the task of interest.3.12 Computationall
33、y-Interrupted TaskTask where the driver must wait 1.5 seconds or more for the driverinterface to respond to a driver input in order to complete a task, such as when an off-board computer isqueried.3.13 In MotionWhen a vehicles speed exceeds the minimum nonzero speed that can be reliably detected by
34、thevehicles sensors.3.14 OperatorAn elementary perceptual, physical, or cognitive action. Example: a key stroke, a reach, or amental operation (see Appendix A for a Table of Operator Times).Copyright SAE International Provided by IHS under license with SAENot for ResaleNo reproduction or networking
35、permitted without license from IHS-,-SAE J2365 Issued MAY2002-6-3.15 ShortcutAn alternative method by which a task may be completed more quickly. EXAMPLEFor the PathMaster navigation interface, when a city is being selected, recently visited citiesappear before the alphabetical list of cities. 3.16
36、Pseudo codeDescription of a computer program that utilizes English (or some other natural language)phrases (e.g., add a to b, compute the square room of the sum) in a structure similar to that of a programminglanguage (usually an indented outline). Pseudo code lacks the syntax rules of formal comput
37、er languagessuch as BASIC or C and is not intended to compile. Pseudo code is often a precursor to formal coding.4. Calculation Method4.1 OverviewThe calculation method is based on the goals, operators, methods and selection rules (GOMS)model described by Card, Moran, and Newell (1980, 1983). For ba
38、ckground on the calculation method seeGreen (1999b,d).The basic approach involves top-down, successive decomposition of a task. The analyst divides the task intological steps. For each step the analyst identifies the human and device task operators. Sometimes analystsget stuck using this approach be
39、cause they are not sure how to divide a task into steps. In those cases,utilizing a bottom-up approach may overcome such roadblocks.The GOMS approach assumes error-free performance, well-learned tasks, and particular locations of controls,assumptions typically violated in the operation of motor vehi
40、cles. Modifications have been made to the GOMSmodel (e.g., Kieras, 1997) to improve the accuracy of the method and adjust the parameters to more closelyapproximate the task times in motor vehicles.More specifically, the general process is:4.1.1 OBTAIN EITHER: a working prototype of the interface; or
41、 a simulation of the interface; ora videotape of a user operating the interface; or a step-by-step operational description. Also obtain the city and street database used, as well as any other data the system might access (e.g.,dynamic traffic information). Supporting documentation (e.g., quick refer
42、ence card, user manual) is alsohelpful.4.1.2 Identify the goals (e.g., enter a street address, enter an intersection).4.1.3 For each goal, identify the associated other subgoals to achieve it. Goals may be at multiple levels.4.1.4 For each goal and subgoal, identify the methods (e.g., the list searc
43、h method) used to achieve them.Document the methods with a detailed explanation.4.1.4.1 AdviceThe videotape assists in the accurate analysis of the methods used by subjects. Videotapesprovide a useful record of screen actions, example screens and when a user pauses for a mentaloperation, pauses that
44、 analysts may omit when then just think about what users might do. Whenrecording, be sure the camera is perpendicular to the test screen and interference due to the users hand isminimized. Also make sure the image is closely cropped around the display so the change of singlecharacters is readily app
45、arent on the recording. Using a second camera viewing from the side andpainting the sides of switches contrasting colors makes the depression of short throw switches easier tosee on the recording.Copyright SAE International Provided by IHS under license with SAENot for ResaleNo reproduction or netwo
46、rking permitted without license from IHS-,-SAE J2365 Issued MAY2002-7-4.1.5 Convert the detailed explanation of the methods into a computer-program like format (pseudo code).4.1.6 Identify the computational assumptions with regard to users knowledge of various methods of taskcompletion (Table 1).TAB
47、LE 1COMPUTATIONAL ASSUMPTIONSAnalysis Assumption Comments Adjustment to AnalysisError-free performance The computational method assumes drivers start with accurate and complete information about the destination and do not make any mistakes in entering information. In fact, errors can be quite high,
48、ranging from 10 to 50 % of the trials. Rather than attempting to determine the probability of each error and the time to correct it, the completion time can be increased by 25% to account for typical performance.Routine cognitive task The method assumes that drivers know what to do at each step. How
49、ever, navigation system use is not a highly learned task for some drivers and drivers sometimes forget what to do. Model estimates are improved by including additional mental operations where forgetting is likely to occur (Card, Moran and Newell, 1983). Adjustments for forgetting should be based on empirical analysis or using expert rules.Automotive context(The original model was developed for predicting task times in an office.)The position of a
