The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year.
Designing HMI for BVI Users in Fully Automated Vehicles: A Participatory and In-the-field Approach
Abstract
Fully Automated Vehicles (FAVs) have the potential to provide blind and visually impaired (BVI) individuals with mobility independence. However, understanding their user experience in this new form of transportation presents challenges. Researchers in human-computer interaction and accessibility lack comprehensive guidance on conducting safe and ecologically valid studies with BVI participants. This poster reviews the literature and proposes a methodology for conducting field research with BVI users in automated vehicles, particularly in designing the human-machine interface (HMI) for FAVs. We present the participatory and in-the-field method with example study designs: a focus group for field study and an on-road driving study with a Wizard of Oz FAV. This method will assist researchers in gaining deeper insights into the interaction between BVI users and automated vehicles in the real world.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Although the majority of accessibility focused BLV projects have primarily concerned the in-vehicle stage of AV travel [2, 3, 7, 10, 12, 16, 17]”
From Get In Touch with Your Seat: Accessible Seat Localization for Blind and Low Vision Travelers in Autonomous Shuttles (2026) · cites this paper as [16]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 19
- 10.1145/2799250.2799288 · DOI
- 10.1145/3234695.3236347 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/3290605.3300425 · DOI
- 10.1145/3372280 · DOI
- 10.1080/10447318.2018.1561787 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/3132525.3132532 · DOI · Paper page
- Joost de Winter, P.M. Leeuwen, and Riender Happee. 2012. Advantages and disadvantages of driving simulators: a discussion. In Proceedings of Measuring Behavior 2012 (Utrecht, The Netherlands). Measuring Behavior, Wageningen, NL, 47–50.
- 10.1145/3409120.3410662 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.neulet.2021.136103 · DOI
- 10.1145/3173574.3174186 · DOI
- 10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30488-5 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1145/3544548.3580762 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1068/p090183 · DOI
- 10.1145/3517428.3551355 · DOI
- 10.1080/10447318.2014.959104 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.tra.2021.06.014 · DOI
- 10.1145/3659618 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.trip.2022.100630 · DOI
- SAE International. 2021. Taxonomy and definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles. https://doi.org/10.4271/J3016_202104 · DOI
Cited by
D. S. Fink, P., R Brown, J., M Movalia, R., J James, K., E Kastelein, M., Bond, J., E Andrulis, M., & A Giudice, N. (2026) · Proceedings of the Extended Abstracts of the 2026 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772363.3798714
Metadata
- Authors
- Ma, Z., Schroeter, R., & Gomez, R.
- Affiliations
- Queensland University of Technology (AU)
- School of Design, Queensland University of Technology, Australia
- Venue
- The 26th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2024-10-27
- Pages
- 1-5
- OpenAlex
- W4403576906
- Cited by
- 4
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2
- FWCI
- 2.69
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
- Social Sciences › Human Factors and Ergonomics › Digital Accessibility for Disabilities
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Occupational Therapy › Assistive Technology in Communication and Mobility
- Keywords
- blind and visually impaired users, fully automated vehicles, human-machine interface design, accessibility, participatory design, field methods, Wizard of Oz, user experience, independent mobility
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
