Design of Automotive HMI: New Challenges in Enhancing User Experience, Safety, and Security
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article under review provides an overview of automotive UX trends as well as challenges in the field of safety and security. It summarizes current research and gives examples of different systems of different manufacturers. It also advocates a standardized concept for safety and makes a proposal for the content of this concept.
In principle, I found the idea of the current research interesting and I think it addresses important and timely topics. However, I believe the article lacks structure and I found it hard to identify a clear story and message while reading it. Some topics are addressed over and over in different places and contexts, and I did not understand how the different subsections relate to each other. Although, or maybe because, so many vastly different topics are brushed upon and countless examples are given but not put into context, I doubt that the article in its current form adds knowledge to the existing literature beyond listing information found elsewhere. In think the basics are there, but the paper would have to be substantially revised and streamlined to make a concise and meaningful contribution to the knowledge base.
Specific comments:
- The term “autonomous” is a misnomer (see SAE J3016R) and I recommend not to use it
- Figure 1 is in my opinion not a representation of a typical HMI, since many of the technologies illustrated there are not yet widely available.
- Section 3.1: The NHTSA guidelines summary is imprecise and incomplete, suggest to rework.
- The term AI is used extensively throughout the paper, and, in my opinion, to broadly. Many of the examples listed are simple routines and algorithms.
- I think the statement that the “biggest risk for AVs is the possibility of encountering something it has never seen or experienced before” warrants an explanation, otherwise it seems overly generalizing to me.
- I strongly doubt that in “traditional vehicles, the criticality of the HMI was therefore rather limited, they just had to transmit the information correctly from the driver to the vehicle without error”. This contradicts decades of research on human factors and vehicle interface design (and it also contradicts many of the points made earlier in the paper).
- What is the reasoning behind the points raised in 5.2.3? To me, this section seems to come out of nowhere.
I think the paper would benefit from language editing.
Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper presents a state-of art on the design of automative HMI. There is an extensive
literature review supported by several recent publications in the area. With a good analysis
and structured description about the current situation of HMI in automative vehicles,
authors contribute with some considerations and eventual improvements.
No innovative solutions are presented, however there is a substantial contribution to the
scientific community with a well-organized and written document that can be used by
other researchers to develop solutions that can accomplish some of the considerations
posed by authors in issues like HMI security, safety, and user interfaces interactions.
In the introductory section authors clearly indicate that the presented paper is a systematic
review of the literature with qualitative data. As indicated by authors, the goal of the paper
is to familiarize readers with the newest works and trends in that area. This is clearly
accomplished since all issues presented are commented on and supported with recent
and relevant bibliography. The indication of standards, such as the ISO 15007 and ISO
9231-110, denote the knowledge of authors about the thematic under analysis.
Besides the introductory section, in section 3 the paper starts providing an overview of
current automative HMI displays. With well selected figures, authors describe some of the
most advanced systems used in automative displays. It was supported by this section that
authors describe some principals that should be considered in the HMI designs. Besides a
good description of these principles, figure 3 resumes in a well-structured diagram the
main issues to consider in the user experience design of an automative HMI. This figure 3
can be seen as the most important diagram of the paper since it resumes the principles
that are described and commented on the paper. Here it could be an added value to
readers, if authors could clearly identify where does the indicated standards (ISO 15007
and ISO 9231-110) answer the issues of connectivity, safety and multimodality presented in
the diagram of figure 3.
Section 4 describes some examples of current technological innovations in the HMI
designs, always supported by adequate references to papers, and illustrative images.
Mapping these descriptions to the diagram of figure 3, could also bring readers a clearer
idea where does the technological innovations fits in the indicated 3 issues (multimodality,
connectivity and safety).
After the descriptions made in sections 2, 3 and 4, in sections 5, 6 and 7 authors
concentrate their research on the new challenges to the HMI design. In these sections
authors describe the issues indicated in figure 3 and provide some comments about future
challenges. However, section 8 describes another new challenge, namely the “enhancing
emotion connection”, that is not mapped in figure 3. I would suggest mapping this new
challenge in figure 3. In other words: where does the Enhancing Emotional Connection fits
in the issues presented in the diagram of figure 3 ?. Another aspect that I suggest authors
improve is to change the title of section 7 “Multi-modal Interaction” to the same name
indicated in figure 3, i.e., “multimodality”. In this way it will be evident that the diagram of
figure 3, is the basis for all the descriptions and comments of the remaining sections of the
paper, giving it a clearer structure.
I also suggest the authors consider joining section 9 and section 10 in a single one, since
both provide general conclusions. “Conclusions and future challenges” could be a title for
this section.
Another issue that authors should improve are figures 7 and 8. The pictures on those
figures are very difficult to see, since they are very small. Can you delete some of the
pictures, emphasizing only the relevant aspects?
Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe major flaw of this manuscript, in my opinion, is the absence of a research methodology. Why is this missing? How was the referenced work selected? "Newest works and trends", for instance, is too vague.
In the absence of a methodology for this research, it’s impossible for me to evaluate the comprehensiveness of the review. How much of the relevant literature was actually covered? Probably an important part was covered (I do appreciate the work), but this must be demonstrated. It’s also important for a reader to be able to understand potential selection biases (why certain works were included while others were omitted). Let alone the opportunity to replicate or build upon the review in future work, or trust that the conclusions are based on a rigorous approach.
This flaw also reduces my chance to understand the novelty and importance of the work: how does this review differ from, or builds upon, existing literature reviews in this domain? In the end, the contribution to knowledge becomes questionable without transparency about how that knowledge was assembled.
Moreover, while industry innovations are definitely valuable, without an explicit methodology / research framework it’s difficult to distinguish between industry developments and genuine advancements in the scientific literature regarding automotive UX. The manuscript should delineate commercial implementations from research prototypes, and establish how the literature was systematically surveyed to identify emerging scholarly trends in automotive UXD. I would expect such a review to establish which automotive UX concepts in the literature represent truly novel research frontiers versus commercially implemented technologies.
Other less important remarks:
- “cutting-edge innovations such as AI (Artificial Intelligence), AR (Augmented Reality), and gesture-based controls” – they’re more and more common, so I would avoid attributes like “cutting edge”
- the authors say: “this study highlights how effective HMIs minimize cognitive load while maintaining functionality” and “underscores the importance of adhering to global standards” – but isn’t this some sort of “basics” of UXD?
- the reference list: many of the references are recent; coverage is decent for HCI and automotive, but key UX and human factors journals could be better represented (as the manuscript is a review)
- introduction, row 32 (“pressing need to ensure that these systems are seamlessly integrated and aligned with user expectations”) – but shouldn’t users also adapt “their expectations” to the new / innovative / cutting-edge technologies (I mean ADAS or AVs)? This may also be challenging in UXD
- I recommend replacing “paper” with “review” throughout the manuscript
- row 89, current trends in automotive HMI – “need of personalization” not mentioned / considered, though it becomes more and more important
Consider my recommendation regarding (this form of) the manuscript as a "Improve and Resubmit" instead of a Reject.
Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn my opinion, the authors have tried to adress all comments and improved the paper substantially in the process.
I am still not completely sure what the main purpose and message of the paper is and think the contribution may have a bigger impact if both are elaborated more clearly, which I would suggest, but I think as a literature overview the paper may be an interesting reference for those researchers or readers looking for a general overview of the topic.
Author Response
pdf file with answers attached
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI appreciate the improvements to the manuscript. I do insist, however, on the need to have a clear logical flow of the research.
I strongly recommend that the authors state what the research methodology is, rather than what it is not (Subsection 1.2). The manuscript appears to be a narrative review, and while such reviews offer more flexibility than systematic approaches, methodological guidance exists in the literature, and I consider the authors should adhere to it. And I believe a clear theoretical framework, guiding the review process, would significanlty increase the manuscript’s quality, even within the more flexible structure of a narrative review. Additionally, explicitly stated research questions would provide necessary focus to guide the narrative synthesis.
Further recommendations:
I recommend avoiding expressions like “the most appropriate sources" (row 69) without clearly defining what makes a source "appropriate".
For consistency with academic terminology, use "review" rather than "review paper" throughout the manuscript (the work is a "review," not a "paper").
In the abstract (line 9), I recommend retaining only “rapidly evolving” and removing “mature” for AI and AR. Also please revise the final sentence of the abstract for clarity, as its current wording is ambiguous.
Author Response
pdf file with answers attached
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
