Participatory prototyping to inform the development of a remote UX design system in automotive

This study reports on empirical findings of participatory design workshops for the 1 development of a supportive user experience design system in the automotive. Identifying and 2 addressing this area with traditional research methods is problematic due to the different UX design 3 perspectives that might be conflicting and the related automotive domain limitations. To help resolve 4 this problem, we conducted research with 12 User Experience (UX) designers through individual 5 participatory prototyping activities to gain insights on their explicit, observable, tacit and latent 6 needs. These activities allowed us to explore their motivation to use different technologies; the 7 system’s architecture; detailed features of interactivity and describe user needs including Efficiency, 8 Effectiveness, Engagement, Naturalness, Ease of Use, Information retrieval, Self-Image awareness, 9 Politeness, and Flexibility. Our analysis led us to design implications that translate participants’ 10 needs into UX design goals, informing practitioners on how to develop relevant systems further. 11

and the effectiveness of remote system include studies in social presence. These studies suggest that 142 to communicate effectively, one should match the social presence of the medium with the level of 143 personal involvement and attention of the communication task [21]. For example, when the medium 144 allows teleconferencing, employees are more aware of others' status and reactions, they are more 145 cautious about their self-image and behaviors [27]. on the interactive experience. Designers and researchers [17,28,29], generally agree that context is [4] is summarizing the so-called deficiencies which affect automotive design and communication. 164 These include the distortion of the experience by the physical presence of the researcher in the car; 165 Secondly intrusiveness regarding privacy as well as minimization of the effort of traditional contextual 166 methods; Thus, the avoidance of cognitive effort, safety, and privacy of the driver/passenger while the 167 interaction takes place. Thirdly avoidance of the motion sickness effect of the researcher taking notes 168 inside the car.

169
Finally, we cannot neglect the fact that the communication involves two people, a 170 researcher/designer, and a driver/passenger. Designing to support this communication also relies on generation and concept design; they are characterized by the presence of non-designers(experts) as 182 participants and led by designers [34].

183
In the past participatory design results including narratives, games, and constructions have been 184 applied under different contexts [35]. In Co-design, a form of empathic design, the participants are 185 active design partners. Researchers who introduced design for experiences [36] were also the ones who 186 inspired the co-design movement. As previously explained, make Tools and generative techniques

187
[37] are used to access people's feelings, dreams, and imaginations and delve deeper into the explicit, 188 observable, tacit and latent needs of the participants. By co-designing the artifact, in our study the 189 prototype of the system, the designer can gather data on what the participants say, do and make and 190 get a deeper understanding of their needs.

191
"One should keep in mind that the relationship between designer and user (consumer, recipient) 192 is bi-directional. It is not as if users have well-defined requirements, which only wait to be discovered.

193
Indeed, requirements are co-constructed in the ongoing dialog between the user and designer." [11]. 194 In our study, the users are User Experience researchers and designers working in various domains 195 other than the automotive, familiar with the UX design processes but not familiar with the automotive 196 context as we will later explain. precise and are useful for attracting investments or convincing stakeholders about the effectiveness of 205 design decisions. Some of our participants also preferred a combination of the two. We gathered and 206 analysed qualitative data primarily as a best practice to meet the above mentioned targets. • The translation of user needs to UX goals; 213 We are using the right methods to identify the user's needs and provide actionable insights in the form 214 of UX design goals to help practitioners in the development of relevant systems.  interactions. The previous two low fidelity components served as stimuli material for a co-design 235 workshop. Using the toolkit was not only successful in giving us valuable insight into the needs of the 236 designers, but it also allowed us to co-design prototypes and to inform our iterative design of a remote 237 participatory design system.

238
The first part of the toolkit consisted of cards of low fidelity paper illustrations of components that  Based on the IDEO's design thinking methodology the second part of the toolkit is serving the 249 early stages of the designing for new experiences process. Three A3 size papers served as the space for 250 low-fidelity prototyping of the basic-screens and interactivity for the proposed system. We designed 251 the basic-screens as an empty web page with only a title and precise information of the DT processes.

252
The technique that we recommended for the prototyping is to fill the basic-screens with information, 253 notes and the cards that we provided.  Firstly, the fact that the automotive industry is more traditional regarding the methods and tools 262 used to design and evaluate interactions in comparison to other domains. Hence, to achieve a state of 263 the art result and claim the innovative outcome of this process, we were led to such a decision. Since 264 the system itself aims to provide support not only to expert users such as automotive UX designers 265 but also to general UX designers our decision fits our purpose. In each session, the participants co-designed a low-fidelity prototype of the front-end interactions 285 of the system using the components that were previously provided to them. Co-design is a common construct their three basic screen-wireframes. We encouraged them to use whatever means they felt 290 was most natural to them and in many cases, we constructed meaning collaboratively.

291
The sessions were conducted similarly to a group session with one researcher as a moderator 292 who is also involved in the discussion and the co-creation of meaning and content without leading or 293 biasing participants. When the moderator is one of the artifact designers, they should be cautious not 294 to introduce any personal bias in the presentation of the artifact. We avoided bias over a prototype 295 design since we provided the participants with the basic platform and raw materials that were then 296 used to obtain their prototypes. Nonetheless, in this case, the researcher might need to make a higher 297 effort.

298
An introductory video of a physically present designer interviewing a driver while they are 299 driving in a real-time driving situation was displayed before the workshop starts. The reason was to 300 inform UX designers of the current field methods used in Automotive Design and Research and to 301 empathize with the automotive deficiencies mentioned above. Every session lasted 50-60 min, with 302 approximately 15 min for each of the three tasks that the participants were assigned. We were mainly 303 concerned about capturing the 'how' and 'why' that the participants would like to be supported 304 in the discovery and interpretation phase in the early stages of the remote automotive UX design.

305
Observation and Semi-structured interviewing took place beside other complementary methods such 306 as co-designing the artifact. Observation, without following a specific observation scheme was mainly 307 a tool to capture the 'do' and 'make' data other than what they say. Notes of critical points were taken 308 Figure 3. A glass wall was used to map all the information available, identify patterns, and cluster the critical issues concerning the prototypes. Ten needs and 7 UX goals emerged from this analysis.   The primary communication medium was also a concern for the participants. A video is generally 517 considered a vital medium towards the understanding of emotions and behavior. In like manner, the 518 participants' Video technologies are suggested to capture behavioral patterns and to achieve more provide us with more in-depth insights. We want the system to support the designer in achieving 565 these levels of personal involvement when interacting.

566
Naturalness: An interaction that will feel natural to use. A technology that will be acceptable so 567 as both parties can communicate instinctively. A naturalistic approach to the design of a system is the 568 one that supports a natural user experience.

569
Ease of Use: The most convenient and hassle-free interaction. We want the system to feel 570 comfortable.

571
Information retrieval: To be assisted in avoiding information loss due to memory lack. To be also 572 assisted by the system to store and retrieve data on the spot during the use of the system. We learn that these UX Goals, excluding the increased privacy concern and the support of long-term

677
Other researchers could further investigate the increased concern about privacy and safety though 678 in automotive in comparison to other domains. Social situations in the car in comparison to a personal 679 situation is a contextual metric that can alter the driving experience. For example when designers and 680 a user need to collaborate in a daily basis that means that one of the two parts is intruding the personal 681 space of the other by having face to face (FTF) communication or a computer-mediated communication

682
(CMC) while being physically present in the first case or present but not physically in the second case.

683
However, Anonymity is at the center of attention due to the general concern about privacy while 684 using technology, it is more relevant in the absence of nonverbal cues which may lead to changes 685 in the quality of the interaction including increased self-disclosure and intimacy on the same way 686 that it provides more control over self-presentation [60]. Although the perceived social context of 687 the in-vehicle situations may be the cause of that increased privacy concern, this was not thoroughly 688 investigated as part of our research, and we would recommend further exploration on this direction.

690
In this study, we co-design a remote participatory automotive UX system. We increased active 691 participation as a means for matching UX designer's needs with the affordances of remote UX design 692 systems. To achieve that we conducted individual co-design workshops with UX designers and we