Numerous driving simulator systems are available and are continuing to be developed.However, we believe many simulator offerings are built around what is technically possible rather than what is useful to the researchers that might use such systems.This points to a critical need to understand what makes a driving simulator practical and effective for automotive interface design researchers.To remedy this shortcoming, we conducted video interviews with 15 industry and academic researchers engaged in automotive interface design research.We transcribed and performed thematic analysis on the data collected to better understand the different ways that researchers are using driving simulators, and what challenges they still face.We identified needs across three broad dimensions including: (1) Participant Experience, (2) Research Needs, and (3) Operationalization Requirements.By categorizing these needs, we aim to inform the development of future simulation tools that are more accessible to researchers from diverse backgrounds. CCS Concepts• Human-centered computing → Systems and tools for interaction design.

In automotive user interface design, testing often starts with lab-based driving simulators and migrates toward on-road studies to mitigate risks. Mixed reality (XR) helps translate virtual study designs to the real road to increase ecological validity. However, researchers rarely run the same study in both in-lab and on-road simulators due to the challenges of replicating studies in both physical and virtual worlds. To provide a common infrastructure to port in-lab study designs on-road, we built a platform-portable infrastructure, Portobello, to enable us to run twinned physical-virtual studies. As a proof-of-concept, we extended the on-road simulator XR-OOM with Portobello. We ran a within-subjects, autonomous-vehicle crosswalk cooperation study (N=32) both in-lab and on-road to investigate study design portability and platform-driven influences on study outcomes. To our knowledge, this is the first system that enables the twinning of studies originally designed for in-lab simulators to be carried out in an on-road platform.

This study examines three modalities for designing live-in van interiors. Participants (N=18) situated within an empty van were asked to explore potential designs using physical cardboard prototyping, a commercial software application (Vanspace 3D) for planning van interiors, and an augmented reality application that we developed. Participants were asked to think aloud as they designed van interiors for fictive journeys using each modality. A qualitative evaluation was conducted to assess how participants’ conceptualizations of space shifted across the use of each prototyping method. The results demonstrate that each design method influenced design outcomes due to the physicality of the task. This study highlights the importance of considering the role of physicality in the selection of prototyping modality for the design exploration process.