Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Ruben Post

dblp:199/1119 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
2ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2024
0000-0002-6903-9208ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 2 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
User interface design and tools · 100%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
User interface design and tools › web site design
website aesthetics
0.312017
Unity in Variety in website aesthetics: A systematic inquiry · Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2017
User interface design and tools
web site design
0.112017
Unity in Variety in website aesthetics: A systematic inquiry · Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 2017
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2024 Automated Driving System HMIs: "Clear and Unambiguous"?
abstract
While the introduction of automated driving is intended to make driving safer and more comfortable, it may also make the interaction between user and vehicle more complex and prone to confusion. It is therefore important to be able to assess to what extent ADSs provide their users with clear and unambiguous information concerning system state and concerning allowed or expected actions from the side of the user. In this project, we have developed a questionnaire to measure whether the information provided by an ADS to its user is experienced as clear and unambiguous. The questionnaire consists of nine items, which were shown to discriminate between good and bad HMI designs in terms of user perception and comprehension. The development and evaluation of this questionnaire was done in several steps. First, a set of 15 questionnaire items was developed that could be presented as Likert scale items on a 7 point scale. Next, an online survey was conducted to test the reliability and internal consistency of the questionnaire as well as explore underlying factors. Data analysis showed that responses on some of the items were highly correlated. A subset of 9 items was found to be able to discriminate well between HMIs with different levels of clarity and (un)ambiguity. Exploratory factor analysis revealed two underlying factors, which could be interpreted to relate to perception and comprehension of HMI information. In the final step, the 9-item questionnaire was tested in an experimental setup. 23 Participants were presented with movie clips of transitions from or to automated driving, including a view of the traffic situation (through the windshield) and of the instrument cluster and steering wheel. Again, HMIs were designed to be either clear and unambiguous or unclear/ambiguous. The results showed that the questionnaire discriminated reliably between both versions of the HMI. As in the online survey, high reliability and internal consistency were observed. Additionally, qualitative measurement of user experience by means of Product Reaction Cards also showed clear differences between the two different HMI versions.
Jeroen H. Hogema, Ruben Post, Rutger Verstegen, Jan L. Souman
AutomotiveUI2
2017 Unity in Variety in website aesthetics: A systematic inquiry
Ruben Post, Tran Nguyen, Paul Hekkert
Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud.1