Abstract
Welcome to 2020, the year in which I believe that everyone could potentially own a smart device! Perhaps you celebrated the new year by purchasing a new “smart” vehicle with advanced driver assistance systems for your daily commute. If so, it may be wise to ask yourself a few questions: Do I understand all the advanced safety features that my new vehicle offers? Do I read the operator’s manual and familiarize myself with the in-vehicle automated features before I press the start button? Or, if you are just thinking about purchasing a new car that has advanced driver assistance systems, will you seek out information about these features from the original equipment manufacturers’ websites before going for a test drive?
If, as a consumer, you have been confused by or frustrated with the lack of information about the advanced driver assistance features of your dream car, you are not alone. The first article in this issue, by Wright and his colleagues, deals with exactly that conundrum. The authors selected a sample of mass-market and luxury passenger vehicles available in the United States and assessed the information provided by the original equipment manufacturers to potential drivers. In their review, the authors found that critical information about advanced systems was either omitted or inaccessible to consumers. The authors offered their insights on target areas for researchers, manufacturers, and policymakers to improve the safety and productivity of consumer/in-vehicle advanced assistance systems interactions, thus minimizing human error.
The final 2019 issue of Ergonomics in Design (EID) presented an article that discussed older adults who use technology and their digital interactions. Continuing this theme, Koon et al. investigated factors that influence early technology users (aged 55+ years) in their initial adoption and continued use of voice-activated digital assistants to accomplish their daily activities. The authors conducted semistructured interviews to collect information on device use and device features, and they related these data to the factors included in the “unified theory of acceptance and use of technology” model. The authors found both facilitators and barriers to initial and continued use of digital assistants. Although the study focused on only one type of digital assistant, I believe the findings can be applied to similar devices on the market.
Beyond the realm of technology, environmental ergonomics issues such as noise in the typical “open” office workplaces continue to be a huge issue. This is especially true in banking and other client privilege–related industries where privacy, confidentiality, and distractions are a grave concern. Motlagh et al. applied a three-step process to tackle the issue of acoustic discomfort in an open-plan bank office. First, the authors determined noise source(s) in the bank; second, they evaluated the acoustic suitability of the open-plan office by measuring reverberation time; and third, they assessed the efficacy of the existing workstation partitions in the bank by calculating speech transmission index at each workstation. Based on their findings, the authors proposed an optimal design strategy to improve acoustic comfort among the occupants.
In addition to presenting the above articles, I would like to call attention to the fact that EID will be offering an annual award sponsored by Dr. Brian Peacock for student-submitted work. Again, I want to thank Brian for this fine gesture. As I pursued my master’s degree in industrial engineering, I had the pleasure to work under the leadership of Brian as a summer intern at General Motors in Warren, Michigan. I truly cannot think of anyone who cares as much about human factors and ergonomics profession, especially its growth as does Brian. So, dear academicians, I urge you and your students to take up on this unique opportunity by submitting your design work to EID.
I wish you all the best for a safe and prolific 2020!
