• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文会议>International Conference on HCI in Mobility, Transport, and Automotive Systems;International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction >Qualitative Examination of Technology Acceptance in the Vehicle: Factors Hindering Usage of Assistance and Infotainment Systems
【24h】

Qualitative Examination of Technology Acceptance in the Vehicle: Factors Hindering Usage of Assistance and Infotainment Systems

机译：车辆技术验收的定性检查：阻碍援助和信息娱乐系统的因素

获取原文
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

More and more assisting and entertaining systems find their way into the cockpit [1]. But the proposed benefits of increased safety, efficiency, and comfort can only come into effect if drivers decide to use the systems. Therefore, it is essential to understand what determines drivers' acceptance of technology in the vehicle. A lot of research addresses technology acceptance applying quantitative methods [2-4]. This work gives an outline on the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) [5] and driving-related adaptations as well as the potential of qualitative research in this field. Further, we conducted a qualitative online study (N = 600) on factors influencing technology usage. We examined the reasons why drivers do not use a system although their car is equipped with it. The qualitative statements were analyzed according to Mayring [6]. The category scheme was developed inductively and compared with the TAM 3 [7]. The analyses show that 56.87% of the reported statements address usefulness and 12.57% ease of use. Seven additional categories emerged accounting for 27.85% of the statements. The results reveal what is subjectively important for drivers and enhance our understanding of barriers for technology usage in the car. The work outlines the potential of qualitative insights adding to the existing body of research.
机译：越来越多的协助和娱乐系统能够进入驾驶舱[1]。但如果司机决定使用该系统，拟议的安全性，效率和舒适性的拟议效益只能生效。因此，必须了解确定司机对车辆技术的接受。许多研究解决了应用定量方法的技术验收[2-4]。这项工作概述了技术验收模型（TAM）[5]以及与驾驶相关的调整以及该领域的定性研究潜力。此外，我们对影响技术使用的因素进行了定性的在线研究（n = 600）。我们检查了驾驶员不使用系统的原因，尽管他们的车是否配备了它。根据Mayrow [6]分析定性陈述。该类别方案是在电感的情况下进行的，与TAM 3进行比较[7]。分析表明，报告陈述的56.87％涉及有用性和12.57％的易用性。七大类别出现了27.85％的陈述。结果揭示了对司机的主观重要性，并加强了我们对汽车技术使用障碍的理解。这项工作概述了对现有研究体系的定性见解的潜力。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号