Multi-touch devices make user-friendly and intuitive operations possible as technology advances. In some cases, gestural (multi-touch) operations are efficient in terms of performance time and errors due to simplicity, and intuitiveness. However, the fact that gestural operations may require more attention and effort than single-touch operations limit its application in vehicles. Despite of advantages of gestural operations, specific limitations exist. First, a well-known optical parallax phenomenon may cause touch bias due to the gap between the interaction plane and the image plane. Secondly, at the shoulder height, motion biomechanics results in the least amount of movement errors. The error increases as the hand points away from the body’s center. Being both input and output devices simultaneously, multi-touch screens are often not installed in a location where the chance of making errors is minimized. The precision of touch-based operations will be demoted on the unsuitable installation and the influence is expected to be more pronounced on gestural operations than on single-touch ones.
The goal of this study is to compare single-touch and gestural operations using car radio and air condition systems as cases. A simulated driving environment was established to conduct a fundamental experiment where multi-touch interfaces were compared with single-touch interfaces. Three different installations of a multi-touch screen in the vehicle at high, middle, and low positions were tested in the simulated car cabin. Both objective and subjective assessments were also conduced. Users’ effectiveness and efficiency were measured. Meanwhile, user satisfaction and perceived ease of use were reported using the Device Assessment Questionnaire (DAQ) along with an interview to collect the participants' subjective responses.
Based on the experimental results, high installation required significantly longer time than low installation. Then, single touch operation produced significantly fewer error per second than the gesture operation. On the other hand, the subjective results showed that the single touch operation and the middle installation was preferred. Then, the gesture operation in the high installation was the most difficult and fatiguing operation. Finally, the gesture operation was subjectively considered more intuitive than the single touch operation. Therefore, there is potential for the gesture operation to become a better choice for operating In-Vehicle Information System (IVIS) if its implementation can be improved

Multi-touch devices make user-friendly and intuitive operations possible as technology advances. In some cases, gestural (multi-touch) operations are efficient in terms of performance time and errors due to simplicity, and intuitiveness. However, the fact that gestural operations may require more attention and effort than single-touch operations limit its application in vehicles. Despite of advantages of gestural operations, specific limitations exist. First, a well-known optical parallax phenomenon may cause touch bias due to the gap between the interaction plane and the image plane. Secondly, at the shoulder height, motion biomechanics results in the least amount of movement errors. The error increases as the hand points away from the body’s center. Being both input and output devices simultaneously, multi-touch screens are often not installed in a location where the chance of making errors is minimized. The precision of touch-based operations will be demoted on the unsuitable installation and the influence is expected to be more pronounced on gestural operations than on single-touch ones.
The goal of this study is to compare single-touch and gestural operations using car radio and air condition systems as cases. A simulated driving environment was established to conduct a fundamental experiment where multi-touch interfaces were compared with single-touch interfaces. Three different installations of a multi-touch screen in the vehicle at high, middle, and low positions were tested in the simulated car cabin. Both objective and subjective assessments were also conduced. Users’ effectiveness and efficiency were measured. Meanwhile, user satisfaction and perceived ease of use were reported using the Device Assessment Questionnaire (DAQ) along with an interview to collect the participants' subjective responses.
Based on the experimental results, high installation required significantly longer time than low installation. Then, single touch operation produced significantly fewer error per second than the gesture operation. On the other hand, the subjective results showed that the single touch operation and the middle installation was preferred. Then, the gesture operation in the high installation was the most difficult and fatiguing operation. Finally, the gesture operation was subjectively considered more intuitive than the single touch operation. Therefore, there is potential for the gesture operation to become a better choice for operating In-Vehicle Information System (IVIS) if its implementation can be improved

Archiv, Z, (2018, September), Audi A6 / Center Information Display (CID) – Die Revolution im Innenraum, https://www.bhtc.com/de/news/audi-a6-center-information-display-cid
Auto Express, (2021, February 23), Jaguar XF review, https://www.autoexpress. co.uk/jaguar/xf/
Jæger, M.G., Skov, M.B., & Thomassen, N.G. (2008). You can touch, but you can 't look: interacting with in vehicle systems. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, 1139-1148.
Bridger, R. (2008). Introduction to Ergonomics.
Burns, P. (2000). Placing Visual Displays in Vehicles: Where should they go?
Dianita, O., Lin, C.-J., & Wijayanto, T. (2018). A Study on the Visual Menu Design Using Pinch Gestures on Touchscreens, 2018 4th International Conference on Science and Technology (ICST)
Douglas, S. A., Kirkpatrick, A. E., & MacKenzie, I. S. (1999). Testing pointing device performance and user assessment with the ISO 9241, Part 9 standard. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems the CHI Is the Limit - CHI ’99, pp. 215-222.
Gates, D., & Dingwell, J. (2011) The effects of muscle fatigue and movement height on movement stability and variability. Experimental brain research. 209, pp. 525-536
Hanson, L., Wienholt, W., & Sperling L. (2003). A control handling comfort model based on fuzzy logics. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 31(2), pp. 87-100.
Hendrik, S, T., Jm, H., & Notobroto, H. (2016). The Effect of Work Position on Fatigue on the Arm Muscles of Computer Operator, Dama International Journal of Researchers (DIJR), 1(10), pp. 33-37.
ISO (1997). ISO 9241-11: Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs). Part 11 - Guidelines for specifying and measuring usability. International Standards Organisation. Also available from the British Standards Institute, London.
ISO (1999). ISO 13407: Human-centred Design Processes for Interactive Systems. Geneva: International Standards Organisation. Also available from the British Standards Institute, London
ISO (2000). 9241-9: Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs). Part 9: Requirements for non-keyboard input devices. International Standards Organisation. Also available from the British Standards Institute, London.
ISO (2008). 9241-410: Ergonomics of human-system interaction. Part 410: Design criteria for physical input devices. Also available from the British Standards Institute, London.
Jung, S., Park, J., Park, J., Choe, M., Kim, T., Choi, M., & Lee, S. (2021). Effect of Touch Button Interface on In-Vehicle Information Systems Usability. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 37(15), pp. 1404–1422.
Kamalakannan J., & Saikiran, C. (2014) Different paradigm for Touch-Screen technology: A Survey.
Kim, H., & Song, H. (2014). Evaluation of The Safety and Usability of Touch Gestures in Operating in Vehicle Information Systems with Visual Occlusion. Applied Ergonomics. 45 (3), pp. 789-798.
Lepinski, G. J., Grossman, T., & Fitzmaurice, G. (2010). The design and evaluation of multitouch marking menus. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’10.
Lin, C. -J., & Chiang, C. (2017). A Study of Multi-touch Screen Installation in Vehicles for Single-touch and Gestural Operations. Proceedings of the 2nd Asian Conference on Ergonomics and Design, 53, pp. 520-523
Lozano, C., Jindrich, D., & Kahol, K. (2011) The impact on musculoskeletal system during multitouch tablet interactions. Proceedings of the 2011 Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’11, pp. 825-828.
Maidin, 2014, Investigating the Usability of Touch-based User Interfaces, Salford, UK: University of Salford.
Maguire, M. C. (1999). A review of user-interface design guidelines for public information kiosk systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 50(3). pp. 263-286.
Mercedes-Benz Group Media, (2015, September 8), The Mercedes-AMG A 45 4MATIC: An exceptional talent, https://group-media.mercedes-benz.com/marsMediaSite/en/
Nam, H., Seol, K.-H., Lee, J., Cho, H., & Jung, S. W. (2021). Review of Capacitive Touchscreen Technologies: Overview, Research Trends, and Machine Learning Approaches. Sensors, 21(14), 4776.
Nimbarte, M. (2011). Multi-Touch Screen Interfaces and Gesture Analysis: A Study. Advanced Computing: An International Journal. 2(6), pp. 113–121
Nugraha, A. P., Rolando, P. M. A., & Syaifullah, D. H. (2019). Usability Evaluation for User Interface Redesign of Financial Technology Application. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 505, 012101.
Ottley, S. (2018, 2 July), 2018 Range Rover Vogue TDV6 new car review, https://www.drive.com.au/reviews/2018-range-rover-vogue-tdv6-new-car-review/
Rahman, A. S. M. M., Saboune, J., & Saddik, A. E. (2011). Motion-path based in car gesture control of the multimedia devices. In Proceedings of the first ACM international symposium on Design and analysis of intelligent vehicular networks and applications., ACM: Miami, Florida, USA. pp. 69-76.
Reed, M. P., Parkinson, M. B., & Klinkenberger, A. L. (2003). Assessing the validity of kinematically generated reach envelopes for simulations of vehicle operators, SAE Technical.
Saroha, K., Sharma, S., & Bhatia, G. (2011). Human Computer Interaction: An intellectual approach. International Journal of Computer Science and Management Studies. 11.
Sears, A. (1991). Improving touchscreen keyboards: design issues and a comparison with other devices. Interacting with Computers, 3(3), pp. 253-269.
Sharma, H. (2017). A Review Paper on Touch Screen, International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT), 5(23).
Simons-Morton, B, G., Guo, F, Klauer, S, G., Ehsani, J. P., & Pradhan, A. K. (2014). Keep Your Eyes on the Road: Young Driver Crash Risk Increases According to Duration of Distraction. Journal of Adolescent Health, 54(5), pp. S61–S67.
Starkey, N. J., & Charlton, S. G. (2020). Drivers Use of In-Vehicle Information Systems and Perceptions of Their Effects on Driving. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 2, pp. 1-14.
Tesla. (n.d.). Infotainment Upgrade, https://www.tesla.com/support/infotainment
Toru, H., S. Ryo., & Toshiro, H. (2013). Effect of distraction on driving performance using touch screen while driving on test track. IEEE Intelligent Vehicles Symposium (IV). Gold Coast, Australia.
Wittmann, M., Kiss, M., Gugg, P., Steffen, A., Fink, M., Poppel, E., & Kamiya, H. (2006). Effects of display position of a visual in-vehicle task on simulated driving. Applied Ergonomics. 37(2), pp. 187-199
Wu, X. (2014) A comparative study about cognitive load of air gestures and screen gestures for performing in-car music selection task.
Zheng, J., & Zhang, W. (2020). Multimodal In-vehicle Touch Screens Interactive System’s Design and Evaluation, In: Nunes, I. (eds) Advances in Human Factors and Systems Interaction. AHFE 2020. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, 1207
Zetli, S., Fajrah, N., & Paramita, M. (2019). Comparison of Anthropometric Data by Ethnicity in Indonesia, Jurnal Rekayasa Sistem Industri. 5(1), pp. 23-34.