There is a variety of visual human-machine interfaces (HMI) designed across vehicle manufacturers that support drivers while supervising driving automation features, such as adaptive cruise control (ACC). These various designs communicate the same limited amount of information to drivers about their ACC system and it is unclear which HMI designs impact driver distraction the least or how their design could be modified to help drivers develop more accurate mental models of their ACC system. Using a user-centred design (UCD) approach, we designed a speedometer to inform drivers about some of the system's capabilities and then invited 23 drivers to use ACC in a low-fidelity driving simulator to compare the usability of three HMIs using eye-tracking, response times, and qualitative data. Our attempt at designing an intuitive and more informative speedometer received mixed results, but design recommendations are given regarding the indication of the set target speed, set time gap between vehicles (headway distance), and system mode (conventional or adaptive cruise). Practitioner summary: Manufacturers' heterogeneous designs of their visual HMIs for the ACC systems may impact driver distraction in different ways. We used usability testing to compare three HMIs in a driving simulator and make several design recommendations to indicate speed, time gap, and system mode in a more efficient way. Abbreviations: ACC: adaptive cruise control; ADAS: advanced driving assistance system; HMI: human-machine interface; ISO: international organisation for standardization; OEM: original equipment manufacturer; RSME: rating scale of mental effort; RT: response time; R-TLX: raw task load index; SUS: system usability scale; TGT: total glance time; UCD: user-centred design; UX: user experience; xTGT: extended total glance time.
Keywords: Adaptive cruise control; Eye-tracking; User-centred design; Visual attention; human-machine interface.