Mafalda Pereira
Back to workProject 05 · Case study 05 of 06

Research programme · Service experience

Autonomous mobility experience

I connected evidence across the passenger journey — waiting, boarding and travelling — to prioritise information, feedback and accessibility requirements.

My role
Planned and ran user studies, synthesised evidence across touchpoints and facilitated working sessions that converted recurrent issues into design requirements.
Study scope
14-person end-to-end journey study plus focused follow-up studies
Methods
Contextual evaluation · Concept testing · Focus groups · Workshops

The research question

What did people need to understand and trust an autonomous mobility service across the whole journey?

The experience could not be evaluated as a single screen. Information at the stop, vehicle status, boarding controls, onboard route guidance, sound and physical accessibility all shaped the same passenger journey.

How I approached it

From question to evidence

  1. 01 / Map

    Evaluate the journey as connected touchpoints

    I structured the research from arrival and route selection through boarding, travel, stop requests and accessible exit.

  2. 02 / Focus

    Use follow-up studies to investigate weak signals

    Focused concept evaluations explored onboard information, external communication, feedback and the needs of less familiar users.

  3. 03 / Translate

    Bring recurring issues into collaborative working sessions

    I organised evidence from earlier studies for workshops, helping the team prioritise feasible changes across software and physical touchpoints.

How I organised the evidence

Trust, information and action feedback across the service

The programme showed both strong perceived value and specific places where ambiguity or weak feedback could interrupt the journey.

Recreated analysis structure
  1. 01

    Trust in context

    Experience increased confidence, with clear limits

    Nine of fourteen participants reported increased trust after the ride, while the controlled setting remained an explicit limitation.

  2. 02

    Information hierarchy

    Location, route and state needed stronger distinction

    Route maps, vehicle position, stop markers and changing onboard information were not always differentiated clearly enough.

  3. 03

    Action feedback

    Requests needed visible, audible and accessible confirmation

    Stop and accessibility controls exposed issues in placement, persistence of feedback and distinction between different requests.

What I delivered

A cross-touchpoint requirements and prioritisation framework

I delivered findings and recommendations spanning information hierarchy, route comprehension, state feedback, sound, control placement and accessibility, together with questions requiring further validation.