Mixed methods · Human factors
Remote parking experience
I tested repeated parking manoeuvres with 21 participants across three experience levels, separating first-use friction from learnability and prototype limitations.
The research question
Which parts of the remote parking experience were ready to retain, and which interaction or vehicle behaviours could undermine trust?
The experience combined a mobile interface, an in-vehicle activation step and real vehicle movement. I needed to distinguish interface comprehension from learnability and from limitations of the prototype itself.
How I approached it
From question to evidence
- 01 / Balance
Recruit across three levels of parking-system familiarity
The panel included equal novice, intermediate and experienced groups so first-use expectations could be compared.
- 02 / Repeat
Observe learning across a sequence of manoeuvres
Participants completed repeated parking, obstacle and error scenarios, with short debriefs between phases and a final synthesis.
- 03 / Qualify
Keep prototype effects visible in the analysis
I documented where braking, obstacle behaviour or extra prototype steps could inflate or suppress the experience ratings.
How I organised the evidence
A useful concept with learnable friction and critical trust risks
Repetition showed which issues reduced with experience and which remained design or system-level problems.
- 01
Learnability
The activation step improved with repetition
Six participants missed the in-vehicle step in early scenarios; this fell to two in the final repeated scenario.
- 02
Attention and trust
People gradually divided attention between vehicle and phone
Confidence increased with experience, while observation showed attention shifting from the vehicle alone to both vehicle and interface.
- 03
Persistent friction
Alignment, visual hierarchy and prototype behaviour still mattered
Small text and arrows, difficult alignment and unexpected obstacle behaviour remained important redesign or validation points.
What I delivered
A prioritised redesign and validation plan
I recommended retaining the useful scenarios while improving visual hierarchy, warning language and alignment support, and separating interface changes from prototype reliability work.