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.
Repeated attempts compared so first-use errors did not get mixed up with recurring problems.
Why repetition mattered
Which parts of the remote parking experience were ready to retain, and which interaction or vehicle behaviours could undermine trust?
The experience combined a phone, an in-vehicle activation step and real vehicle movement. A first attempt could not tell us whether a problem belonged to the interface, the learning curve or the prototype.
Study design
Compare first use with learned behaviour
- Participant groups
Recruit across three levels of parking-system familiarity
The panel included equal novice, intermediate and experienced groups so first-use expectations could be compared.
- Repeated scenarios
Observe learning across a sequence of manoeuvres
Participants completed repeated parking, obstacle and error scenarios so early mistakes could be compared with later attempts.
- Short debriefs
Ask what changed between attempts
Short debriefs between phases captured what participants had learned, what still felt uncertain and where confidence had shifted.
- Prototype log
Keep prototype effects visible in the analysis
I documented where braking, obstacle behaviour or extra prototype steps could inflate or suppress the experience ratings.
What changed across repeated trials
Missed activation fell from six people to two.
The early and final scenarios made change over time visible, while the three participant groups kept different starting expectations in the analysis.
What changed over time
Missed activation fell from six people to two; other problems remained.
The sequence of trials made the difference visible: missed steps reduced, attention changed and a smaller set of problems persisted.
- 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
Interface friction
Alignment and visual hierarchy still needed work
Small text and arrows, together with difficult alignment, remained important redesign points.
- 04
Prototype effects
Unexpected vehicle behaviour needed separate follow-up
Braking and obstacle behaviour could affect the ratings, so those issues stayed separate from interface recommendations.
Recommendation
The action plan had two separate lists
The recommendation kept the useful scenarios, changed visual hierarchy, warning language and alignment support, and separated interface work from vehicle and prototype issues.