​

 

Physical Ergonomics Problems:
● Forward head posture
● Shoulder reach strain
● Seat-dashboard mismatch

Solutions:
● Adjustable steering & display angle
● Better seat alignment
● Head-up display (HUD)

​

Cognitive Ergonomics Problems:
● Too many menus
● Distracting alerts
● Multitasking difficulty

Solutions:
● Simplify interface
● Voice control integration
● Prioritize critical info

Visual Ergonomics Problems:
● Screen glare
● Small text/icons
● Night brightness issues

Solutions:
● Anti-glare screens
● Adaptive brightness
● Larger fonts/icons

Interaction Ergonomics Problems:
● Touchscreen reliance
● Lack of tactile feedback

Solutions:
● Hybrid controls (physical + digital)
● Haptic feedback

​

HFE DESIGN IMPROVEMENTS

1. Reduce Driver Distraction
● Minimize touchscreen use
● Add steering wheel controls

2. Improve Reach Zones
● Place critical controls within 30–40 cm
● Use natural hand positioning

3. Enhance Information Hierarchy
● Show only essential data while driving

● Secondary info hidden

4. Improve Feedback Systems
● Clear, simple alerts, visual cues

5. Posture Optimization
● Align dashboard with driver eye level
● Adjustable seating geometry

​

SUMMARY

Main Issues Identified:
● High cognitive load
● Poor control accessibility
● Touchscreen distraction

 

HFE Impact:
● Reduced safety
● Increased reaction time
● Driver fatigue

Final Recommendation:
Design dashboards using:
● Human-centered design
● Low-distraction interfaces
● Hybrid control systems

 

 

HFE Ergonomic Design Process Automotive Dashboard Analysis (Systems Engineering Approach)

​

Preparation and Planning

Scope and Objectives

The purpose of this ergonomic review is to evaluate the automotive dashboard interface in terms of:

● Driver safety
● Usability and accessibility
● Physical comfort
● Cognitive workload

The focus is on:
● Instrument cluster (speed, RPM, alerts)
● Center console (touchscreen, climate controls)
● Steering wheel controls

Relevant standards and guidelines include:
● ISO ergonomic standards (human-machine interaction)
● NHTSA driver distraction guidelines
● General HFE usability principles

​

Review Team (Customer-Focused) A multidisciplinary team is identified:

● Mechanical engineers (dashboard layout)
● UI/UX designers (digital interface)
● Safety engineers (driver distraction)
● Manufacturing engineers

● End-users (drivers)
● Human Factors Engineering (HFE) specialist

This ensures both technical feasibility + real user needs Data Collection

The following data is gathered:
● Dashboard design specifications
● User feedback (questionnaire you created)
● Driving behavior observations
● Existing risk reports (distraction, posture issues)

 

Ergonomic Analysis Task Breakdown (Driver Actions)

The driver performs:
1. Check speed and warnings
2. Adjust climate controls
3. Use navigation system
4. Change music/settings
5. Respond to alerts

​

Ergonomic Risk Identification Physical Ergonomics
● Reaching for touchscreen → shoulder strain
● Long driving posture → neck/back fatigue
● Small buttons → finger strain

​

Cognitive Ergonomics
● Too many menu layers
● Information overload on screen
● Confusing alerts

​

Organizational Ergonomics

Poor integration between:
○ Navigation
○ Audio
○ Vehicle settings

​

Leads to inefficient multitasking while driving Risk Assessment

Issue Severity Likelihood Risk Level
Touchscreen distraction

High High Critical
Poor control reach Medium High Major
Information overload Medium Medium Major
Glare/visibility issues Low Medium Minor

Feedback and Reporting

Findings Summary

The ergonomic review identified:
● High driver distraction due to touchscreen dependency
● Poor placement of frequently used controls
● Excessive cognitive load from complex UI
● Physical discomfort during long driving sessions

​

Tools Used (as required by assignment)
● Questionnaire (subjective user data)
● HFE checklist (physical + cognitive)
● Risk analysis table (DFMEA-style thinking)
● CORA input (user needs like safety, ease of use, comfort)

This aligns with document requirements

 

Categorization of Issues

● Critical: Touchscreen distraction
● Major: Control placement, cognitive overload
● Minor: Glare, brightness

​

Reporting to Stakeholders

Findings are presented to:
● Design team
● Engineers
● Safety stakeholders

With clear recommendations for redesign

​

Implementation and Follow-Up
Design Improvements Implemented

1. Reduce Distraction
● Add physical knobs for key controls
● Integrate steering wheel buttons

​

2. Improve Reachability
● Place critical controls within natural hand zone
● Reduce need to stretch

3. Simplify Interface
● Fewer menu layers
● Prioritize essential information

4. Improve Visibility
● Anti-glare screens
● Adaptive brightness
Validation
● Test with drivers (user testing)
● Simulations for distraction time
● Compare before vs after performance

​

Final Outcome
● Reduced driver distraction
● Improved comfort
● Faster interaction
● Increased safety

​

Conclusion
By applying a systems engineering approach to the automotive dashboard, we identified
critical ergonomic issues such as touchscreen distraction and cognitive overload. Through
structured analysis, risk assessment, and user-centered improvements, the redesigned
dashboard enhances safety, usability, and overall driver experience.

 

 

CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS

# Customer Requirement (WHAT) Importance (1–5)

1 Easy to use while driving 5
2 Minimal distraction 5
3 Controls easy to reach 4
4 Clear and readable display 5
5 Fast response time 4
6 Comfortable driving posture 4
7 Simple and intuitive interface 5
8 Minimal physical discomfort 4
9 Good visibility (day/night) 5


 

ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS

A Button placement within the reach zone
B Physical controls (knobs/buttons)
C Touchscreen response speed
D Screen brightness & contrast control
E UI simplicity (reduced menu layers)
F Voice control integration
G Steering wheel controls
H Anti-glare display
I Adjustable dashboard angle/position
J Alert prioritization system

​

​

RELATIONSHIP MATRIX

(Strong = 9, Medium = 3, Weak = 1)

​

WHAT \ HOW                        A  B C D E F G H I J
Easy to use                              9   9  3  1   9  3  9  1  3  3
Minimal distraction             3   9  3  1   9  9  9  1  1  9
Reachability                            9  3  1  1   1   1   9  1  9  1
Readable display                 1   1  1  9  3   1   1  9  3  3
Fast response                        1   1  9  1  3   3   1  1  1   1 
Posture comfort                    3  1   1  1  1    1   3  1  9  1
Simple interface                    1  1   3  1  9  3   1   1  1  3
Reduce discomfort             3  1   1   1  1   1   3   1  9 1
Visibility                                      1  1   1   9  3  1   1   9  3 1
Error prevention                   3  3  1   1   9  3  3   1  1  9

​

​

​

IMPORTANCE WEIGHT CALCULATION
Multiply importance × relationship values → find top priorities

​

Rank          Engineering Requirement             Reason

1                     E – UI simplicity                                          Reduces cognitive load

2                    B – Physical controls                               Reduces distraction
3                    G – Steering wheel controls               Improves safety
4                   A – Reachable button placement    Reduces strain
5                   J – Alert prioritization                               Prevents overload

​

​

​

FINAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS

Simplify UI (less menus)
Add physical knobs for key functions
Use steering wheel controls
Improve alert system (only critical alerts shown)
Optimize reach zones for driver

​

​

Using the CORA and QFD matrix, I translated customer needs like safety and ease of use into
engineering requirements. The analysis showed that UI simplicity, physical controls, and
steering wheel integration are the most critical design factors. This helps reduce distraction and
improve overall driving safety.