Previous research suggests good automation etiquette can yield positive effects on user performance, trust, automation reliance, and user confidence – especially in personified or anthropomorphized technologies. The current study examined the impact of automation etiquette and task-criticality in non-personified technology. The study used a computer-based automation task to examine good and bad automation etiquette models and different domain-based task-criticality levels (between-subjects) that contained various stages of automation (stage 2 and stage 3) and automation reliability levels (60% and 80%) (within-subjects). The study found that bad automation etiquette can increase automation bias and automation reliance which improved performance in the most capable automation condition (stage 3; 80% reliable) but also heightened user subjective workload and decreased user self-confidence. The study also demonstrated task-criticality can be successfully manipulated through domain and instructions. Overall, automation etiquette influenced performance and user confidence more in highly capable automation (stage 3) and in a low-criticality task domain.

An accident on a passenger ferry may lead to evacuation using lifeboats or liferafts, a process that can be both complex and hazardous. This paper investigates the level of safety for passengers during evacuation based on field study and interview data. In the analysis, the eight goals of Universal Design (UD) were tailored and used to explore what ship and interior characteristics influence evacuation performance and the demands placed on the crew and passengers, and whether all passengers have equal chances of completing evacuation safely.Results suggest that while a ship may fulfil regulation, completing an evacuation may pose challenges for passengers with varying abilities, for example, when attempting to perceive emergency information or move through the ship. In addition, it was found that an evacuation may present the crew with challenges and difficult trade-offs that are not always accounted for in the ship's design, equipment and safety organization. It is concluded that the use of a UD approach in ship design, based on a truthful representation of passenger demographics, could enhance passenger safety and provide for evacuation on equal terms.

Mode awareness is important for the safe use of automated vehicles, yet drivers' understanding of mode transitions has not been sufficiently investigated. In this study, we administered an online survey to 838 respondents to examine their understanding of control responsibilities in partial and conditional driving automation with four types of interventions (brake pedal, steering wheel, gas pedal, and take-over request). Results show that most drivers understand that they are responsible for speed and distance control after brake pedal interventions and steering control after steering wheel interventions. However, drivers have mixed responses regarding the responsibility for speed and distance control after steering wheel interventions and the responsibility for steering control after gas pedal interventions. With a higher automation level (conditional driving automation), drivers expect automation to remain responsible more often compared to a lower automation level (partial driving automation). Regarding Hands-on requirements, more than 99% of respondents answered that drivers would keep their hands on the steering wheel after all intervention types in partial automation, while 60–95% would place their hands on the wheel after various intervention types in conditional automation. A misalignment between actual logic and drivers' expectations regarding control responsibilities is observed by comparing survey responses to the mode transition logic of commercial partially automated vehicles. To resolve confusion about control responsibilities and ensure consistent expectations, we propose implementing a consistent mode design and providing enhanced information to drivers.