See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/310484442

Mobile App for Public Transport: A Usability and User Experience Perspective

Conference Paper · November 2016

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-47075-7_21

CITATIONS READS
2 1,646

3 authors:

Anais Habermann Kai Kasugai

Bauhaus Luftfahrt e.V. RWTH Aachen University
4 PUBLICATIONS   6 CITATIONS    37 PUBLICATIONS   320 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Martina Ziefle
RWTH Aachen University
500 PUBLICATIONS   5,455 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

myneData View project

UFO - Urban Future Outline View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Anais Habermann on 29 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Mobile App for public transport
A usability and user experience perspective

Anais Luisa Habermann, Kai Kasugai, Martina Ziefle

Communication Science, Human-Computer Interaction Center (HCIC)
RWTH Aachen University
Aachen, Germany
habermann@comm.rwth-aachen.de

Abstract— The fast progress of smart devices and
applications in the mobility sector open up a huge potential for
novel mobility services that allow for an individualization of
mobility patterns for travelers. In combination with an
increasing infrastructure of public transport and diverse means
of transportations in cities, novel mobility concepts do represent
a promising solution to societal changes and mobility needs.
However, the increasing functionality and multitude of options
also increase the complexity of using those services. The research
is embedded into an interdisciplinary project – Mobility Broker –
in which not only the central platform for both planning and
booking of a journey using all kinds of different public means of
transport is developed. Different from other approaches in this
field, the project integrates users in all stages of technical
development. The paper reports on an empirical study in which
users’ mobility requirements were assessed and usability of the
first prototype of the smartphone application was tested.
Findings show that the interface design and visual ergonomics
are quite mature at this stage. Implications of findings are
discussed and future research lines are explicated.
Keywords— mobility services; smart apps; intermodal mobility;
usability; interface design
I. INTRODUCTION
Mobility is a topic as old as mankind. Be it for leisure or for
business, people need to travel. This is especially significant
against the demographic change with increasingly more and
older dwellers for which ease to access mobility services is
vital for participating actively, self-determined and
independently in social living [1,2].
Recent developments in Information and communication
technologies (ICT) in combination with high quality smart
devices, is an enormous chance of offering potent and
ubiquitous mobility services [3,4], not only in cities, but also
in peri-urban or rural areas [5]. Travel services delivered by
small screen devices are highly developed in the meanwhile
[6,7], and travel and mobile services can be retrieved at any
time, at any place, with travel information being wirelessly
delivered, continuously actualized, context-adaptive and even
targeted to user profiles [8].
Different people use very different means of travel, but they
also use different methods to plan their journey, which again
reflects and effects the preferred means of transportation
[9,10]. The internet drastically adds to the options from which
users can choose when planning their journey. In combination
with an increasing infrastructure of public transport and
diverse means of transportations (rail, buses, underground) in
many cities and countries, novel mobility concepts do
represent a promising solution to societal changes and
mobility needs [11].
Yet, there are numerous services that help finding routes and
offers for travelling by public transport such as airplane, train,
or bus or individual transport by car. In the past years, car
sharing has gained significance – a service that strongly relies
on online booking. Very recently, a number of free-floating
car sharing services have been established, which allow users
to do one way travelling without returning the car to the
previous station.
All these different means of transportation have certain
limits and make most sense for certain distances. Except for
long range travelling, for which the airplane stays unrivaled,
the private car seems to be the most flexible and comfortable
means of travel, as all alternatives are either good for medium
distances (e.g. train or intercity busses) or short distances (e.g.
local busses and most car sharing services).
Until now, it is rather cumbersome to plan a journey using a
combination of different public transport services, let alone to
book all parts of a so called mixed-mode journey, as that
would involve numerous websites that all offer only planning
and or booking of one specific service. This is where the
project Mobility Broker comes into play [12].
II. THE CONTEXT: PROJECT MOBILITY BROKER
The project aims at providing a central platform for both
planning and booking of a journey using all kinds of different
public means of transport. It also takes semi public individual
traffic into account, such as car sharing and even pedelec
rental. Barriers that result from the complexity of combining
the results from different search engines and from having to
use a variety of payment services with individual logins could
be overcome with such kind of service. It is hoped that this
will lead to an increased use of public transport compared to
the use of private cars.
The interdisciplinary project is lead by the local public
transport provider, which is teaming up with both IT service
providers and research institutes from different disciplines to
gain a holistic understanding. As such, Mobility Broker is Broker”. You now want to try out the application to
implemented resting on a well designed server back end – plan your daily routine. Start the application”.
colleagues from the computer sciences currently execute
Fig. 2 and Fig. 3 show snapshots from the application
fundamental research regarding the necessary system
screen, when solving the tasks with the prototype.
architecture to create such a single point of contact for
travelers [13]. Another major aspect of the project is the After participants finished the tasks’ completion, they
strong focus on end users’ requirements regarding the front- assessed the perceived quality of navigation and the perceived
end. Both, a website offering mixed-mode routing and interface quality, addressing different aspects, each (next
booking, and a smartphone application with a similar sections).
functional range are being developed. In all stages of technical
development potential users are included by iteratively
integrating their feedback into further prototype variants.
The paper describes the assessment of users’ mobility
requirements and reports on usability evaluations of an early
prototype of the smartphone application.
III. METHODOLOGY
The evaluation of a first prototype consisted of three parts.
The first part referred to mobility requirements, which were
assessed prior to the evaluation of the prototype. Then,
participants were asked to interact with the prototype, carrying
out typical tasks in the context of city mobility. Finally,
participants were requested to evaluate the ease of navigation
and the suitability of the interface design. In Fig.1, the Fig. 2. Left/Center screenshots show the connection search and the relevant
context menu to select “Home” (Zuhause) (task 1). Right screenshot
schematic procedure of the approach is pictured. shows the saving of a connections as a favorite (task 2).

Fig. 1. Design of empirical approach
A. Procedure and experimental design
A first analysis regarded the requirements to the quality
criteria of mobility services and the reasons for travelers to
choose means of transports (both, individual and public
transport) as well as perceived barriers. The pro and contra
using criteria that had to be ranked by participants were
chosen from an earlier study [11]. Then, participants were
asked to solve prototypic tasks by interacting with the
application. For comparison reasons, each participant was
given the same testing scenario (same order). To provide a
realistic framework, participants were instructed as follows:
“Imagine the following situation: You are living in the
city of –blinded-. One of your colleagues suggests you
to use the new smartphone application “Mobility
Fig. 3. Left: screenshot of the menu to create a new mobility profile (task 3).
Right: Map to find the closest bus stop near the current location (task 4).
B. Assessment of mobility requirements
Evaluation criteria and reasons for both, pro and nonusing
motives to choose one over other means of transportation
related to several dimensions and argumentation lines,
respectively: (1) efficiency-related arguments (e.g.,
(un-)punctuality, (lack of) availability), (2) cost-related
arguments (e.g., absolute costs, cost-performance ratio), (3)
comfort-related arguments (e.g., accessibility, cleanliness),
(4) eco-friendliness-related arguments (e.g., green
mobility), and (6) health-related arguments (e.g., keeping
my health) [11].
It was of central interest for understanding mobility needs
of the diversity of (future) travelers to learn, which of the
criteria would be never selected (indicating low
 importance), which of the criteria were perceived as
relevant for choosing means of transportations and which of
the criteria were selected that militate against using means
of transportations.
C. Preceived ease of navigation
The perceived ease of navigation through the app’s menu
structure was accomplished by questions regarding the
(dis)orientation when navigating through the menu [14]. Each
of the four statements had to be agreed or disagreed to on a
five-point Likert-scale. Items are given in Table I.
TABLE I: ITEMS TO EVALUATE EASE OF NAVIGATION
Items (1 = fully (dis)agree; 5 = fully agree)
(1) “I knew where I was currently located in the menu”
(2) “I knew where to go next
(3) “I did not feel lost in the menu
(4) “I knew how to reach a specific function”
D. Perceived interface quality
To evaluate different facets of interface design, items were
developed for “Use of colors”, “Relation between textual and
graphical elements”, and “Visual ergonomics”. The Likert
scaling used for each item ranged from 1 = “I fully disagree”
to 5 = “I fully agree”. The scores of negatively formulated
items were inversed (marked by (*)). Items were summed up
to a global score for “Use of colors” and “Visual ergonomics”.
Items are given in Table II.
E. Participants
32 participants took part (50% women). 18 were students
and 16 employed. The average age was M=29.6 years
(SD=8.6) on a range from 20 to 58 years. Participants were
screened with respect to their mobility habits, their familiarity
with mobility apps and their technical expertise.
Mobility habits: 29 out of 32 users reported to go by foot
on a daily basis. Further, all participants use bus and car
several times a week or even daily. A small group (N=8)
indicated to use the bicycle daily. 26 participants use trains
(monthly or even more often). Most of the participants (N=27)
reported to have used bike rental ever, and 21 of the sample
never used car sharing. 50% of participants indicated not to
have used car pooling/ridesharing so far.
Experience with mobility applications: All participants
were highly accustomed to international 1 , nationwide 2 and
regional 3 trip assistant applications. Especially the German
national railway company application system was well known
(78%), but also GoogleMaps (78 %) and the application of the
local bus company - ASEAG mobil (56 %).
Technical expertise: All participants had a high technical
experience when using smart small screen devices (26 out of
1 Reasons against the selection of a certain mode of transport
GoogleMaps
2
DB Navigator, Öffi, BlaBlaCar, qixxit, Pendel Panda, DriveNow,
Mitfahrgelegenheit, moovel and allryder
3
ASEAG mobil, AVV connect and VRR App
32 participants even used the very same Android operating
system that was also used in the experiment). Also,
participants’ self-reported technical self-confidence [15]
yielded high scores. On a scale from 0 to 100 (very low to
very high technical self-confidence), the participants reached,
on average, 81.7 points (SD=14.4). However, a gender effect
was found: Women estimated own technical self-confidence
as lower (M=74.7, SD=16.8) than male (M=88.8, SD=6.1;
t=3.1; p<.05).
TABLE II: ITEMS TO EVALUATE ASPECTS OF THE INTERFACE DESIGN
Items (1 = fully (dis)agree; 5 = fully agree)
“The choice of colors is appealing to me.”
Use of “In my opinion, the application is too colorful.” (*)
colors “The colors change too often.” (*)
“The choice of colors is adhered to consequently.”
“Overall, the application seems to be graphically
Relation of overloaded.”
textual &
graphical “In my opinion, the relation between text and graphical
elements is well-balanced.”
elements
“Overall, the application is too heavy on the text.”
“In general, the contrast between the elements/objects
and the background is too low.” (*)
“I am able to identify all objects without difficulties.”
Visual
“Very often, the typing is too small.” (*)
ergonomics
“I can read all texts without difficulties.”
“I can identify some of the elements on the interface
with difficulties only.” (*)
IV. RESULTS
Data were reported descriptively. First, we report on the
findings regarding mobility requirements and the reasons for
or against choosing means of transport, followed by the
perceived ease of navigation. Finally, outcomes in the
perceived interface quality are outlined.
A. Reasons for or against choosing means of transportation
In the following we analyzed the highest scoring items for
the 1st, 2nd and 3rd most important criteria of participants.
When asked about the three most important reasons to
choose a specific mode of transportation, 50% of participants
chose “Fast reach of destination”. 15 out of 32 selected
“Punctuality”, “Good availability of the means of travel” as
one of the first three best options. Also, “Good cost-
performance ratio”, “Comfort”, “Flexibility” and “Low costs”
were major arguments for choosing a means of transportation.
From the complete list of 21 possible arguments, only 14 were
selected. Seven arguments (“cleanliness”, “Fun”, “Relaxing”,
“Percipience of surroundings”, “Accessibility”, Status symbol
and “Interaction with Others”) were not selected, thus
indicating a minor role for the decision of selecting a means of
transportation (see Fig. 4).
covered a broader range (16 out of 20 reasons were
mentioned). Again, efficiency and cost-related arguments
were prominent, as “(Un-)punctuality”, “(High) Costs” and
the “(Bad) cost-performance ratio” as well as “(Lack of) Better percipience of surroundings
Accessibility
Flexibility” and “(Lack of) Availability. Additionally, a Interaction with others
“Lengthy journey”, “Long waiting times”, “Overcrowding” Relaxing
Fun
and “Time trap” 4 were stated as important reasons that Status symbol
prevented the participants from choosing a means of Cleanliness
transportation. Environmental reasons, “Contact to strangers”, Constantly available mobility
Healthiness
“Lack of fun” and “Lack of healthiness” had a score of zero Entrainment of people / animals
(see Fig. 5). Environmental friendliness
Start from the doorstep
Another analysis regarded the comparison of chosen Transport of large items
Time to pursue other things
reasons in different professional groups, comparing students to Low costs
those persons, which work on a professional basis. Flexibility
Comfort
Contrary to expectations, we see a highly similar picture of Good cost-performance ratio
Adequate availability
both professional groups (Table III). Overall, the three highest Punctuality
scoring reasons for using means of transportation were „Fast Fast reach of destination
reach of destination“ and „Punctuality“ in both, students as
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
well as employed person. Nevertheless, „Good cost-
performance ratio“ and „Comfort“ were top scorers as the
third most important reasons for the student group. Among the Fig. 4. Reasons to chose a specific means of transportation in percentage of
participants
disliked reasons, students’ most important barriers were also
efficiency-related: „Lack of availability“, „Long waiting
times“ and „Unpunctuality“. The top scorers of the employed
Lack of healthiness
were not that distinct. „High costs“ and „Lack of flexibility“ Lack of fun
were each chosen by 21.4 % of all employed as the first most Contact to strangers
Environmental pollution
important reason. The latter and „Lengthy journey“ had the Disturbance by fellow passengers
highest score for the second most important reason. Cost- Unreliability
related reasons („High costs“ and „Bad cost-performance Lack of fun
Lack of possibility to transport baggages
ratio“) and comfort („Overcrowding“ and „Lack of possibility Lack of comfort
to transport baggage“) were top scorers of the third most High effort
important reason. Interestingly, health-related arguments or Dependence on weather conditions
"Time trap"
green and ecology related reasons seemed to be not that Lack of availability
important for both groups in terms of means of transportation. Lack of flexibility
Overcrowding
B. Evaluation of perceived quality of navigation Long waiting times
Lengthy journey
The acceptance of smart applications depends on a high Bad cost-performance ratio
High costs
usability. When looking at the perceived orientation in the Unpunctuality
menu, findings show a promising result. Participants largely
agreed to know where they were within the menu, when 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

solving the tasks (M=4.4, SD=0.9). When asked about the

Fig. 5. Reasons against chosing a specific means of transportation in
TABLE III: THREE MOST IMPORTANT REASONS FOR/AGAINST percentage of participants
CHOOSING A SPECIFC MEANS OF TRANSPORTTATION

Students Employed
st
1 Fast reach of destination (35.7 %) Fast reach of destination (21.4 %)
2nd Punctuality (38.9 %) Fast reach of destination (21.4 %)
Pro
Good cost-performance ratio / Comfort Punctuality (21.4 %)
3rd
(22.2 % each)
1st Lack of availability (33.3 %) High costs / Lack of flexibility (21.4 % each)
2nd Long waiting times (27.8 %) Lengthy journey / Lack of flexibility (21.4 % each)
Contra
Unpunctuality (27.8 %) High costs / Bad cost-performance ratio / Overcrowding / Lack of
3rd
availability / Lack of possibility to transport baggage (14.3 % each)

4
Time that is spent on a journey (e.g. by driving a car or bicycle), which
cannot be used for other things, such as reading, working or sleeping
 menu structure, on the average, most users stated to have
known where to go next (M=3.8, SD=1.2, equals roughly to “I
largely agree that I knew where to go next.”). They also did
not feel lost in the menu (M=3.7, SD=1.2). Furthermore, the
participants reported to know how to find specific functions
“
(MD=3.4, SD=1.2) (see Fig. 6).
"I knew how to reach a specific
function."
"I didn't feel lost in the menu."
"I knew where to go next."
"I knew where I was currently
located within the menu."
1 2 3 4
I fully
disagree
Fig. 6. Perceived quality of navigation
C. Evaluation of perceived quality of the interface
The ratings showed, on average, a high satisfaction with
the given design. Visual ergonomics was rated with 4.5 out of
5 points maximum (SD=0.5). Also the use of colors reached
satisfying scores (M=4.2, SD=0.5) (see Fig. 7). When
focusing on the relation between textual and graphical
elements, ratings reveal also positive evaluations. On average,
the relation was judged with M=4.2 (SD=1.0), neither too
much text (M=1.7, SD=0.8), nor too much graphics was used
(M=1.7, SD=0.8) (see Fig. 8).
As many applications profit from an “appealing” overall
design, we asked participants at the end of the experiment, to
describe the design with adjectives (thereby rating the
appropriateness of each adjective to the design, suing again a
Likert scale (1=“I fully disagree.” to 5=“I fully agree.”
As can be seen in Fig. 9, adjectives that were associated
with negative properties (“oldschool”, “information poor”,
“overloaded” or “overambitiously colorful”) had a much
lower score than positive adjectives, such as “authentic”,
“appropriate” or “appealing”. Adjectives such as
“fashionable” or “chic” were perceived slightly more fitting
for the design than not (just above average). It is important to
notice that the adjective “recognizable”, meaning that the
application’s design was outstanding from others and easily to
be recognized, had the lowest score of all positive adjectives.
V. DISCUSSION AND FUTURE WORK
In this paper we reported on the usability of a novel
mobility app that provides a central platform for planning and
booking of a journey using all kinds of different public means
of transport. In addition, the platform seeks to take semi public
individual traffic into account (car sharing and pedelec rental).
In order to understand the usability in an early stage of
development of interface design, we analyzed mobility
requirements and the reasons of current users for or against
using means of transportation. In addition, the overall
appearance of the visual design has been assessed, regarding
the interface quality, visual ergonomic issues, but also the
balance between textual and graphical elements. Results show
that the current visual designs and the perceived ease of
interacting with the application receive positive evaluations by
our participants. However, in this research a comparably small
and quite educated and technology affine group was
examined. The latter is adequate at this stage of research, in
order to get insights from a benchmark approach. As current
as well as future travelers will be increasingly characterized
by diversity, including less educated users, less healthy users
as well senior travelers, which might be not that familiarized
with the usage of small screen devices in general, and
electronic mobility services in particular, we will have to
replicate the findings in a broader user group. Here it will be
of vital importance to collect also navigation performance
5
I fully
(effectiveness and efficiency) in order to understand the
agree adequacy of the technical designs also for elderly users.
Specifically, we plan to assess also the fit of the interface for
persons with visual problems or otherwise physically impaired
persons, to include their special needs in the further
development process [16]. Future research will also address
the role of navigation aids that have to be specifically
designed for the use in cities [17,18], in order to enhance the
overall experience with usage of electronic mobility services
delivered by smart devices [19].
Another line of research regards the usage of the
application in the wild. So far, we only tested the usability of
the application in static, quiet and thus unrealistic
experimental scenario. A critical test of the real-world
suitability will be carried out in the next 6 months.
Experimentally, participants will use the application during
travelling and the usability of the context sensitive information
will be under study.
Beyond the usability of the interface design, which was in
the central focus here, a graver question regards the social
acceptance of using connected mobility services. Recent
studies show that travelers and city dwellers are quite
clairaudient regarding privacy [20] and safety issues [21]
when using smart mobility services. Here, a sensitive trade-off
between the wished mobility and travel assistance of persons
on the one hand and the disliked possibility to be tracked and
monitored all over on the other hand has to be addressed.
Visual Ergonomics
Use of Colors
1 2 3 4 5
bad good
Fig. 7. Perceived quality of visual ergonomics and use of color
 areas,” in HIMI/HCII 2013, part II, vol. 8017, S. Yamamoto, Ed.
Heidelberg: Springer, 2013, pp. 153-162.
Too much graphics [6] K. Goto and Y. Kambayashi, “A new passenger support system for
public transport using mobile database access,“ in Proceedings of the
28th International Conference on Very Large Data Bases, P.A.
Too much text
Bernstein, Y.E. Ionnidis, R. Ramakrishnan, and D. Papadias, Eds. San
Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann, 2002, pp. 908–919.
[7] H. Ezzedine, T. Bonte, C. Kolski, and C. Tahon, “Intermodal
transportation system management: Towards integration of traffic
Well-balanced management system and users information system,“ in Proceedings of
the IMACS Multiconference on Computational Engineering in Systems
Applications, vol. I, New York: IEEE Press, 2006, pp. 972–979.
1 2 3 4 5 [8] S. Beul-Leusmann, C. Samsel, M. Wiederhold, K.-H. Krempels, E.-M.
I fully I fully Jakobs, and M. Ziefle, “Usability evaluation of mobile passenger
disagree agree information systems,“ in Design, User Experience, and Usability.
Theories, Methods, and Tools for Designing the User Experience, part I,
A. Marcus, Ed. Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2014, pp. 217-
Fig. 8. Perceived quality of relation between textual and graphical elements 228.
[9] W. Wilkowska, R. Farrokhikhiavi, M. Ziefle, and D. Vallée, “Mobility
Authentic requirements for the use of carpooling among different user groups,” in
Appropriate Advances in Human Factors, Software, and System Engineering, vol. 6,
Appealing B. Amala and B. Dalgetty, Eds. AHFE Conference, 2014, pp. 129-140.
Fashionable [10] B. Zaunbrecher, S. Beul-Leusmann, and M. Ziefle, ”Laypeople's
Chic perspectives on electromobility. A focus group study,“ in Internet of
Recognizable
Things Summit, International Conference on Mobility and Smart Cities,
Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 2014.
Oldschool
Information poor
[11] M. Ziefle and W. Wilkowska, “What makes people change their
preferences in public transportation – Opinions in different user groups,“
Overloaded
in Internet of Things Summit, International Conference on Mobility and
Overambitiously colorful Smart Cities, Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 2014.
[12] M. Beutel, S. Gokay, W. Kluth, K.-H. Krempels, C. Samsel, and C.
1 2 3 4 5
Terwelp, “Product oriented integration of heterogeneous mobility
I fully I fully
disagree agree services,” in Proceedings of the 17th International IEEE Conference of
Intelligent Transportation Systems, 2014, pp. 1529–1534.
Fig. 9. Rating of the interface design with adjectives [13] M. Beutel, S. Gökay, W. Kluth, KH. Krempels, C. Samsel, C. Terwelp,
and M. Wiederhold, “Heterogeneous Travel Information Exchange”,
ACKNOWLEDGMENT unpublished.
[14] M. Ziefle and S. Bay, “How to overcome disorientation in mobile phone
This research was funded by the Federal Ministry of menus: A comparison of two different types of navigation aids,”
Economic Affairs and Energy. (Project Mobility Broker, grant Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 21, iss. 4, pp. 393-433, 2006.
reference no. 01 ME 12135A). Furthermore, thanks go to [15] G. Beyer, “Kontrollüberzeugung im Umgang mit Technik,” Report
Christian Paul and Patric Dressia for research assistance. Psychologie, vol. 9, pp. 648-693, 1999.
[16] N.A. Karim and C. Nwagboso, “Assistive technologies in public
REFERENCES transport: Meeting the needs of elderly and disabled passengers,” in
Proceedings of the International Conference on Information and
[1] F.M. Carp, “Significance of mobility for the well-being of the elderly,“ Communication Technologies: From Theory to Applications, New
in Transportation in an aging society: Improving mobility and safety for York: IEEE Press, 2004, p. 69.
older persons, vol. II, I.L. Bailey and J.E. Sheedy, Eds. Washington,
D.C.: Transportation Research Board National Research Council, 1988, [17] A.J. May, T. Ross, S.H. Bayer, M.J. Tarkiainen, “Pedestrian navigation
pp. 1-12. aids: Information requirements and design implications,” Personal and
Ubiquitous Computing, vol. 7, iss. 6, pp. 331–338, 2003.
[2] A.K. Schaar and M. Ziefle, “ Potential of eTravel assistants to increase
older adults’ mobility,” in HCI in Work & Learning, Life & Leisure, G. [18] G. Lyons, G, ”The role of information in decision-making with regard to
Leitner, M. Hitz and Andreas Holzinger, Eds. Berlin, Heidelberg: travel,” Intelligent Transport Systems, vol. 153, iss. 2, pp. 199–212 ,
Springer, 2010, pp. 138-155. 2006.
[3] T.D. Camacho, M. Foth, and A. Rakotonirainy, “Pervasive technology [19] M. Foth and R. Schroeter, “Enhancing the experience of public transport
and public transport: Opportunities beyond telematics,” Pervasive users with urban screens and mobile applications,” in Proceedings of the
Computing , vol. 12, iss. 1, pp. 18–25, 2013. 14th International Academic MindTrek Conference, New York: ACM,
2010, pp. 33–40.
[4] C.R. Garcia, S. Candela, J. Ginory, A. Quesada-Arenciba, and F.
Alayon, “On route travel assistant for public transport based on android [20] T. Schmidt, R. Philipsen, and M. Ziefle, “From v2x to control2trust -
technology,“ in Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Why trust and control are major attributes in vehicle2x technologies,”
Innovative Mobile and Internet Services in Ubiquitous Computing, A. International Conference on Human Computer Interaction, in press.
Moreno, J. Gómez Miralles, L. Goméz Miralles, Eds. New York: IEEE [21] J. van Heek, K. Arning, and M. Ziefle, “ Safety and privacy perceptions
Press, 2012, pp. 840-845. in public spaces: An empirical study on user requirements for city
[5] K. Papangelis, S. Sripada, D. Corsar, N. Velaga, P. Edwards, and J.D. mobility,” Internet of Things Summit, International Conference on
Nelson, “Developing a real time passenger information system for rural Mobility and Smart Cities, Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 2014.

View publication stats