Passenger Perceptions, Information Preferences, and Usability of Crowding Visualizations on Public Displays in Transit Stations and Vehicles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large crowds in public transit stations and vehicles introduce obstacles for wayfinding, hygiene, and physical distancing. Public displays that currently provide on-site transit information could also provide critical crowdedness information. Therefore, we examined people’s crowd perceptions and information preferences before and during the pandemic, and designs for visualizing crowdedness to passengers. We first report survey results with public transit users (n = 303), including the usability results of three crowdedness visualization concepts. Then, we present two animated crowd simulations on public displays that we evaluated in a field study (n = 44). We found that passengers react very positively to crowding information, especially before boarding a vehicle. Visualizing the exact physical spaces occupied on transit vehicles was most useful for avoiding crowded areas. However, visualizing the overall fullness of vehicles was the easiest to understand. We discuss design implications for communicating crowding information to support decision-making and promote a sense of safety.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".