In the article titled “Designing a Human Machine Interface for Quality Assurance in Car Manufacturing: An Attempt to Address the “Functionality versus User Experience Contradiction” in Professional Production Environments” [1], there was an error in Table 4 during the editing process as the reported values are wrongly sorted in the table. However, they are correct in the text. Accordingly, the change did not affect the results of the article. The correct version of Table 4 should be as follows:
Device score model: results overview (the lower the better).
DEVICE SCORE MODEL
Smartphone
Tablet
Headset
AR-Mic.
AR-Gest.
Proj.-Mic.
Proj.-Gest.
Overall grade
2,1
2,2
3,0
2,6
3,5
3,6
4,2
Criterion
Weight.
Grade
Grade
Grade
Grade
Grade
Grade
Grade
Ergonomics
25%
2,4
3,4
3,0
3,2
3,2
3,1
2,9
Performance
40%
1,7
1,9
2,8
1,7
2,9
4,4
5,8
Technology acceptance
15%
1,7
1,1
5,0
3,3
2,0
5,1
4,4
User Experience
20%
2,7
2,3
1,8
3,2
6,0
1,7
2,6
AR-Mic = augmented reality: data glasses with microphone as input device.
AR-Gest. = augmented reality: data glasses with hand gesture as input device.
Proj.-Mic. = display instructions over projection with microphone as input device.
Proj.-Gest. = display instructions over projection with hand gesture as input.
BorisovN.WeyersB.KlugeA.Designing a human machine interface for quality assurance in car manufacturing: an attempt to address the “functionality versus user experience contradiction” in professional production environments2018201818950269210.1155/2018/9502692