# Light It Up: Boarding for Automated Low-Capacity Shuttles through Ambient Visual Cues
## 5 Results
### Quantitative Results
**Standard UEQ** The calculated mean values were used to determine factors of the UEQ score. The comparisons among the three conditions provided insights regarding the differences among them and were analysed to determine the usability of the system. In the evaluation of these UEQs, there were significant differences between the two light conditions and the control condition in each category, just as before. In the categories _controllability_ and _originality_, slightly significant differences between the static-light condition (S) and the animated-light condition (A) were found. Table 2 shows an overview of the data. _Attractiveness:_ In this category, a Friedman test showed statistical significance (\(\chi^{2}\) (2) = 27.515, \(p<0.001\)). For this factor, the significant differences occurred between the static-lighting condition (S) compared with the control (C) (z = \(-4.459\), \(p<0.001\)) and the animation condition (A) compared with the control (C) (z = \(-3.557\), \(p<0.001\)). A total of 26 out of 27 participants found the static-light condition more attractive than the control condition; one person found that it was equal. The difference between animated light and control was also very high; twenty participants found that this animation was more attractive than control, five persons saw this the other way around, and two had no preference. _Transparency:_ A performed Friedman test showed statistical significance (\(\chi^{2}\) (2) = 33.158, \(p<0.001\)) regarding this factor. Here, again, significant differences occurred between the static-lighting condition (L) compared with the control (C) (z = \(-4.789\), \(p<0.001\)) and the animation condition (A) compared with the control (C) (z = \(-3.744\), \(p<0.001\)). Twenty-four users rated the light conditions higher regarding transparency than the control condition; three people had no preference. For twenty-three persons, the animation condition performed better when it came to transparency than the control condition, two people found the transparency of the control condition better, and two had no opinion on that. _Efficiency:_ A Friedman test showed statistical significance (\(\chi^{2}\) (2) = 22.396, \(p<0.001\)). Furthermore, analysing this factor, a comparison of the three conditions revealed a significant difference between the control (C) compared to static-light (z = \(-4.097\), \(p<0.001\)) and also to animated-light (z = \(-3.379\), \(p<0.001\)) conditions. The static light was, for twenty-three people, more efficient than no light (C), two found it to be the other way around, and two other had no preference. Nineteen people found the animated light more efficient than no light (C), five rated the control condition higher, and three had no preference. _Controllability:_ A Friedman test again showed statistical significance (\(\chi^{2}\) (2) = 18.468, \(p<0.001\)). Here, significant differences between all three conditions were found, for animated light compared to static light (z = \(-2.269\), \(p<0.023\)) and also, again, for the control condition compared to the static light (z = \(-3.722\), \(p<0.001\)) and animation (z = \(-3.174\), \(p<0.002\)). A total of 15 participants preferred the controllability of the static-light condition over the controllability of the animated-light condition. Seven participants found animated