# Light It Up: Boarding for Automated Low-Capacity Shuttles through Ambient Visual Cues
## 5 Results
### Quantitative Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{l l l l l l l l l l l l l} \hline \hline
**Conditions** & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Animated Light to Control**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Static Light to Control**} & \multicolumn{3}{c}{**Static Light to Animated Light**} \\ \hline
**Factors/Ranks + Sig.** & \textgreater{} & \textgreater{} & \textgreater{} & \textgreater{} & \textgreater{} & \textgreater{} & \textgreater{} & \textgreater{} & \textgreater{} & \textgreater{} & \textgreater{} & \textgreater{} & \textgreater{} & \textgreater{} \\ \hline Attractiveness & 20 & 2 & 5 & 0.000 & 26 & 1 & 0 & 0.000 & 16 & 2 & 2 & 0.075 \\ Transparency & 23 & 2 & 2 & 0.000 & 24 & 3 & 0 & 0.000 & 13 & 7 & 7 & 0.178 \\ Efficiency & 19 & 3 & 5 & 0.001 & 23 & 2 & 2 & 0.000 & 15 & 6 & 6 & 0.064 \\ Controllability & 18 & 5 & 4 & 0.002 & 21 & 3 & 3 & 0.000 & 15 & 5 & 7 & 0.023 \\ Stimulation & 27 & 0 & 0 & 0.000 & 27 & 0 & 0 & 0.000 & 11 & 8 & 8 & 0.951 \\ Originality & 25 & 1 & 1 & 0.000 & 26 & 0 & 1 & 0.000 & 6 & 7 & 14 & 0.034 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Comparison of Conditions with UEQ items based on Wilcoxon signed-rank test Results, no-light condition shows significant differences to all other conditions. There are slightly significant differences in static-light compared to animated-light conditions in controllability and originality. light better regarding this factor than the static-light condition; five had no preference. For the comparison of static light to the control condition, twenty-one people thought static light performed better in controllability, three rated it the other way around, and three had no opinion on this. Eighteen participants graded that animated lights had a higher controllability than no lights (C), four had a reversed perception about this, and five had no preference. _Stimulation_: A Friedman test showed statistical significance (\(\chi^{2}\) (2) = 43.920, \(p\) < 0.001) in that item. Like in all other factors, a comparison of the three conditions gave a significant difference between the control (C) compared to static light (z = \(-4.545\), \(p\) < 0.001) and to animated light (z = \(-4.546\), \(p\) < 0.001). For each of the two conditions (animation and static light), 27 participants found that the lights were more stimulating than no lights. _Originality_: For that category, a performed Friedman test showed statistical significance (\(\chi^{2}\) (2) = 37.140, \(p\) < 0.001). In the last category, significant differences between all three conditions were also found. It was detected in the comparison of animated light to static light (z = \(-2.124\), \(p\) < 0.034). Additionally, as in all other factors, there was also a significant difference between the control condition compared to static-light (z = \(-4.352\), \(p\) < 0.001) and animated-light (z = \(-4.345\), \(p\) < 0.001) conditions. Fourteen people found that the animated lights were more original than the static lights, six people rated this the other way around, and seven had no preference according to one of the two conditions. A total of 26 out of 27 participants found that static light was more original than no light (C); 25 rated it the same way for animated light. For each of the two, one person found that no light (C) was more original than lights (L, A). Another person had no preference about whether animated light was better than no light. _Comparison between conditions_: There was a trend in the results that the performance of the two light conditions was higher than in the no-light conditions, as shown in Figure 4. This supports our hypothesis that light can serve as support and provide a much better user experience than no support.