250 likes | 378 Vues
The Human-Centered Technologies Analysis Tool, developed by Dr. Victor Riley and a project team including experts from FRA and Foster-Miller, aims to help evaluate complex systems and user interfaces for human factors issues. As technology becomes more intricate, the need for effective HF expertise has intensified alongside regulatory requirements. The tool is designed to assist the FRA's Office of Safety personnel in identifying potential human factors-related problems in systems and user interfaces. The tool will transition from its beta phase to a finalized version by Q4 2005.
E N D
Human Centered Technologies Analysis Tool Victor Riley June 29, 2005 User Interaction Research and Design, Inc. Point Roberts, WA
Project team • Dr. Tom Raslear, FRA • Stephen Reinach, Foster-Miller • Kurt Bruck, Foster-Miller • Dr. Victor Riley, UIR&D
Background • Technology and systems becoming more complex • HF issues coming to the fore • FRA: new rule on processor-based control systems • FAA: new rule on design-related human error • Too many problems, not enough regulators with HF expertise
FRA Human Centered Technologies Tool • FRA wants tool to help Office of Safety personnel evaluate systems and UIs for potential human factors problems • Current status: beta version
Design related error • Fitts and Jones (1947): • Substitution errors • Adjustment errors • Forgetting errors • Reversal errors • Unintentional activation errors • Inability to reach a control
Design related error • Fitts and Jones (1947): • Substitution errors • Adjustment errors • Forgetting errors • Reversal errors • Unintentional activation errors • Inability to reach a control
More specifically: • Controls: • Violation of cultural expectations • Inconsistencies within the interface • Adjacent controls with conflicting functions • Protections • Hidden functions • Mode errors • Separation • Appropriate placement for importance • Appropriate selection for number and type of functions • Color
More specifically: • Displays: • Violation of cultural expectations • Inconsistencies within the design • Adjacent displays with conflicting functions • Color (appropriateness, contrast) • Appropriate placement for importance • Control/display relationships • Feedback • Labels • Function keys
More specifically: • Automation: • Potential situation awareness gaps due to combinations of automation SA parameters controls functions operator displays SA parameters
More specifically: • Automation: • Potential situation awareness gaps due to combinations of automation SA parameters controls automation functions operator displays SA parameters
More specifically: • Multiple interfaces: • Compare two systems/interfaces for inconsistencies (interface and automation) • Interoperability • Mixed-fleet flying • Differences training • System 1 • type • location • appearance • motion • logic • System 2 • type • location • appearance • motion • logic Function
Tool role • Inform, not replace, regulator decision-making • Plan to make tool available to industry after FRA acceptance
Tool input • Upload picture of interface for guide • Designate types and positions of controls and displays • Define appearance of controls and displays • Define control and display functions • Identify SA parameters associated with controls and displays • Define automation
Beta version • Will also be able to analyze some aspects of graphical user interfaces
Final version • Will also be able to analyze graphical user interfaces and function keys, dual interfaces, automation • conflicting function types assigned to same key on different screens • same function assigned to different keys on different screens
Schedule • Alpha test in November of last year • Beta test in July • Final version in 4Q 2005