SlideServe
Télécharger Obtenir Pro
Menu
Accueil Pro
Préférences
ApparenceLight Aide et commentaires
© SlideServe · v2026

Week 2-1: The State of Human Factors (Part 2)

hsimons avatar
hsimons
9 diapositives · 123 Views · Jan 03, 2020

Week 2-1: The State of Human Factors (Part 2). Week 2-1 Readings & Questions. Readings Meister (2003) Questions What is the state of our knowledge in HF? How well is HF knowledge progressing? How well is HF knowledge being applied to technological design?

#week 2-1: the state of human factors (part 2) #week 2-1: the state of human factors (part 2) ppt #powerpoint #presentation
Week 2-1: The State of Human Factors (Part 2) - slide 1
01 / 9Week 2-1: The State of Human Factors (Part 2)
1 / 17

Télécharger la présentation

Week 2-1: The State of Human Factors (Part 2)
Une image / un lien ci-dessous est fourni (tel quel) pour télécharger la présentation

Politique de téléchargement : le contenu du site vous est fourni TEL QUEL pour votre information et votre usage personnel ; il ne peut être vendu, concédé sous licence ni partagé sur d’autres sites sans l’accord de son auteur.Le contenu vous est fourni TEL QUEL, pour votre information et votre usage personnel uniquement. Téléchargez la présentation en cliquant sur ce lien. Lors du téléchargement, si vous ne parvenez pas à télécharger une présentation, l’éditeur a peut-être supprimé le fichier de son serveur.Pendant le téléchargement, si vous ne parvenez pas à obtenir une présentation, le fichier a peut-être été supprimé par l’éditeur.

F I N

Plus de contenu associé

Transcription de la présentation

  1. Week 2-1: The State of Human Factors (Part 2)

  2. Week 2-1 Readings & Questions • Readings • Meister (2003) • Questions • What is the state of our knowledge in HF? • How well is HF knowledge progressing? • How well is HF knowledge being applied to technological design? • What factors impede or facilitate the progress and application of HF knowledge?

  3. Meister’s (2002) Self Examination • Self-examination and some dissatisfaction are needed to advance the discipline. • Questions to ask: • How well can we predict? • Does our work significantly improve design? • Do our theories expand understanding of the human/systems interaction?

  4. What has changed in 25 years? • From a review of the Proceedings of the HFES conference  Not much • What has remained the same: • Reliance (if not increased reliance) on the experiment 64% in 1974, 80% in 1999. • Very little written about system design and development (10%  6%) • Limited development of theory (19%  24%) • Limited applications of research findings (23% 34%) “airy abstractions” • Tightly constrained studies with clear-cut stimuli (68%  58%) • More emphasis on molecular than molar issues.

  5. What has changed in 25 years? • From a review of the Proceedings of the HFES conference  Not much • What has changed • Increased emphasis on empirical research to non-empirical (tutorial/case history/analysis) papers (1974: 30-70%, respectively; 1999  70-30%) • More emphasis on molecular (workstations, interfaces) than molar (system-oriented) issues (38%  24%)

  6. Goals of HF • Support understanding of the relationship between humans and their technology • Aid in the design and development of human-machine systems • Can data collected to address the first goal be used for the second goal as well?

  7. Applying Research Results to Systems? • If HF research cannot be used in the design process, it has little value. • The lack of applicability might stem from the dominance by academics and experimental methods. • Experimental methods produce experimental data that are often difficult to apply.

  8. Academic dominance • Represents a natural progression of the discipline. • Academic institutions are the recipients of government funding. • Academics have as a requirement the need to publish. • Journals prefer academic methods. • Old research is the most common stimulus for new research.

  9. Self Examination • To advance, we must understand how we know what we know (epistemology). • The “automatic” methods cannot be simply applied to solve design problems. • To advance, we must be willing to ask ourselves if HF research has value.