Customization of user interfaces to reduce errors and enhance user acceptance.

Customization is assumed to reduce error and increase user acceptance in the human-machine relation. Reconfiguration gives the operator the option to customize a user interface according to his or her own preferences. An experimental study with 72 computer science students using a simulated process control task was conducted. The reconfiguration group (RG) interactively reconfigured their user interfaces and used the reconfigured user interface in the subsequent test whereas the control group (CG) used a default user interface. Results showed significantly lower error rates and higher acceptance of the RG compared to the CG while there were no significant differences between the groups regarding situation awareness and mental workload. Reconfiguration seems to be promising and therefore warrants further exploration.

[1]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Designing for Flexible Interaction Between Humans and Automation: Delegation Interfaces for Supervisory Control , 2007, Hum. Factors.

[2]  John M. Carroll,et al.  Mental models in human-computer interaction: research issues about what the user of software knows , 1987 .

[3]  Viswanath Venkatesh,et al.  Determinants of Perceived Ease of Use: Integrating Control, Intrinsic Motivation, and Emotion into the Technology Acceptance Model , 2000, Inf. Syst. Res..

[4]  Barbara A. Fritzsche,et al.  Theories and Research on Job Satisfaction. , 2005 .

[5]  I. Ajzen,et al.  Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior , 1980 .

[6]  J. G. Hollands,et al.  Engineering Psychology and Human Performance , 1984 .

[7]  H S Vitense,et al.  Multimodal feedback: an assessment of performance and mental workload , 2003, Ergonomics.

[8]  Paul J. Feltovich,et al.  Two epistemic world-views: Prefigurative schemas and learning in complex domains , 1996 .

[9]  S. Hart,et al.  Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research , 1988 .

[10]  Jürgen S. Sauer,et al.  Comparative study of three training methods for enhancing process control performance: Emphasis shift training, situation awareness training, and drill and practice , 2010, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[11]  Kirk P. Arnett,et al.  Productivity gains via an adaptive user interface: an empirical analysis , 1994, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[12]  Wolfram Luther,et al.  Formal Modeling and Reconfiguration of User Interfaces for Reduction of Errors in Failure Handling of Complex Systems , 2012, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[13]  Andy P. Field,et al.  Discovering Statistics Using SPSS , 2000 .

[14]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  Cognitive reliability and error analysis method , 1998 .

[15]  Jacob Cohen,et al.  A power primer. , 1992, Psychological bulletin.

[16]  Peter A. Hancock,et al.  Hedonomics: The Power of Positive and Pleasurable Ergonomics , 2005 .

[17]  Fred D. Davis,et al.  User Acceptance of Computer Technology: A Comparison of Two Theoretical Models , 1989 .

[18]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Toward a Theory of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[19]  Lawrence B. Mohr.  Impact analysis for program evaluation , 1988 .

[20]  Peter A. Todd,et al.  Understanding Information Technology Usage: A Test of Competing Models , 1995, Inf. Syst. Res..

[21]  David N. Hogg,et al.  Development of a situation awareness measure to evaluate advanced alarm systems in nuclear power plant control rooms , 1995 .

[22]  Mica R. Endsley,et al.  Measurement of Situation Awareness in Dynamic Systems , 1995, Hum. Factors.

[23]  Wolfram Luther,et al.  Interface creation and redesign techniques in collaborative learning scenarios , 2011, Future Gener. Comput. Syst..

[24]  Esteve Xavier Rifà Ros,et al.  FIELD, A. (2005). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. London: SAGE Publications , 2006 .

[25]  Simone Pozzi,et al.  Individuation and diversity: the need for idiographic HCI , 2013 .