Linking Context to Evaluation in the Design of Safety Critical Interfaces

The rate of introduction of new technology into safety critical domains continues to increase. Improvements in evaluation methods are needed to keep pace with the rapid development of these technologies. A significant challenge in improving evaluation is developing efficient methods for collecting and characterizing knowledge of the domain and context of the work being performed. Traditional methods of incorporating domain and context knowledge into an evaluation rely upon expert user testing, but these methods are expensive and resource intensive. This paper will describe three new methods for evaluating the applicability of a user interface within a safety-critical domain (specifically aerospace work domains), and consider how these methods may be incorporated into current evaluation processes.

[1]  V. Paquet,et al.  A Practitioner’s Guide , 2018 .

[2]  Robin Jeffries,et al.  Applying cognitive walkthroughs to more complex user interfaces: experiences, issues, and recommendations , 1992, CHI.

[3]  H Hoagland,et al.  The right stuff. , 2000, Occupational health & safety.

[4]  David A. Caulton Relaxing the homogeneity assumption in usability testing , 2001, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[5]  L. Faulkner Beyond the five-user assumption: Benefits of increased sample sizes in usability testing , 2003, Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers : a journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc.

[6]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  The E-Z Reader model of eye-movement control in reading: Comparisons to other models , 2003, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[7]  Vasilis Z. Marmarelis,et al.  A Practitioner's Guide , 2004 .

[8]  Reinhold Kliegl,et al.  SWIFT: a dynamical model of saccade generation during reading. , 2005, Psychological review.

[9]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  Generating automated predictions of behavior strategically adapted to specific performance objectives , 2006, CHI.

[10]  Mary M Hayhoe,et al.  Task and context determine where you look. , 2016, Journal of vision.

[11]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  A Diffusion Model Account of Criterion Shifts in the Lexical Decision Task. , 2008, Journal of memory and language.

[12]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  Rational adaptation under task and processing constraints: implications for testing theories of cognition and action. , 2009, Psychological review.

[13]  Ritch Macefield,et al.  How to specify the participant group size for usability studies: a practitioner's guide , 2009 .

[14]  D. Ballard,et al.  Modelling the role of task in the control of gaze , 2009, Visual cognition.

[15]  A. Pinheiro,et al.  Rent-a-Car , 2009 .

[16]  Dennis Norris,et al.  Putting it all together: a unified account of word recognition and reaction-time distributions. , 2009, Psychological review.

[17]  Lance Sherry,et al.  Needs analysis: the case of flexible constraints and mutable boundaries , 2010, CHI EA '10.

[18]  Brian Traynor,et al.  Rent a Car in Just 0, 60, 240 or 1,217 Seconds? - Comparative Usability Measurement, CUE-8 , 2010 .

[19]  Anne Pier Salverda,et al.  A goal-based perspective on eye movements in visual world studies. , 2011, Acta psychologica.

[20]  Jessica Lee,et al.  Benefits of matching domain structure for planning software: the right stuff , 2011, CHI.

[21]  Andrew Howes,et al.  Adaptive Interaction: A Utility Maximization Approach to Understanding Human Interaction with Technology , 2013, Adaptive Interaction: A Utility Maximization Approach to Understanding Human Interaction with Technology.

[22]  Richard L. Lewis,et al.  The Adaptive Nature of Eye Movements in Linguistic Tasks: How Payoff and Architecture Shape Speed-Accuracy Trade-Offs , 2013, Top. Cogn. Sci..