Cognitive function analysis for human-centered automation of safety-critical systems

The Cognitive Function Analysis is a methodology supported by a mediating tool for the human-centered automation of safety-critical systems [4]. It is based on a socio-cognitive model linking the artifact being designed, the user’s activity, the task to be performed, and the organizational environment. Cognitive functions can be allocated to humans or machines. They are characterized by their role, context definition and associated resources. The methodology is supported by active design documents as mediating representations of the amfact, the interaction description and cognitive function descriptors being designed, redesigned and used as usability criteria to evahrate the distribution of cognitive functions among humans and machines. This methodolo,y enhances usercentered and participatory design, and traceability of design decisions. It was successfully tested on three main applications in the aeronautics domain. One of them is presented.

[1]  Peter G. Polson,et al.  A GOMS analysis of the advanced automated cockpit , 1994, CHI '94.

[2]  John Karat,et al.  Raison d'Etre: capturing design history and rationale in mutimedia narratives , 1994, CHI Conference Companion.

[3]  Mary Beth Rosson,et al.  Deliberated Evolution: Stalking the View Matcher in Design Space , 1996, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[4]  Nadine B. Sarter,et al.  Pilot Interaction With Cockpit Automation II: An Experimental Study of Pilots’ Model and Awareness of the Flight Management System , 1994 .

[5]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Usability engineering , 1997, The Computer Science and Engineering Handbook.

[6]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  Turn Signals Are The Facial Expressions Of Automobiles , 1992 .

[7]  Lucy A. Suchman,et al.  Plans and Situated Actions: The Problem of Human-Machine Communication (Learning in Doing: Social, , 1987 .

[8]  Barry W. Boehm,et al.  A spiral model of software development and enhancement , 1986, Computer.

[9]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Direct manipulation vs. interface agents , 1997, INTR.

[10]  Michael R. Genesereth,et al.  Software agents , 1994, CACM.

[11]  Edwin Hutchins.  How a Cockpit Remembers Its Speeds , 1995 .

[12]  Allen Newell,et al.  The psychology of human-computer interaction , 1983 .

[13]  Guy A. Boy,et al.  Active design documents , 1997, DIS '97.

[14]  Lucy Suchman.  Plans and situated actions: the problem of human-machine communication , 1987 .

[15]  Loren G. Terveen,et al.  Living Design Memory: Framework, Implementation, Lessons Learned , 1995, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[16]  K. J. Vicente,et al.  Cognitive Work Analysis: Toward Safe, Productive, and Healthy Computer-Based Work , 1999 .

[17]  Edwin Hutchins,et al.  How a Cockpit Remembers Its Speeds , 1995, Cogn. Sci..

[18]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  Scientific discovery: compulalional explorations of the creative process , 1987 .

[19]  Kim Halskov,et al.  Participatory design in Britain and North America: responses to the “Scandinavian Challenge” , 1991, CHI '91.

[20]  John M. Carroll,et al.  Introduction to This Special issue on Design Rationale , 1991, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[21]  Gerhard Fischer,et al.  Supporting the evolution of design artifacts with representations of context and intent , 1995, Symposium on Designing Interactive Systems.

[22]  Albert M. Selvin,et al.  A framework for assessing group memory approaches for software design projects , 1997, DIS '97.

[23]  Thomas B. Sheridan.  Supervisory Control of Remote Manipulators, Vehicles and Dynamic Processes: Experiments in Command and Display Aiding , 1983 .

[24]  Guy A. Boy,et al.  Cognitive Function Analysis , 1998 .