Interaction design patterns for coherent and re-usable shape specifications of human-robot collaboration

Sharing and re-using design knowledge is a challenge for the diverse multi-disciplinary research and development teams that work on complex and highly automated systems. For this purpose, a situated Cognitive Engineering (sCE) methodology was proposed that specifies and assesses the functional user requirements with their design rationale in a coherent and concise way. This paper presents this approach for the development of human-robot collaboration, focusing on a recently added component: the application of interaction design patterns to capture and share design knowledge on the shape of the human-robot interaction (i.e., the communication level). The sCE case study in the urban search and rescue domain provided the specification and assessment of functions and shape of a team-awareness display. Twenty fire fighters participated as operator of a ground or aerial robot, in several realistic earth quake scenarios to assess the functions and shapes of this display in different settings. It showed that the functions (i.e., the task level requirements and rationale) were valid, while the shape (communication level) was (yet) sub-optimal. Based on this evaluation result, a design improvement on the communication level has been proposed without the need to adjust the task-level design solution.

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

[2]  Gerrit C. van der Veer,et al.  Patterns as Tools for User Interface Design , 2000, TFWWG.

[3]  Jan O. Borchers A pattern approach to interaction design , 2001, DIS '00.

[4]  Tina Mioch,et al.  Establishing human situation awareness using a multi-modal operator control unit in an urban search & rescue human-robot team , 2011, 2011 RO-MAN.

[5]  Takayuki Kanda,et al.  Design patterns for sociality in human-robot interaction , 2008, 2008 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[6]  Jenifer Tidwell Designing Interfaces , 2005 .

[7]  Mark A. Neerincx Situated cognitive engineering for crew support in space , 2010, Personal and Ubiquitous Computing.

[8]  Nanja J. J. M. Smets,et al.  Content-Based Design and Implementation of Ambient Intelligence Applications , 2013, ISAmI.

[9]  Neerincx,et al.  Situated cognitive engineering for complex task environments , 2005 .

[10]  Zhenke Yang,et al.  TravelThrough: a participatory-based guidance system for traveling through disaster areas , 2012, CHI Extended Abstracts.

[11]  A.,et al.  Cognitive Engineering , 2008, Encyclopedia of GIS.

[12]  Michael Uschold,et al.  Ontologies: principles, methods and applications , 1996, The Knowledge Engineering Review.

[13]  Jean Vanderdonckt,et al.  A Unifying Reference Framework for multi-target user interfaces , 2003, Interact. Comput..

[14]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  Cognitive Systems Engineering: New wine in new bottles , 1999, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[15]  Thomas R. Gruber,et al.  A translation approach to portable ontology specifications , 1993, Knowl. Acquis..

[16]  Max Jacobson,et al.  A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction , 1981 .

[17]  Ralph Johnson,et al.  design patterns elements of reusable object oriented software , 2019 .

[18]  Andrew M. Dearden,et al.  Pattern Languages in HCI: A Critical Review , 2006, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[19]  Mark A. Neerincx,et al.  Distributed collaborative situation-map making for disaster response , 2011, Interact. Comput..

[20]  Mark A. Neerincx,et al.  Mutual empowerment in mobile soldier support , 2012 .