Future technology on the flight deck: assessing the use of touchscreens in vibration environments

Abstract Use of touchscreens in the flight deck has been steadily increasing, however, their usability may be severely impacted when turbulent conditions arise. Most previous research focusses on using touchscreens in static conditions; therefore, this study assessed touchscreen use whilst undergoing turbulent representative motion, generated using a 6-axis motion simulator. Touchscreens were tested in centre, side and overhead positions, to investigate how turbulence affected: (1) error rate, movement times and accuracy, (2) arm fatigue and discomfort. Two touchscreen technologies were compared: a 15” infra-red and a 17.3” projected capacitive touchscreen with force sensing capability. The potential of the force sensing capability to minimise unintentional interactions was also investigated. Twenty-six participants undertook multi-direction tapping (ISO 9241; ISO 2010) and gesture tasks, under four vibration conditions (control, light chop, light turbulence and moderate turbulence). Error rate, movement time and workload increased and usability decreased significantly, with screen position and increasing turbulence level. Practitioner Summary: This study evaluated the use of infra-red and projected capacitive touchscreen technologies using multi-directional tapping and gesture tasks, whilst being subjected to different levels of turbulence representative motion. Performance degraded significantly with increasing turbulence level and touchscreen location. This has implications for future flight deck design.

[1]  Jan Noyes,et al.  A Comparison of Speech Input and Touch Screen for Executing Checklists in an Avionics Application , 2007 .

[2]  Guy H. Walker,et al.  Human Factors Methods: A Practical Guide for Engineering and Design , 2012 .

[3]  Patrick Patterson,et al.  Usability of pointing devices for office applications in a moving off-road environment. , 2008, Applied ergonomics.

[4]  Bob DeMers,et al.  Touch Screens on the Flight Deck , 2014 .

[5]  I. Scott MacKenzie,et al.  Towards a standard for pointing device evaluation, perspectives on 27 years of Fitts' law research in HCI , 2004, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[6]  Catherine Harvey,et al.  To twist, roll, stroke or poke? A study of input devices for menu navigation in the cockpit , 2013, Ergonomics.

[7]  Armin Eichinger,et al.  Between laboratory and simulator: a cognitive approach to evaluating cockpit interfaces by manipulating informatory context , 2013, Cognition, Technology & Work.

[8]  Shrawan Kumar,et al.  Ergonomics for Beginners: A quick reference guide: by J. Dul and B. Weerdmeester. London, Taylor and Francis, 1993 , 1994 .

[9]  Sridher Kaminani.  Human computer interaction issues with touch screen interfaces in the flight deck , 2011, 2011 IEEE/AIAA 30th Digital Avionics Systems Conference.

[10]  Arthur D. Fisk,et al.  Touch a Screen or Turn a Knob: Choosing the Best Device for the Job , 2005, Hum. Factors.

[11]  Paul D. Williams,et al.  Increased light, moderate, and severe clear-air turbulence in response to climate change , 2017, Advances in Atmospheric Sciences.

[12]  J. B. Brooke,et al.  SUS: A 'Quick and Dirty' Usability Scale , 1996 .

[13]  Errol R. Hoffmann,et al.  Effect of varying target height in a Fitts' movement task , 1994 .

[14]  Natassia Goode,et al.  The impact of on-road motion on BMS touch screen device operation , 2012, Ergonomics.

[15]  Chang S Nam,et al.  Touchscreen interfaces in context: A systematic review of research into touchscreens across settings, populations, and implementations. , 2017, Applied ergonomics.

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

[17]  Gwanseob Shin,et al.  User discomfort, work posture and muscle activity while using a touchscreen in a desktop PC setting , 2011, Ergonomics.

[18]  Daniel E. McCrobie,et al.  Effects of keyboard tray geometry on upper body posture and comfort. , 1999, Ergonomics.

[19]  M L Lin,et al.  Gain effects on performance using a head-controlled computer input device. , 1992, Ergonomics.

[20]  Christopher D. Wickens,et al.  An introduction to human factors engineering , 1997 .

[21]  Neville A Stanton,et al.  To twist or poke? A method for identifying usability issues with the rotary controller and touch screen for control of in-vehicle information systems , 2011, Ergonomics.

[22]  Jan Dul,et al.  Ergonomics for Beginners , 2008 .

[23]  P. Fitts.  The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. , 1954, Journal of experimental psychology.

[24]  Anand Vardhan Bhalla,et al.  Comparative Study of Various Touchscreen Technologies , 2010 .

[25]  Chiuhsiang Joe Lin,et al.  The performance of computer input devices in a vibration environment , 2010, Ergonomics.

[26]  Xuguang Wang,et al.  Effects of target location, stature and hand grip type on in-vehicle reach discomfort , 2011, Ergonomics.

[27]  Tom Rodden,et al.  Target size guidelines for interactive displays on the flight deck , 2015, 2015 IEEE/AIAA 34th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC).

[28]  Klaudia Beich,et al.  Ergonomics For Beginners A Quick Reference Guide , 2016 .

[29]  Sheue-Ling Hwang,et al.  Effects of Input Device and Motion Type on a Cursor-Positioning Task , 2008, Perceptual and motor skills.

[30]  Alex W. Stedmon,et al.  Human factors methods: a practical guide for engineering and design (second edition) , 2014 .

[31]  P. A. Hancock,et al.  Experimental Evaluations of a Model of Mental Workload , 1989, Human factors.

[32]  Philippe A. Palanque,et al.  Turbulent Touch: Touchscreen Input for Cockpit Flight Displays , 2017, CHI.

[33]  Mark D. Dunlop,et al.  Assessing the effectiveness of direct gesture interaction for a safety critical maritime application , 2012, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..