Advertisement

From Interface to Interspace Conceptual Framework for Multimodal Flight Deck Controls

  • Daniela KratchounovaEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9740)

Abstract

Pilots’ awareness of the flight deck as a shared space is intrinsic and they interact with each other freely and naturally in it. However, these pilot-to-pilot interactions bear little resemblance to the pilot-aircraft interactions which are constrained within instrument panel areas where the majority of pilot interfaces currently reside. The inherent spatial characteristics of the flight deck afford the notion of an interspace. The interspace can be an environment where: (a) the pilots interact with technology in a multimodal fashion such that the actions in one modality complement, and collaborate the input from the others, producing a well-choreographed user experience; and (b) the spatial organization, temporal synchronization, and semantic collaboration of control input devices reflect the integration patterns characterizing people’s use of different modalities. Thus, the key to an effective design paradigm shift is contingent on successfully emulating these naturally occurring modality communication and cooperation patterns within the intended interspace.

Keywords

Multimodal input controls Flight deck human factors Flight crew interface 

References

  1. 1.
    Bourdot, P., Krus, M., Gherbi, R.: Management of non-standard devices for multimodal user interfaces under UNIX/X11. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Cooperative Multimodal Communication (CMC/95). Part I, (pp. 49–62), May 1995Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Buxton, W.: There’s more to interaction than meets the eye: some issues in manual input. In: Norman, D.A., Draper, S.W. (eds.) User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 319–337. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1986)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buxton, W., Hill, R., Rowley, P.: Issues and techniques in touch-sensitive tablet input. ACM SIGGRAPH Comput. Graph. 19(3), 215–224 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Calhoun, G.L., Arbak, C.J., Boff, K. R.: Eye-controlled switching for crew station design. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, vol. 28(3), pp. 258–262). SAGE Publications, October 1984Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Calhoun, G.L., Janson, W. P., Arbak, C.J.: Use of eye control to select switches. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 30th Annual Meeting, vol. 30, pp. 154–158 (1986)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coutaz, J., Caelen, J.: A taxonomy for multimedia and multimodal user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 1st ERCIM Workshop on Multimodal HCI, pp. 143–148, November 1991Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hatfield, F., Jenkins, E.A., Jennings, M.W.: Eye/Voice Mission Planning Interface (EVMPI), (No. TR-J103-1). Synthetic Environments Inc., McLean, VA (1995)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hutchins, E.: The technology of team navigation. In: Galegher, J., Kraut, R., Egido, C. (eds.) Intellectual Teamwork: Social and Technical Bases of Collaborative Work. Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Hillsdale (1990)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hutchins, E., Klausen, T.: Distributed cognition in an airline cockpit. In: Engström, Y., Middleton, D. (eds.) Cognition and Communication at Work, pp. 15–34. Cambridge University Press, New York (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Leger, A.: Synthesis-and expected benefits analysis. RTO Lecture Series 215 Alternative Control Technologies: Human Factors Issues, 9-1, 9-10 (1998)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jordan, N.: Allocation of functions between man and machines in automated systems. J. Appl. Psychol. 47(3), 161 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mackinlay, J., Card, S.K., Robertson, G.G.: A semantic analysis of the design space of input devices. Hum. Comput. Inter. 5(2), 145–190 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Majaranta, P., Bulling, A.: Eye tracking and eye-based human-computer interaction. In: Fairclough, S.H., Gilleade, K. (eds.) Advances in Physiological Computing, pp. 39–65. Springer-Verlag, London (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Martin, J.-C., Veldman, R., Béroule, D.: Developing multimodal interfaces: a theoretical framework and guided propagation networks. In: Bunt, H., Beun, R.-J., Borghuis, T. (eds.) CMC 1995. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1374, pp. 158–187. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McMillan, G.R., Eggleston, R.G., Anderson, T.R.: Nonconventional controls. In: Salvendy, G. (ed.) Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics, 2nd edn, pp. 729–771. Wiley, Hoboken (1997)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Merchant, S., Schnell, T.: Applying eye tracking as an alternative approach for activation of controls and functions in aircraft. In: Proceedings of the 19th Digital Avionics Systems Conference, pp. 5A5/1–5A5/9. IEEE Computer Society, New York, NY (2000)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Oviatt, S., Cohen, P.: Multimodal interfaces that process what comes naturally. Commun. ACM 43(3), 45–53 (2000). doi: 10.1145/330534.330538 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Oviatt, S., Coulston, R., Lunsford, R.: When do we interact multimodally: cognitive load and multimodal communication patterns. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces, pp. 129–136. ACM, October 2004Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Rood, G.M.: Human factors issues for the integration of alternative control technologies. RTO Lecture Series 215 Alternative Control Technologies: Human Factors Issues, 8-1, 1-7 (1998)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shannon, C.E., Weaver, W.: The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois press, Chicago (1963)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reed, M.P., Parkinson, M., Chaffin, D.B.: A new approach to modeling driver reach. (SAE Technical Paper 2003-01-0587). PA, SAE International World Congress, Warrendale (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Flight Deck Human Factors Research Laboratory, Civil Aerospace Medical InstituteFederal Aviation AdministrationOklahoma CityUSA

Personalised recommendations