Abstract
The operator is one of the main sources of vulnerability in command and control systems; for example, 79% of fatal accidents in aviation are attributed to “human error.” Following Avizienis et al.’s classification system for faults human error at operation time can be characterized as the operator’s failure to deliver services while interacting with the command and control system. However, little previous work attempts to separate out the many different origins of faults that set the operator in an error mode. This paper proposes an extension to the Avizienis et al. taxonomy in order to more fully account for the human operator, making explicit the faults, error states, and failures that cause operators to deviate from correct service delivery. Our new taxonomy improves understanding and identification of faults, and provides systematic insight into ways that human service failures could be avoided or repaired. We present multiple concrete examples, from aviation and other domains, of faults affecting operators and fault-tolerant mechanisms, covering the critical aspects of the operator-side of the Human-Computer Interaction Loop.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Geske, R.: The Nall Report: General Aviation Accidents in 2015. AOPA Air Safety Institute (2015)
Boeing Corp.: Statistical Summary of Commercial Jet Airplane Accidents, Worldwide Operations 1959-2018
Sheikh Bahaei, S., Gallina, B., Laumann, K., Skogstad, M.R.: Effect of augmented reality on faults leading to human failures in socio-technical systems. In: 2019 4th International Conference on System Reliability and Safety (ICSRS), pp. 236–245. IEEE (2019)
Sheikh Bahaei, S., Gallina, B.: Augmented reality-extended humans: towards a taxonomy of failures – focus on visual technologies. In: European Safety and Reliability Conference (ESREL). Research Publishing, Singapore (2019)
Sheikh Bahaei, S., Gallina, S.: Towards assessing risk of safety-critical socio-technical systems while augmenting reality. In: International Symposium on Model-Based Safety and Assessment (IMBSA) (2019). (easyconferences.eu/imbsa2019/proceedings-annex/)
Avizienis, A., Laprie, J.C., Randell, B., Landwehr, C.: Basic concepts and taxonomy of dependable and secure computing. IEEE Trans. Dependable Secure Comput. 1(1), 11–33 (2004)
International Standard Organization: “ISO 9241–11” Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDT) – Part 11 Guidance on Usability (1996)
ISO 9241–210 Ergonomics of Human-System Interaction Ergonomics of human-system interaction – Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems (2010)
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) Overview. Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI). www.w3.org/WAI/standards-guidelines/wcag/
Davis, F.D.: Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q. 13(3), 319–340 (1989)
ISO/IEC 13407: Human-Centred Design Processes for Interactive Systems now integrated in ISO 9241 part 210 [8] (1999)
Gulliksen, J., Göransson, B., Boivie, I., Blomkvist, S., Persson, J., Cajander, Å.: Key principles for user-centred systems design. Behav. Inf. Technol. 22(6), 397–409 (2003)
Gray, J.N.: Dependability in the Internet Era. In: High Dependability Computing Consortium Conference, Santa Cruz, CA, 7 May 2001
CS-25 – Amendment 17 - Certification Specifications and Acceptable Means of Compliance for Large Aeroplanes. EASA (2015)
Fayollas, C., Martinie, C., Palanque, P., Deleris, Y., Fabre, J., Navarre, D.: An approach for assessing the impact of dependability on usability: application to interactive cockpits. In: 2014 Tenth European Dependable Computing Conference, pp. 198–209 (2014)
Canny, A., Bouzekri, E., Martinie, C., Palanque, P.: Rationalizing the need of architecture-driven testing of interactive systems. In: Bogdan, C., Kuusinen, K., Lárusdóttir, M.K., Palanque, P., Winckler, M. (eds.) HCSE 2018. LNCS, vol. 11262, pp. 164–186. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05909-5_10
Bass, L., et al.: The arch model: Seeheim revisited. In: User Interface Developers’ Workshop (1991)
Cockburn, A., Masson, D., Gutwin, C., Palanque, P., Goguey, A., Yung, M., Trask, C.: Design and evaluation of brace touch for touchscreen input stabilisation. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 122(21–37), 7 (2019)
Navarre, D., Palanque, P., Basnyat, S.: A formal approach for user interaction reconfiguration of safety critical interactive systems. In: Harrison, M.D., Sujan, M.A. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5219, pp. 373–386. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-87698-4_31
Tankeu-Choitat, A., Navarre, D., Palanque, P., Deleris, Y., Fabre, J.-C., Fayollas, C.: Self-checking components for dependable interactive cockpits using formal description techniques. In: IEEE Pacific Rim Dependable Computing Conference, pp. 164–173 (2011)
Reason, J.: Human Error. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990)
Card, S.K., Moran, T.P., Newell, A.: The model human processor: an engineering model of human performance. In: Handbook of Perception and Human Performance. Vol. 2: Cognitive Processes and Performance, pp. 1–35 (1986)
Cockburn, A., et al.: Turbulent touch: touchscreen input for cockpit flight displays. In: CHI, pp. 6742–6753 (2017)
Norman, D.A., Draper, S.W. (eds.): User-Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction. Lawrence Earlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1986)
Gould, I.D., Lewis, C.: Designing for usability: key principles and what designers think. Commun. ACM 28(3), 300–311 (1985)
Cronel, M., Dumas, B., Palanque, P., Canny, A.: MIODMIT: a generic architecture for dynamic multimodal interactive systems. In: Bogdan, C., Kuusinen, K., Lárusdóttir, M.K., Palanque, P., Winckler, M. (eds.) HCSE 2018. LNCS, vol. 11262, pp. 109–129. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-05909-5_7
Feiler, P.H., Gluch, D.P., Hudak, J.J.: The architecture analysis & design language (AADL): An introduction (No. CMU/SEI-2006-TN-011). CMU Software Engineering Inst. (2006)
Albinsson, P.A., Zhai, S.: High precision touch screen interaction. In: Proceedings ACM CHI Conference, pp. 105–112 (2003)
Olwal, A., Feiner, S.: Rubbing the fisheye: precise touch-screen interaction with gestures and fisheye views. In: Conference Supplement of UIST, pp. 83–84 (2003)
Diaper, D., Stanton, N.: The Handbook of Task Analysis for Human-Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2003). ISBN 0-8058-4432-5
Fitt, P.M.: The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. J. Exp. Psychol. 47, 381–391 (1954)
Soukoreff, W., MacKenzie, S.: Towards a standard for pointing device evaluation, perspectives on 27 years of Fitts’ law research in HCI. IJHCS 61(6), 751–789 (2004)
Beaudouin-Lafon, M., Mackay, W.: Prototyping tools and techniques. In: The Human-Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, pp. 1006–1031. L. Erlbaum Associates Inc., Mahwah (2002)
Irgens-Hansen, K., Gundersen, H., et al.: Noise exposure and cognitive performance: a study on personnel on board Royal Norwegian Navy vessels. Noise Health 17(78), 320–327 (2015)
Ando, S., Yamada, Y., Kokubu, M.: Reaction time to peripheral visual stimuli during exercise under hypoxia. J. Appl. Physiol. 108(5), 1210–1216 (2012)
Winder, R., Borrill, J.: Fuels for memory: the role of oxygen and glucose in memory enhancement. Psychopharmacology 136(4), 349–356 (1998)
Goncalves, J., et al.: Tapping task performance on smartphones in cold temperature. Interact. Comput. 29(3), 355–367 (2017)
Palakkamanil, M.M., Fielden, M.P.: Effects of malicious ocular laser exposure in commercial airline pilots. Can. J. Ophthalmol. 50(6), 429–432 (2015)
Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(4), 263–291 (1979)
Wickens, C., Alexander, A.: Attentional tunneling and task management in synthetic vision displays. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 19, 182–199 (2009)
The cognitive biases codex: 175 cognitive biases, 29 February 2020. https://medium.com/better-humans/cognitive-bias-cheat-sheet-55a472476b18
Sarter, N., Woods, D.: How in the world did we ever get into that mode? Mode error and awareness in supervisory control. Hum. Factors 37, 5–19 (1995)
Johnson, C.W.: The role of night vision equipment in military incidents and accidents. In: Johnson, C.W., Palanque, P. (eds.) Human Error, Safety and Systems Development. IIFIP, vol. 152, pp. 1–16. Springer, Boston, MA (2004). https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-8153-7_1
Carney, D., et al.: Cognitive de-biasing strategies: a faculty development workshop for clinical teachers in emergency medicine. MedEdPORTAL J. Teach. Learn. Resour. 13, 10646 (2017)
Carretta, T., Ree, M.: Pilot Candidate Selection Methods (PCSM): sources of validity. Int. J. Aviat. Psychol. 1994(4), 103–117 (2000)
Wason, P.C.: Reasoning. In: Foss, B. (ed.) New Horizons in Psychology, pp. 135–151. Penguin Books, Harmondsworth (1966)
Griggs, R., Cox, J.: The elusive thematic-materials effect in Wason’s selection task. Br. J. Psychol. 73, 407–420 (1982)
Palanque, P., Cockburn, A., Désert-Legendre, L., Gutwin, C., Deleris, Y.: Brace touch: a dependable, turbulence-tolerant, multi-touch interaction technique for interactive cockpits. In: Romanovsky, A., Troubitsyna, E., Bitsch, F. (eds.) SAFECOMP 2019. LNCS, vol. 11698, pp. 53–68. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26601-1_4
Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau Interim Report Interim Investigation Report of accident 737–8 MAX ET-AVJ, ET-302 (2020). www.aib.gov.et/wp-content/uploads/2020/documents/accident/ET-302-Interim-Investigation-Report-March-9-2020.pdf
Reason, J.: Generic Error-Modeling System (GEMS): a cognitive framework for locating common human error forms. New Technol. Hum. Error 63, 63–83 (1987)
Norman, D.: Errors in human performance. University of California, San Diego, Report 8004, pp. 46 (1980)
Rasmussen, J.: Human errors. A taxonomy for describing human malfunction in industrial installations. J. Occup. Accid. 4(2–4), 311–333 (1982)
Kang, K.C., Cohen, S.G., Hess, J.A., Novak, W.E., Peterson, A.S.: Feature-Oriented Domain Analysis (FODA) Feasibility Study. Technical Report CMU/SEI-90-TR-21 - ESD-90-TR-222. Carnegie-Mellon Univ Pittsburgh Pa Software Engineering Inst. (1990)
Hansman, S.: A taxonomy of network and computer attack methodologies. Comput. Secur. 24, 31–43 (2003)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Palanque, P., Cockburn, A., Gutwin, C. (2020). A Classification of Faults Covering the Human-Computer Interaction Loop. In: Casimiro, A., Ortmeier, F., Bitsch, F., Ferreira, P. (eds) Computer Safety, Reliability, and Security. SAFECOMP 2020. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12234. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54549-9_29
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-54549-9_29
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-54548-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-54549-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)