Advertisement

Human Factors Engineering as the Methodological Babel Fish: Translating User Needs into Software Design

  • Neville A. Stanton
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7623)

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to show, by way of two case studies, the value of including Human Factors in interaction and interface design specification. It is argued that Human Factors offers and unique and useful perspective and contributes positively to design. Human Factors sits between subject matter experts and software engineers, translating user requirements though the applications of theory, models and methods. This results in software design requirements that have been intelligently interpreted and presented in a graphical manner. The two case studies demonstrate the differences between the interfaces with and without Human Factors input. Both cases show quantitative and qualitative benefits of including Human Factors in design. Performance improvements between 20-70 percent were demonstrated, which is typical of Human Factors design interventions.

Keywords

Human Factors Methods Requirements Specification Case Study 

References

  1. 1.
    Annett, J.: A note on the validity and reliability of ergonomics methods. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 3(2), 229–232 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Annett, J.: Conclusions. In: Wilson, J.R., Corlett, E.N. (eds.) Evaluation of Human Work, 3rd edn., pp. 1009–1013. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Annett, J., Stanton, N.A.: Task Analysis. Taylor and Francis, London (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baber, C.: Evaluating Human-Computer Interaction. In: Wilson, J.R., Corlett, E.N. (eds.) Evaluation of Human Work, 3rd edn., pp. 357–388. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baxter, G., Besnard, D., Riley, D.: Cognitive mismatches in the cockpit: Will they ever be a thing of the past? Applied Ergonomics 38, 417–423 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bliss, J.P., Acton, S.A.: Alarm mistrust in automobiles: how collision alarm reliability affects driving. Applied Ergonomics 34, 499–509 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brookhuis, K.A., van Driel, C.J.G., Hof, T., van Arem, B., Hoedemaeker, M.: Driving with a congestion assistant: mental workload and acceptance. Applied Ergonomics 40, 1019–1025 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Checkland, P.: Systems Thinking, Systems Practice. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1981)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Checkland, P., Scholes, J.: Soft systems methodology in action. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (1990)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Diaper, D.: Task Analysis in Human Computer Interaction. Ellis Horwood, Chichester (1989)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Helender, M.G.: Using design equations to identify sources of complexity in human-machine interaction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 8(2), 123–146 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Horan, P.: A new and flexible graphic organiser for IS learning: The Rich Picture. In: Proceedings of Informing Science Conference & IT Education Conference, Cork, Ireland, pp. 133–138. Informing Science Institute (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Karwowski, W.: International Encyclopaedia of Ergonomics and Human Factors, vol. I-III. Taylor & Francis, London (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lai, F., Hjalmdahl, M., Chorlton, K., Wiklund, M.: The long-term effect of intelligent speed adaptation on driver behaviour. Applied Ergonomics 41, 179–186 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McIlroy, R.C., Stanton, N.A., Remington, B.: Developing expertise in military communications planning: Do verbal reports change with experience? Behaviour and Information Technology 31(6), 617–629 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Norman, D.A.: Categorisation of action slips. Psychological Review 88, 1–15 (1981)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Norman, D.A.: The “problem” with automation: Inappropriate feedback and interaction, not “overautomation”. Philosophical Transaction of the Royal Society of London, B 327, 585–593 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reason, J.: Human error. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Seppelt, B.D., Lee, J.D.: Making adaptive cruise control (ACC) limits visible. International Journal of Human Computer Studies 65, 192–205 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stanton, N.A., Dunoyer, A., Leatherland, A.: Detection of new in-path targets by drivers using Stop & Go Adaptive Cruise Control. Applied Ergonomics 42(4), 592–601 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stanton, N.A., Hedge, A., Salas, E., Hendrick, H., Brookhaus, K.: Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics Methods. Taylor & Francis, London (2005)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stanton, N.A., McIlroy, R.C.: Designing mission communication planning: the role of Rich Pictures and Cognitive Work Analysis. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science 13(2), 146–168 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Stanton, N.A., Salmon, P.M., Walker, G.H., Baber, C., Jenkins, D.: Human Factors Methods: A Practical Guide for Engineering and Design, 1st edn. Ashgate Publishing Ltd., Aldershot (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stanton, N.A., Salmon, P.M., Walker, G.H., Baber, C., Jenkins, D.: Human Factors Methods: A Practical Guide for Engineering and Design, 2nd edn. Ashgate Publishing Ltd., Aldershot (2013)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stanton, N.A., Young, M.: A Guide to Methodology in Ergonomics: Designing for Human Use. Taylor & Francis, London (1999)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wilson, J.R.: A framework and context for ergonomics methodology. In: Wilson, J.R., Corlett, E.N. (eds.) Evaluation of Human Work, 2nd edn., pp. 1–39. Taylor & Francis, London (1995)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Woods, D.D., Johannesen, L.J., Cook, R.I., Sarter, N.B.: Behind Human Error: Cognitive Systems, Computers and Hindsight. CSERIAC, Ohio (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neville A. Stanton
    • 1
  1. 1.Faculty of Engineering and the EnvironmentUniversity of SouthamptonHighfieldUK

Personalised recommendations