Towards Model-Based AHMI Automatic Evaluation

  • Juan Manuel González-Calleros
  • Jean Vanderdonckt
  • Andreas Lüdtke
  • Jan-Patrick Osterloh
Conference paper

Abstract

Aircraft cockpit system design is an activity with several challenges, particularly when new technologies break with previous user experience. This is the case with the design of the advanced human machine interface (AHMI), used for controlling the Advanced Flight Management System (AFMS), which has been developed by the German Aerospace Center (DLR). Studying this new User Interface (UI) requires a structured approach to evaluate and validate AHMI designs. In this paper, we introduce a model-based development process for AHMI development, based on our research in the EUs 7th framework project “Human”. The first goal is to rely on this structured approach to perform automatic evaluation of the User Interface.

Keywords

User Interface Advanced Human Machine Interface Model-Based User Interface Development Cockpit design 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Commission Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) under grant agreement no. 21988 Project Human.

References

  1. 1.
    Navarre D, Palanque P, Ladry JF, Barboni E (2009) ICOs: a model-based user interface description technique dedicated to interactive systems addressing usability, reliability and scalability. In: Transactions on computer-human interaction, ACM SIGCHI, USA. User Interface Description Languages for Next Generation User Interfaces (Special issue). ACM Press, 16(4), pp 18:1–56Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ARINC 661-2, Prepared by Airlines Electronic Engineering Committee. Cockpit Display System Interfaces to User Systems. ARINC Specification 661-2, 2005Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barboni E, Navarre D, Palanque P, Basnyat S (2007) A formal description technique for interactive cockpit applications compliant with ARINC specification 661. In: Proceedings of SIES 2007—IEEE 2th International Symposium on Industrial Embedded Systems, Lisbon, Portugal, 4–6 July 2007Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Guerrero García J, González Calleros JM, Vanderdonckt J, Muñoz Arteaga J (2009). A theoretical survey of user interface description languages: preliminary results. In: Chavez E, Furtado E, Moran A (eds) Proceedings of Joint 4th Latin American Conference on Human-Computer Interaction-7th Latin American Web Congress LA-Web/CLIHC’2009, Merida, 9–11 November 2009, IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, pp 36–43Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vanderdonckt J, Beirekdar A, Noirhomme-Fraiture M (2004) Automated evaluation of web usability and accessibility by guideline review. In: Proceedings of 4th International Conference on Web Engineering ICWE’04, Munich, 28–30 July 2004, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 17–30Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Limbourg Q, Vanderdonckt J, Michotte B, Bouillon L, Lopez V (2005) UsiXML: a language supporting multi-path development of user interfaces. In: Proceedings of 9th IFIP Working Conference on Engineering for Human-Computer Interaction jointly with 11th International Workshop on Design, Specification, and Verification of Interactive Systems EHCIDSVIS’2004, Hamburg, 11–13 July 2004, Springer-Verlag, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Vanderdonckt J (2005) A MDA-compliant environment for developing user interfaces of information systems. In: Pastor O, Falcão e Cunha J (eds) Proceedings of 17th Conference on Advanced Information Systems Engineering CAiSE’05, Porto, 13–17 June 2005, Lecture notes in computer science, vol 3520. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 16–31Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Calvary G, Coutaz J, Thevenin D, Limbourg Q, Bouillon L, Vanderdonckt J (2003) A unifying reference framework for multi-target user interfaces. Interact Comput 15(3):289–308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Singer G, Dekker S (2001) The ergonomics of flight management systems: fixing holes in the cockpit certification net. Appl Ergon 32(3):247–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lüdtke A, Weber L, Osterloh JP, Wortelen B (2009) Modeling pilot and driver behavior for human error simulation. HCI (11) 403–412Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lüdtke A, Osterloh JP (2009) Simulating perceptive processes of pilots to support system design. In: Proceedings of 12th IFIP TC 13 International Conference (Interact 2009), Uppsala, Sweden, 24–28 August 2009, pp 471–484Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vanden Bossche P (2006) Développement d’un outil de critique d’interface intelligent: UsabilityAdviser. M.Sc. thesis, Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, 1 September 2006Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Singer G (2002) Methods for validating cockpit design: the best tool for the task. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Aeronautics of the Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, March 2002Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Singer G, Dekker S (2002) The effect of the roll index (sky pointers on roll reversal errors. Hum Factors Aerosp Saf 2(1):33–43Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Italia Srl 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Juan Manuel González-Calleros
    • 1
  • Jean Vanderdonckt
    • 1
  • Andreas Lüdtke
    • 2
  • Jan-Patrick Osterloh
    • 2
  1. 1.Université catholique de LouvainLouvain-la-NeuveBelgium
  2. 2.OFFIS Institute for Information TechnologyOldenburgGermany

Personalised recommendations