keith@actrix.gen.nz (Keith Stewart) (06/12/91)
I have an interest in this discussion being in employment with a government organisation concerned with Occupational Safety and health and having a personal interest in whether designers of programme interfaces ever use the principles that have been derived from psychology and are used in amny places when designing instruments , control panel etc. Fundamental is the realisation that human have certain instinctive responses to stimuli and that any "interface" that requires a response from a person should (must) take into account these responses.
smith@sndpit.enet.dec.com (Willie Smith) (06/12/91)
In article <1991Jun12.091705.2823@actrix.gen.nz>, keith@actrix.gen.nz (Keith Stewart) writes... >Fundamental is the realisation that human have certain instinctive responses >to stimuli and that any "interface" that requires a response from a person >should (must) take into account these responses. So Keith (or anyone else), tell us more about what those reactions are, and how we build interfaces that are 'good'. I'm working on a simulated lunar teleoperations project, and I need to make operator interfaces as well as measure the 'goodness' of those interfaces (and the 'skill' of the operators, and other such stuff), but I have no idea where to start.... What's a good reference that gives real live actual examples and would be useful for a beginner? Willie Smith smith@sndpit.enet.dec.com smith%sndpit.enet.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com {Usenet!Backbone}!decwrl!sndpit.enet.dec.com!smith
kolen-j@retina.cis.ohio-state.edu (john kolen) (06/12/91)
After taking a class titled "Cognitive Engineering", I was under the impression that ergonomics referred to design under physical constraints of the users. Erognomic designs attempt to reduce strain and fatigue of the equipment operator. Cognitive engineering, on the other hand, attempted to design equipment with psychological limitations in mind. For instance, designing a light switch panel so to match the arrangements of lights in a room lessens the burden of figuring out which switch goes with which light. Finally, human factors was the combination of the two: designing artifacts that people can use comfortably and competently. I'm just a spectator of this field so any comments and clarifications are welcome. John Kolen -- John Kolen (kolen-j@cis.ohio-state.edu)|computer science - n. A field of study Laboratory for AI Research |somewhere between numerology and The Ohio State Univeristy |astrology, lacking the formalism of the Columbus, Ohio 43210 (USA) |former and the popularity of the latter
jmt@mullauna.cs.mu.OZ.AU (James Mark THOMAS) (06/12/91)
smith@sndpit.enet.dec.com (Willie Smith) writes: >In article <1991Jun12.091705.2823@actrix.gen.nz>, > keith@actrix.gen.nz (Keith Stewart) writes... >>Fundamental is the realisation that human have certain instinctive responses >>to stimuli and that any "interface" that requires a response from a person >>should (must) take into account these responses. >So Keith (or anyone else), tell us more about what those reactions are, and >how we build interfaces that are 'good'. I'm working on a simulated lunar >teleoperations project, and I need to make operator interfaces as well as >measure the 'goodness' of those interfaces (and the 'skill' of the >operators, and other such stuff), but I have no idea where to start.... >What's a good reference that gives real live actual examples and would be >useful for a beginner? I have a reference that is a bit academic, but has loads of references in it, some practical, some not. It is a good broad intro to HCI, and may be a good starting point. Its details are: Booth, Paul A., *An Introduction to Human Computer Interaction", Lawrence Erlbaum and Assosc., 27 Palmeria Mansions, Church Road, Hove, East Sussex, BN4 2FA, UK, ISBN 0-86377-123-8 Good luck, Jim.
rc7@prism.gatech.EDU (Richard Catrambone) (06/12/91)
In article <1991Jun12.091705.2823@actrix.gen.nz> keith@actrix.gen.nz (Keith Stewart) writes: > a personal interest in whether designers of programme interfaces >ever use the principles that have been derived from psychology and are used >in amny places when designing instruments , control panel etc. > The issue of whether academic-type research on human-computer interaction can actually be applied to real-world issues is an important one. Each year there are workshops and panels at conferences (such as the Computer-Human Interaction [CHI] Conference) that discuss this issue. To the best of my knowledge, research by psychologists in this area has had at best a relatively modest impact on interface designs and the design process. Part of the problem is that the research findings and the theories used to drive the research (such as the GOMS model, for those of you who are familiar with that area) are often not presented in ways that suggest clear guidelines to a person/group designing an interface. A second factor may be an unwillingness of companies/design teams to involve HCI researchers in the design process at an early enough stage to make a real contribution.
chidsey@smoke.brl.mil (Irving Chidsey) (06/13/91)
In article <31211@hydra.gatech.EDU> rc7@prism.gatech.EDU (Richard Catrambone) writes: <In article <1991Jun12.091705.2823@actrix.gen.nz> keith@actrix.gen.nz (Keith Stewart) writes: <> a personal interest in whether designers of programme interfaces <>ever use the principles that have been derived from psychology and are used <>in amny places when designing instruments , control panel etc. <> <The issue of whether academic-type research on human-computer <interaction can actually be applied to real-world issues <is an important one. Each year there are workshops and <panels at conferences (such as the Computer-Human Interaction <[CHI] Conference) that discuss this issue. To the best of <my knowledge, research by psychologists in this area has <had at best a relatively modest impact on interface designs <and the design process. Part of the problem is that the <research findings and the theories used to drive the <research (such as the GOMS model, for those of you who <are familiar with that area) are often not presented in <ways that suggest clear guidelines to a person/group <designing an interface. If a researcher can't produce a good human-human interface, why should anyone pay any attention to any human-computer interface design criteria they claim to have produced? The proof may be in the pudding, but if it looks unappetizing, no one will taste it. <A second factor may be an <unwillingness of companies/design teams to involve <HCI researchers in the design process at an early enough <stage to make a real contribution. There are similar failings all over. They can be counteracted with a little evangelism by believers. If you think you have something, get up and crow about it. Irv -- I do not have signature authority. I am not authorized to sign anything. I am not authorized to commit the BRL, the DA, the DOD, or the US Government to anything, not even by implication. They do not tell me what their policy is. They may not have one. Irving L. Chidsey <chidsey@brl.mil>
cdshaw@cs.UAlberta.CA (Chris Shaw) (06/13/91)
In article rc7@prism.gatech.EDU (Richard Catrambone) writes: >...research by psychologists in this area has had at best a >relatively modest impact on interface designs and the design process. I think mainly because the research concentrates on designs that are largely out of date. Some people think that window-based interfaces are new. They are not. If you're going to do a study on window interaction using mice to manipulate text in some constrained circumstance, then forget it. It's like fishing for minnows. Ditto for keyboard layout. Ditto for command-line interfaces. Ergonomicists also have a bad habit of getting into the design loop way too late. Perhaps this is because early involvement is viewed as being methodologically impure, and because ergonomics is viewed as a product testing discipline. Both of these views work against design effectiveness simply because it's too late in the game. -- Chris Shaw University of Alberta cdshaw@cs.UAlberta.ca Now with new, minty Internet flavour! CatchPhrase: Bogus as HELL !
lhccjeh@lure.latrobe.edu.au (06/13/91)
In article <KOLEN-J.91Jun12085709@retina.cis.ohio-state.edu>, kolen-j@retina.cis.ohio-state.edu (john kolen) writes: > > After taking a class titled "Cognitive Engineering", I was under the impression > that ergonomics referred to design under physical constraints of the users. > Erognomic designs attempt to reduce strain and fatigue of the equipment > operator. Cognitive engineering, on the other hand, attempted to design > equipment with psychological limitations in mind. For instance, designing > a light switch panel so to match the arrangements of lights in a room lessens > the burden of figuring out which switch goes with which light. Finally, > human factors was the combination of the two: designing artifacts that > people can use comfortably and competently. > John Kolen I am not sure whether it matters. In England they call it Ergonomics and in the States they call it Human Factors. If you glance at the associated journals you will see that the Ergonomics journals tend to be more on the "hard" or applied side or should I say the physical environment (which includes the hardware involved) whereas the Human Factors journal seems to be more on the psychological side (although this emphasis has changed over the years). In Australia we simply call all of it Ergonomics. Our professional association [The Ergonomics Society of Australia] has within it special interest groups of which one is CHISIG. Computer-Human Isteraction. The study of interfaces is one of the MAJOR studies in Ergonomics. Computer interface being just one (although increasing becoming the major one). Like all interfaces, when it is well designed, you don't notice it. We're getting there...slowly _____________________________________________________________________________ James Hale Lincoln School of Health Sciences Computing Unit La Trobe University,Bundoora, AUSTRALIA ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- My sinless brother is my guide to peace. | Lesson 351 My sinful brother is my guide to pain. | Workbook P470 And which I choose to see I will behold. | _____________________________________________________________________________
cohill@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Andrew M. Cohill) (06/13/91)
In article <1991Jun13.000119.4664@cs.UAlberta.CA> cdshaw@cs.UAlberta.CA (Chris Shaw) writes: >In article rc7@prism.gatech.EDU (Richard Catrambone) writes: >>...research by psychologists in this area has had at best a >>relatively modest impact on interface designs and the design process. > >I think mainly because the research concentrates on designs that are largely >out of date. Some people think that window-based interfaces are new. >They are not. If you're going to do a study on window interaction using >mice to manipulate text in some constrained circumstance, then forget it. >It's like fishing for minnows. Ditto for keyboard layout. >Ditto for command-line interfaces. > >Ergonomicists also have a bad habit of getting into the design loop way >too late. Perhaps this is because early involvement is viewed as being >methodologically impure, and because ergonomics is viewed as a product >testing discipline. Both of these views work against design effectiveness >simply because it's too late in the game. >-- Now you've hooked me on one of my pet peeves. My own view of the state of HF *education* in this country is that many of the classes are taught by people who are still uncomfortable with computers. These are professors who acquired both their education and their reputations in a pre-digital world, and have never really embraced the new technology. Or they cling to the old mainframe, command-line paradigm of computing, which explains why so many studies seem irrelevant or microscopic in scope. Human factors labs are filled with old stuff like PDP-11s, VAX 11/730s, and 3270 display terminals. Off to one side, you'll find one or two six year old pcs with CGA displays. Human factors won't begin to have a serious impact on HCI design for another ten or fifteen years, when some of the old fogies start to retire from their academic chairs and the digital-era faculty are able to have a real impact on education and research. Andy Cohill -- | ...we have to look for routes of power our teachers never | imagined, or were encouraged to avoid. T. Pynchon | |Andy Cohill cohill@vtserf.cc.vt.edu VPI&SU
smith@sndpit.enet.dec.com (Willie Smith) (06/13/91)
In article <1991Jun13.000119.4664@cs.UAlberta.CA>, cdshaw@cs.UAlberta.CA (Chris Shaw) writes... >In article rc7@prism.gatech.EDU (Richard Catrambone) writes: >>...research by psychologists in this area has had at best a >>relatively modest impact on interface designs and the design process. >Ergonomicists also have a bad habit of getting into the design loop way >too late. Perhaps this is because early involvement is viewed as being >methodologically impure, and because ergonomics is viewed as a product >testing discipline. Both of these views work against design effectiveness >simply because it's too late in the game. OK, how do I go about talking to an Ergonomicist before I've designed the user interface for my teleoperated vehicle, and find out how to do it right (or closer to right than my WAG) the first time? Say I had no budget (hey, this is a hobby, and hardware costs are eating my lunch), could I talk a grad student at a local university into making the user interface his thesis, or do I have to goto grad school myself and make it my own thesis? What schools in the Boston area (or New England in general) have good programs in Ergonomics? Willie Smith smith@sndpit.enet.dec.com smith%sndpit.enet.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com {Usenet!Backbone}!decwrl!sndpit.enet.dec.com!smith
smith@sndpit.enet.dec.com (Willie Smith) (06/13/91)
In article <1991Jun13.114050.1@lure.latrobe.edu.au>, lhccjeh@lure.latrobe.edu.au writes... >[...]In England they call it Ergonomics and in >the States they call it Human Factors. If you glance at the associated journals >you will see that the Ergonomics journals tend to be more on the "hard" or >applied side or should I say the physical environment (which includes the >hardware involved) whereas the Human Factors journal seems to be more on the >psychological side (although this emphasis has changed over the years). Journals, what journals? Any references to journals of either of the two types is greatly appreciated! Willie Smith smith@sndpit.enet.dec.com smith%sndpit.enet.dec.com@decwrl.dec.com {Usenet!Backbone}!decwrl!sndpit.enet.dec.com!smith
tg@chmsr.gatech.edu (T. Govindaraj) (06/13/91)
cohill@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Andrew M. Cohill) writes: >of HF *education* in this country is that many of the classes are >taught by people who are still uncomfortable with computers. These are >professors who acquired both their education and their reputations in a >pre-digital world, and have never really embraced the new technology. Or I agree for the most part. However, this is only one dimension of the problem (however important it may be and is). The fear of computers among older faculty goes beyond problems in human factors education and research. There is another, more serious problem. People who work in human factors have traditionally been working on problems that are not very relevant in the real world. Whereas the problems were once relevant, and there have been significant contributions (even in empirical subfields such as anthropometry), most of the current research has become too "academic". A vast majority of the academics work on toy problems in the name of "science". Most problems have been abstracted so much that not much remains of the original and the contributions to science are questionable, to say the least. In addition to being tractable, toy problems/domains are easier to study; no need to study and understand realistic systems and/or develop laboratory environments where one can do serious research. Developing well-designed laboratory environments in collaboration with people in the real-world is hard and time consuming. Also, one must have the time and patience since the pay-offs (publications, theses etc.) are not immediate. (This can be costly in terms of tenure etc., but that doesn't justify worthless work.) While at it, let me bring up another problem. Traditional human factors (including the Human Factors Society and the journal) seems to favor form over content. Let me give just one example. It doesn't matter how good or bad the work is, you need to submit copies of overheads several months in advance of a conference so that they can be checked for form and format. As long as your statistics is/are correct (again, what is done, not whether it is really a relevant problem to study and report) it is fine. I could perhaps go on and on, if I had the time. I joined the Human Factors Society when I was a student and dropped out a couple of years after completing my doctorate. I didn't find it worthwhile to continue as a member of an organization that was becoming increasingly irrelevant. >Human factors won't begin to have a serious impact on HCI design for >another ten or fifteen years, when some of the old fogies start to >retire from their academic chairs and the digital-era faculty are able >to have a real impact on education and research. I sort of agree here too. I am one of the "digital-era" faculty you refer to and have been for just over ten years. I believe that we* have had a real impact, but modesty prevents me from saying more! :-) (* We don't even call ourselves human factors; we work in human-machine systems engineering within an industrial and systems engineering school that is considered among the best.) >Andy Cohill T. Govindaraj ("Govind" T. Govindaraj +1 404 894 3873 (voice) tg@chmsr.gatech.edu +1 404 894 2301 (fax) tg@chmsr.uucp; 128.61.3.10 School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology 765 Ferst Drive, ISyE-0205, Atlanta, GA 30332-0205, USA
rc7@prism.gatech.EDU (Richard Catrambone) (06/14/91)
In article <1309@sousa.ltn.dec.com> smith@sndpit.enet.dec.com (Willie Smith) writes: > >OK, how do I go about talking to an Ergonomicist before I've designed the >user interface for my teleoperated vehicle, and find out how to do it right >(or closer to right than my WAG) the first time? Say I had no budget (hey, >this is a hobby, and hardware costs are eating my lunch), could I talk a >grad student at a local university into making the user interface his >thesis, or do I have to goto grad school myself and make it my own thesis? >What schools in the Boston area (or New England in general) have good >programs in Ergonomics? You could try to contact faculty in departments such as psychology, computer science, industrial systems engineering (be forewarned that these departments sometimes have different names at different universities; also there may be other relevant departments depending on the university) to see if there are grad students interested in human-computer interaction issues who are searching for a thesis topic and/or a particular domain in which to apply their ideas. I am pretty sure there are people at MIT and Boston University, just to mention two in the Boston area, that do HCI research. If you have access, you might want to go to a university's library and examine journals such as Human-Computer Interaction, Human Factors, International Journal of Man-Machine Systems and look at the names of the people publishing in them (as well as who are on the editorial board) as a way of locating relevant people in the Boston area.
rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com (Rob Warnock) (06/14/91)
In article <tg.676828343@isye.gatech.edu> tg@chmsr.gatech.edu (T. Govindaraj) writes: +--------------- | There is another, more serious problem. People who work in human factors | have traditionally been working on problems that are not very relevant | in the real world. +--------------- Wait just a minute! Human Factors (roughly as we know it now) got its big start during World War II, dealing with the very real-world problem of pilots crashing airplanes (and themselves) because of cockpit control and instrument layout. The two worst problems were (1) controls which were counter-intuitive [e.g, pull knob up to lower flaps] and (2) differences between one airplane and another, possibly quite similar one [e.g. in one plane you pulled up on a knob to raise the landing gear, in another you pushed down on a very similar knob in close to the same place]. Within a few years the basic style/operation of at least the primary controls and instruments in military cockpits had been standardized. And the crash rate due to those kinds of pilot error was *way* down. [Translation: Fewer pilots and crew were dying.] Isn't that "real world" enough? +--------------- | ... Whereas the problems were once relevant, and there | have been significant contributions (even in empirical subfields such | as anthropometry), most of the current research has become too "academic". +--------------- This may be, I don't know... -Rob ----- Rob Warnock, MS-1L/515 rpw3@sgi.com rpw3@pei.com Silicon Graphics, Inc. (415)335-1673 Protocol Engines, Inc. 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. Mountain View, CA 94039-7311
ted@mammoth.unr.edu (Ted Sarbin) (06/16/91)
In article <1310@sousa.ltn.dec.com> smith@sndpit.enet.dec.com (Willie Smith) writes: > > >Journals, what journals? Any references to journals of either of the two >types is greatly appreciated! > Human Factors International Journal of Man-Machine Studies Human-Computer Interaction SIGCHI Bulletin IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering CHI {'83 ...'91} Proceedings Ergonomics Comm. of the ACM (occasionally)
gorman@acsu.buffalo.edu (anne-marie k gorman) (06/16/91)
In article <1991Jun13.000119.4664@cs.UAlberta.CA> cdshaw@cs.UAlberta.CA (Chris Shaw) writes: >Ergonomicists also have a bad habit of getting into the design loop way >too late. Perhaps this is because early involvement is viewed as being >methodologically impure, and because ergonomics is viewed as a product >testing discipline. Both of these views work against design effectiveness >simply because it's too late in the game. Well, in many companies, ergonomists get into the design loop too late because the corporate structure pigeonholes them as sort of in house consultants, rather than as part of the "official" design team. This may be partly due to ignorance on the part of managers, project leaders, etc. as to what ergonomics can do, and ergonomists themselves may be responsible for some of that ignorance, so I'm not saying that they're only victims. But I have never heard either of the two views you mention expressed by any practicing ergonomist; most of them would probably disagree with both ideas. Anne-Marie
sharp@cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Maurice Sharp) (06/20/91)
In article <1906@vtserf.cc.vt.edu> cohill@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Andrew M. Cohill) writes: >Now you've hooked me on one of my pet peeves. My own view of the state >of HF *education* in this country is that many of the classes are >taught by people who are still uncomfortable with computers. These are >professors who acquired both their education and their reputations in a >pre-digital world, and have never really embraced the new technology. Or >they cling to the old mainframe, command-line paradigm of computing, >which explains why so many studies seem irrelevant or microscopic in >scope. Human factors labs are filled with old stuff like PDP-11s, VAX >11/730s, and 3270 display terminals. Off to one side, you'll find one >or two six year old pcs with CGA displays. Well, that may be the case at your place, it certainly is not the case at ours. Project have been done on anything from a VT220, through various DOS boxes (XT, AT, ...), Macintoshes, SPARCS, ... mucho stuff. >Human factors won't begin to have a serious impact on HCI design for >another ten or fifteen years, when some of the old fogies start to >retire from their academic chairs and the digital-era faculty are able >to have a real impact on education and research. You have to be kidding. There are lots of examples of decent HCI design out there. Take the Macintosh interface for example. That was not just thrown together, it was designed. Using some principles from HCI even. There are lots of other examples if you bother to look. >Andy Cohill Maurice Sharp MSc. Student (403) 220 7690 University of Calgary Computer Science Department 2500 University Drive N.W. sharp@cpsc.UCalgary.CA Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4 GEnie M.SHARP5 -- Maurice Sharp MSc. Student (403) 220 7690 University of Calgary Computer Science Department 2500 University Drive N.W. sharp@cpsc.UCalgary.CA Calgary, Alberta, T2N 1N4 GEnie M.SHARP5