Comparing design options for allocating communication media in cooperative safety-critical contexts: a method and a case study

ABSTRACT

In this article we present a method for evaluating and comparing design options for allocating communication media. The method pays particular attention to how such options support cooperation in an interactive safety-critical system. The comparison is performed using three sets of criteria based on task performance, analysis of user deviations and consequent hazards, and coordination. The explicit emphasis on hazards and communication issues, using actual tasks to guide the evaluation, ensures that designers attention is focused on the interactions where problems are likely to occur. We describe an application of the method to the design of access to new communication technology in an air traffic control environment.

REFERENCES

• 1: BAINBRIDGE, L. 1983. Ironies of automation. Automatica 19, 775-779.
• 2: R. Bentley , J. A. Hughes , D. Randall , T. Rodden , P. Sawyer , D. Shapiro , I. Sommerville, Ethnographically-informed systems design for air traffic control, Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work, p.123-129, November 01-04, 1992, Toronto, Ontario, Canada [doi>10.1145/143457.143470]
• 3: BURNS, D. J. AND PITBLADO, R. M. 1993. A modified HAZOP methodology for safety critical system assessment. In Directions in Safety Critical Systems--Proceedings of the Safety- Critical Systems Symposium, Springer-Verlag, Vienna, Austria.
• 4: John M. Carroll , Mary Beth Rosson, Getting around the task-artifact cycle: how to make claims and design by scenario, ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), v.10 n.2, p.181-212, April 1992 [doi>10.1145/146802.146834]
• 5: Stéphane Chatty , Patrick Lecoanet, Pen computing for air traffic control, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: common ground, p.87-94, April 13-18, 1996, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada [doi>10.1145/238386.238436]
• 6: FIELDS, R. E., HARRISON, M. D., AND WRIGHT, P. C. 1997. THEA: Human error analysis for requirements definition. Tech. Rep. YCS-97-294. Department of Computer Science, University of York, York, UK. Available via http://www, cs.york, ac.uk/ ftp_Hlt468789293 d_Hlt468789293ir/reports/.
• 7: GRAY, W. D., JOHN, B. E., AND ATWOOD, M. E. 1993. Project Ernestine: Validating a GeMS analysis for predicting and explaining real-world performance. Human-Comput. Interact. 8, 3, 237-309.
• 8: HOLLNAGEL, E. 1993. Human Reliability Analysis--Context and Control. Academic Press, Inc., New York, NY.
• 9: HOPKIN, V. D. 1988. Air traffic control. In Human Factors in Aviation, E. L. Wiener and D. C. Nagel, Eds. Academic Press, Inc., New York, NY, 639-663.
• 10: John A. Hughes , David Randall , Dan Shapiro, Faltering from ethnography to design, Proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work, p.115-122, November 01-04, 1992, Toronto, Ontario, Canada [doi>10.1145/143457.143469]
• 11: Bonnie E. John , David E. Kieras, Using GOMS for user interface design and evaluation: which technique?, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), v.3 n.4, p.287-319, Dec. 1996 [doi>10.1145/235833.236050]
• 12: KIRWAN, B. 1994. A Guide to Practical Human Reliability Assessment. Taylor and Francis, Inc., Bristol, PA.
• 13: LEATHLEY, B.A. 1997. HAZeP approach to allocation of function in safety critical systems. In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Allocation of Functions (ALLFN '97, Galway, Ireland), IEA Press.
• 14: MACLEAN, A., YOUNG, R. M., BELLOTTI, V. M. E., AND MORAN, T. P. 1991. Questions, options, and criteria: Elements of design space analysis. Human-Comput. Interact. 6, 3-4, 201-250.
• 15: Wendy E. Mackay , Anne-Laure Fayard , Laurent Frobert , Lionel Médini, Reinventing the familiar: exploring an augmented reality design space for air traffic control, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.558-565, April 18-23, 1998, Los Angeles, California, United States [doi>10.1145/274644.274719]
• 16: Jakob Nielsen, Usability Engineering, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, 1993
• 17: Fabio Paterno, Model-Based Design and Evaluation of Interactive Applications, Springer-Verlag, London, 1999
• 18: PATERN , F., SANTORO, C., AND TAHMASSEBI, S. 1998. Formal models for cooperative tasks: Concepts and an application for en-route air traffic controlP. In Proceedings of the Conference on Design, Specification, and Verification of Interactive Systems (DSV-IS '98), Springer-Verlag, Vienna, Austria, 71-86.
• 19: PATERN , F., SANTORO, C., AND FIELDS, B. 1999. Analysing user deviations in interactive safety-critical applications. In Proceedings of the Conference on Design, Specification, and Verification of Interactive Systems (DSV-IS '99), 189-204.
• 20: PERROW, C. 1984. Normal Accidents: Living with High Risk Technologies. Basic Books, Inc., New York, NY.
• 21: REASON, J. 1990. Human Error. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY.
• 22: Kjeld Schmidt , Carla Simone, Coordination mechanisms: towards a conceptual foundation of CSCW systems design, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, v.5 n.2-3, p.155-200, 1996 [doi>10.1007/BF00133655]
• 23: Gillian Symon , Karen Long , Judi Ellis, The coordination of work activities: cooperation and conflict in a hospital context, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, v.5 n.1, p.1-31, 1996
• 24: UK MINISTRY OF DEFENCE. 1996. HAZeP studies on systems containing programmable electronics. Interim Def. Standard 00-58, Issue 1. UK Ministry of Defence.
• 25: Cathleen Wharton , John Rieman , Clayton Lewis , Peter Polson, The cognitive walkthrough method: a practitioner's guide, Usability inspection methods, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, NY, 1994
• 26: WOODS, D. D., JOHANNESEN, L. J., AND COOK, R. I. 1994. Behind human error. SOAR Rep. 94-01. CSERIAC.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)
          Subjects: Evaluation/methodology

Additional Classification:
  D. Software
  D.2 SOFTWARE ENGINEERING
      D.2.2 Design Tools and Techniques
          Subjects: User interfaces

  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.1 Multimedia Information Systems
          Subjects: Audio input/output
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)
          Subjects: Input devices and strategies (e.g., mouse, touchscreen); Interaction styles (e.g., commands, menus, forms, direct manipulation)

General Terms:
Design, Human Factors, Reliability

Keywords:
air traffic control, task, usability and safety