Following a general trend in software development, CDROM applications are increasingly implementing Graphical User Interfaces (GUIs). The general assumption is that GUIs offer advantages in terms of ease of learning and use, especially for non‐expert users. Moreover, the adoption of GUIs for CDROMs has been suggested as a means of providing a de facto standard interface. This study assesses the appropriateness of GUIs, more specifically Windows‐based interfaces for CDROM. An evaluation model was devised to carry out an expert evaluation of the interfaces of seven CDROM products. The model identified two levels of interaction, the dialogue level and task level, and focused on general interface features, search and retrieval tasks, and output and processing options as well as the help facilities. The results are discussed in the light of HCI Usability Criteria and design guidelines (including general interface design guidelines, specific Windows design guidelines and The CDROM Consistent Interface Guidelines) to assess to what extent the applications comply and appropriate recommendations are made.

The study's general objective was to assess the appropriateness of Graphical User lnterfaces (GUI) for CD-ROM applications and examine to what extent a GUI based on Windows could facilitate the ease of use of these applications. A full account of the study is reported elsewhere(l) .

Novel wearable neurotechnology is able to provide insight into its wearer's cognitive processes and offers ways to change or enhance their capacities. Moreover, it offers the promise of hands-free device control. These brain-computer interfaces are likely to become an everyday technology in the near future, due to their increasing accessibility and affordability. We, therefore, must anticipate their impact, not only on society and individuals broadly but also more specifically on sectors such as traffic and transport. In an economy where attention is increasingly becoming a scarce good, these innovations may present both opportunities and challenges for daily activities that require focus, such as driving and cycling. Here, we argue that their development carries a dual risk. Firstly, BCI-based devices may match or further increase the intensity of cognitive human-technology interaction over the current hands-free communication devices which, despite being widely accepted, are well-known for introducing a significant amount of cognitive load and distraction. Secondly, BCI-based devices will be typically harder than hands-free devices to both visually detect (e.g., how can law enforcement check when these extremely small and well-integrated devices are used?) and restrain in their use (e.g., how do we prevent users from using such neurotechnologies without breaching personal integrity and privacy?). Their use in traffic should be anticipated by researchers, engineers, and policymakers, in order to ensure the safety of all road users.