Extending Ecological Interface Design principles: A manufacturing case study

Upton, Connor; Doherty, Gavin

doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2007.10.007

Cited by 24 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is difficult to assess how the AH and SRK taxonomy is reflected in the interface design and how to be able to evaluate it" (p. 58) [44] Analysis of Global Organization Factors (similar to, but distinct from SOCA); Creation of Pilot Domain (for prototyping) Kwok and Burns (2005) [108] Hierarchical Task Analysis Seppelt et al (2005) [37] Salience Effort Expectancy Value (SEEV) model from [162]; The Semiology of Graphics variables for graphic composition from [163]. [69] Hierarchical Task Analysis [133] AH supplemented with causal links Upton and Doherty (2008) [10] Hierarchical Task Analysis; The Semiology of Graphics variables for graphic composition from [163]. Drivalou and Marmaras (2009) [139] Spatial arrangement principles from [164]; Configural display guidelines from [165] Jipp et al (2011) [149] Usability testing; heuristic evaluation; workshops Cleveland et al (2011) [148] Informal interviews Kim et al (2012) [150] Heuristic techniques from [165] Lee (2012) [151] Cognitive Task Analysis Young and Birrell (2012) [8] User Requirements Questionnaire Segall et al (2013) [154] Hierarchical Task Analysis; Cognitive Task Analysis taxonomy that signifies EID as a unique approach to design.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Ecological Interface Design Two Decades On: Whatever Happened to the SRK Taxonomy?

McIlroy

Stanton

2015

IEEE Trans. Human-Mach. Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since first receiving attention in the literature almost 25 years ago, ecological interface design has been applied to a wide variety of man-machine systems across a range of domains. The design framework has its theoretical basis in Gibsonian ecological psychology, and its founding principles draw heavily on Jens Rasmussen's skills, rules, and knowledge (SRK) taxonomy. This paper presents a comprehensive review of the framework's applications since Vicente and Rasmussen's 1992 seminal article detailing the theoretical foundations of the method. There is variation in terms of both the use of the two fundamental components of the method as it was first described, and how it has been supplemented with other phases of the cognitive work analysis; this review highlights these variations with regard to how the design framework has been applied and how these applications have been reported in the literature. The importance of the SRK taxonomy to the framework is specifically discussed following the finding that 40% of reviewed applications do not cite this component despite its centrality to ecological interface design. Attention is drawn to the method's flexibility and adaptability, to its contribution to the content and form of an interface, and a point is made about the importance of being clear and consistent when reporting how the method has been applied and, where appropriate, adapted.Index Terms-Cognitive work analysis (CWA), ecological interface design (EID), human-computer interaction, human-machine systems.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[9], and manufacturing control, e.g. [10]. The method brings together two conceptual tools developed at the Electronics Department of the Risø National Laboratory in Denmark, namely the abstraction hierarchy (AH) [11] and the skills, rules, and knowledge taxonomy (SRK taxonomy) [12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ecological Interface Design Two Decades On: Whatever Happened to the SRK Taxonomy?

McIlroy

Stanton

2015

IEEE Trans. Human-Mach. Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In summary, Table shows: CWA design concentrates on one or two of the five CWA phases, and only a small number of studies has attempted to use all the phases [Burns, Ho, and Arrabito, 2011; Hilliard and Jamieson, 2008; Jenkins et al, 2011; Lintern, ; Naikar and Saunders, 2003; Van Dam, Mulder and van Paassen, 2008; Read, Salmon, and Lenné, ]. There is little evidence of translating CWA to software design and implementation. Due to the lack of process or guidelines, translating CWA into design remains ambiguous, and more of an art than a science [Read et al, , Mendoza et al, ; Jenkins et al, , Lintern, ; Potter et al, ; Bisantz et al, ; Alter, ]. Although the studies have shown screenshots of their interface, it is not clear how CWA has been applied to these designs [Read et al, ; Jamieson et al, ; Naikar, ; Bisantz et al, ; Jamieson and Vicente, ; Watson and Sanderson, ; Euerby et al, ]. Although EID offers high‐level goals to be achieved by the display, it does not offer a systematic methodology or reveal the rationale for decisions on mapping the constraints onto the visual forms [Mendoza et al, , Upton and Doherty, , Jamieson and Vicente, ]. …”

Section: Study Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although EID offers high‐level goals to be achieved by the display, it does not offer a systematic methodology or reveal the rationale for decisions on mapping the constraints onto the visual forms [Mendoza et al, , Upton and Doherty, , Jamieson and Vicente, ].…”

Section: Study Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(c) Although the studies have shown screenshots of their interface, it is not clear how CWA has been applied to these designs [Read et al, 2012;Jamieson et al, 2007;Naikar, 2006;Bisantz et al, 2003;Jamieson and Vicente, 2001;Watson and Sanderson, 2007;Euerby et al, 2012]. (d) Although EID offers high-level goals to be achieved by the display, it does not offer a systematic methodology or reveal the rationale for decisions on mapping the constraints onto the visual forms [Mendoza et al, 2011, Upton and Doherty, 2008, Jamieson and Vicente, 2001.…”

Section: Study Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Systematic Approach for Developing Decision Aids: From Cognitive Work Analysis to Prototype Design and Development

Dhukaram

Baber

2016

Systems Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cognitive Work Analysis (CWA) has proved successful in supporting Human Factors analysis, providing a system‐level view of operations that can be used to understand how systems achieve their missions. However, a critical gap exists in the transition from CWA to prototype design and implementation. The aim of this paper is to fill this gap between CWA and implementation. This paper describes an approach for the design of software system in which CWA descriptions are converted to Unified Modeling Language (UML) models. The approach presented in this paper is intended to be minimalistic and streamlined, to focus on the design of a prototype. Following the design process, a Decision Aid prototype was developed. This prototype is evaluated against the original CWA to check that the translation has been effective. This paper shows how CWA can be integrated with UML for prototype design and implementation. We believe that this paper should prove useful to a range of practitioners concerned about maintaining a user's cognitive perspective during specification and analysis of a system.

show abstract

Extending the Ecological Interface Design process—Integrated EID

Kant

Sudakaran

2021

Hum Ftrs & Erg Mfg Svc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article aims to extend the traditional Ecological Interface Design (EID) process.With the rapid pace of digitalization in technological systems, there is a need for a design process that can handle the systemic design goals and the experiential basis of interaction. Currently, the traditional EID is well-positioned to address these challenges. However, methodologically, it needs to be substantiated to make it accessible for designers, designing for novel arenas, such as Industry 4.0. Further, substantiating the design process will help designers, engineers, and human factors researchers with an accessible pathway that links the design brief to the final interface form. Therefore, this article delves into the "design" basis in the work of the Risø group and other prominent EID researchers and practitioners. In addition, it draws from a variety of themes in the discipline of design that addresses methodology. In particular, key insights are drawn from the design methods movement (1960s-); design, communication, and complexity from the Ulm school of design, 1953-1968; cognitive research conducted on designers and design activities; and finally, interaction design and communication design processes and models. All of these insights have been used syncretically to create the new integrated EID (iEID) process. This new design process consists of nine stages divided into three phases of divergence, transformation, and convergence, converting the initial design brief to the final interface. The steps of iEID are demonstrated using the example of interface design for a "digital twin" in the manufacturing sector.

show abstract

Extending Ecological Interface Design principles: A manufacturing case study

Cited by 24 publications

References 20 publications

Ecological Interface Design Two Decades On: Whatever Happened to the SRK Taxonomy?

Ecological Interface Design Two Decades On: Whatever Happened to the SRK Taxonomy?

A Systematic Approach for Developing Decision Aids: From Cognitive Work Analysis to Prototype Design and Development

Extending the Ecological Interface Design process—Integrated EID

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About