The Interactive Monitoring and Control (IMaC) methodology is a design methodology for operator interfaces to complex engineering systems. This four-step methodology helps designers tailor human-computer interaction to communicate monitoring and control activity requirements to the operator. This paper presents the methodology and associated design principles as well as the results of an empirical study assessing the effectiveness of a proof-of-concept operator interface. The study found that an interface designed by the IMaC methodology resulted in superior operator performance when compared to a conventional interface.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BainbridgeL. (1987). Ironies of automation. In RasmussenJ.DuncanK.LeplatJ. (Eds.), New Technology and Human Error (pp. 271–283). New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
2.
EndsleyM. R.KirisE. O. (1995). The out-of-the-loop performance problem and level of control in automation. Human Factors, 37(2), 381–394.
3.
FunkK. (1991). Cockpit task management: Preliminary definitions, normative theory, error taxonomy, and design recommendations. The International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 1(4), 271–285.
4.
HutchinsE. L.HollanJ. D.NormanD. A. (1986). Direct manipulation interfaces. In NormanD. A.DraperS. W. (Eds.), User centered system design (pp. 87–124). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
5.
JonesP. M.ChuR. W.MitchellC. M. (1995). A methodology for human-machine systems research: Knowledge engineering, modeling, and simulation. IEEE Transactions on System, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-25(7), 1025–1038.
6.
MitchellC. M. (1996). GT-MSOCC: Operator models, model-based displays, and intelligent aiding. In RouseW. B. (Ed.), Human/technology interaction in complex systems (Vol. 8, pp. 67–172). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.
7.
MitchellC. M.SaisiD. L. (1987). Use of model-based qualitative icons and adaptive windows in workstations for supervisory control systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-17(4), 573–593.
8.
NormanD. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
9.
RasmussenJ. (1986). Information processing and human-machine interaction: An approach to cognitive engineering. New York: North Holland.
10.
SheridanT. B. (1992). Telerobotics, Automation, and Human Supervisory Control. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.
11.
ThurmanD. A.MitchellC. M. (1995). A design methodology for operator displays of highly automated supervisory control systems. In Proceedings of the 6th IFAC/IFIP/IFOR/SEA Symposium on Analysis, Design, and Evaluation of Man Machine Systems, Boston, MA.
12.
WienerE. L.ChidesterT. R.KankiB. G.PalmerE. A.CurryR. E.GregorichS. E. (1991). The impact of cockpit automation on crew coordination and communication: I. Overview, LOFT evaluations, error severity, and questionnaire data (NASA Contractor Report 177587). Moffett Field, CA: NASA Ames Research Center.
13.
WoodsD. D. (1984). Visual momentum: A concept to improve the cognitive couple of person and computer. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 21, 229–244.
14.
WoodsD. D.JohannesenL. J.CookR. I.SarterN. B. (1994). Behind human error: Cognitive systems, computers, and hindsight. Wright-Patterson AFB, OH: Crew Systems Ergonomics Information Analysis Center.
15.
ZuboffS. (1991). In the Age of the Smart Machine - The Future of Work and Power. New York: Basic Books.
