Affordances, or the physical interactions that an environment allows for a particular agent, are critical to the design of human-interactive systems. Researchers are developing formal models of human-device interaction that can be used to verify procedures, displays, and controls; however, no formal approaches to guide design exist for affordances. This paper presents such an approach. To model affordance formally, we instantiate an extant formalism from ecological psychology. A human-environment system model represents physical entities in an environment, properties such as 3-D spatial relations among them, and motor capabilities of a human operator. An application is demonstrated in an aircraft cabin door case study, and verification results aid in identifying an undesirable situation involving door openability.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbbateA. J.BassE. J. (2016). A formal language for specifying visual interface signifiers. In Proceedings of the 2016 Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 1148–1153). Los Angeles, CA, USA: SAGE Publications.
2.
AbbateA. J.BassE. J.ThrockmortonA. L. (2016). A formal task analytic approach to medical device alarm troubleshooting instructions. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 41(1), 53–65.
3.
Airbus. (2005). A318/A319/A320/A321 Flight Crew Operating Manual 1– Systems Description.
4.
BirdJ.RossC. (2012). Mechanical Engineering Principles. New York, NY, USA: Routledge.
5.
BoltonM. L.BassE. J.SiminiceanuR. I. (2013). Using formal verification to evaluate human-automation interaction: A review. Systems, Man, and Cybernetics: Systems, IEEE Transactions on, 43(3), 488–503.
6.
BoltonM. L.SiminiceanuR. I.BassE. J. (2011). A systematic approach to model checking human-automation interaction using task analytic models. Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Part A: Systems and Humans, IEEE Transactions on, 41(5), 961–976.
7.
CamposJ. C.SousaM.AlvesM. C. B.HarrisonM. D. (2016). Formal verification of a space system’s user interface with the IVY workbench. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 46(2), 303–316.
8.
CarterJ. W. (1999, February9). Fuselage door for pressurized aircraft. Google Patents. (US Patent 5,868,355)
9.
ClarkeE. M.EmersonE. A.SistlaA. P. (1986). Automatic verification of finite-state concurrent systems using temporal logic specifications. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems (TOPLAS), 8(2), 244–263.
10.
ClarkeE. M.GrumbergO.PeledD. A. (1999). Model checking. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press.
11.
De MouraL.OwreS.ShankarN. (2003). The SAL language manual (Tech. Rep. No. CSL-01-01). Menlo Park: Computer Science Laboratory, SRI International.
12.
EgenhoferM. J. (1994). Spatial SQL: A query and presentation language. Knowledge and Data Engineering, IEEE Transactions on, 6(1), 86–95.
13.
FrankA. U. (1992). Qualitative spatial reasoning about distances and directions in geographic space. Journal of Visual Languages & Computing, 3(4), 343–371.
14.
GibsonJ. J. (1979). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Boston, MA, USA: Houghton Mifflin.
15.
ISO. (2004). ISO 10303-11:2004: Industrial automation systems and integration – Product data representation and exchange – Part 11: Description methods: The EXPRESS language reference manual. Geneva.
16.
LenarcˇicˇA.WinterM. (2013). Affordances in situation theory. Ecological Psychology, 25(2), 155–181.
17.
MooreE. F. (1962). Machine models of self-reproduction. In Proceedings of a symposium of the applied mathematical society (pp. 17–33). Providence, RI, USA: Applied Mathematical Society.
18.
StoffregenT. A. (2003). Affordances as properties of the animal-environment system. Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 115–134.
19.
U.S. FAA. (2005). Fuselage Doors and Hatches (Advisory Circular 25.783-1A). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration.
20.
U.S. FAA. (2012). Chapter 16: Cabin environmental control systems. In Aviation Maintenance Technician Handbook–Airframe (Vol. 2). Washington, DC, USA: U.S. FAA.
21.
U.S. National Transportation Safety Board. (2002). Safety recommendations A-02-20 through -23. Washington, DC, USA.
22.
WagmanJ. B.CarelloC. (2001). Affordances and inertial constraints on tool use. Ecological Psychology, 13(3), 173–195.
23.
WingJ. M. (1990). A specifier’s introduction to formal methods. Computer, 23(9), 8–22.
