an interface that has been designed to Ecological Psycology: a - - PDF document

EID

an interface that has been designed to reflect the constraints of the work environment in a way that is perceptually available to the user. [Burns, C. M., &

Hajdukiewicz, J.R. (2004) ]

Ecological ?

• Ecological Psycology: a small field within pyscology

(Gibson 1979 / 1986 )

• It advocates: human behavior is often constrained by

environment in which they work.

• Understand the work domain, design interfaces that

people can pick up and use, visual displays that reduce need of memory or mental calculation [Burns, C. M., & Hajdukiewicz, J.R. (2004) ]

What are these terms “ecology”, “context” and “situation” ? What is their relationship and differences between them.

• Ecology: relationship between user and environment
• Context: inter related conditions in work domain
• Situation: the way something is placed in relationship

with the surrounding

• Meaning processing is done by humans based on them.

[J.M. Flach 1998]

Group 1

What is EID for?

• EID has been developed to aid designers to who must

design interfaces for complex, safety-critical systems where expert users must engage in diagnostic problem

• solving. [J.M Flach et. al, 1998]

There are 4 different approaches to interface

• design. What advantages use-centered approach

has over other 3 approaches.

• Technology centered : capabilities & limitation of

technology

• User centered: capabilities & limitation of operator
• Control centered: coupling of human and technology
• Use-centered design includes work domain (work space

+ problem space) as in integral component of “cognitive system” [Flach et. al ,1998]

Group 2

One design problem is the different levels of users. The novices prefer an interface that is simple to use while the expert prefer an interface with as much information as

• possible. How can you balance these requirements in EID?
• Case study of Dual REservior System Simulation in

thermal hydraulic process [Kim, J Vicente, 2002]

• P & P+F interfaces
• P shows shallow knowledge base
• P+E can be both shallow and deep depending on user
• Its just an empirical study

Group 1

Does theoretical framework bring improvements to EID processing? Please give some examples. G1, Q3

• The whole of Ecological Interface Design is a theoretical

framework

• Aimed at eliciting constraints and complex dependencies

in a specific work domain

• Work Domain Analysis (WDA)

– Abstraction Hierarchy, consists of five different levels

• Functional Purposes (PURPOSES)
• Values & Priority Measures (PRINCIPLES)
• Purpose-related Functions (PROCESS FUNCTIONS)
• Object-related Processes (PHYSICAL FUNCTIONS)
• Physical Objects (PHYSICAL FORM)

– Part-Whole Hierarchy, can be any number of levels depending

• n the work domain

Combination of Abstraction Hierarchy and Part- Whole Hierarchy

Figure from “Design Rationale Project: Case Study Report”

Explain how the values of a work domain model contribute to EID? G3, Q1

• The idea with EID is to give the user a better

feeling/understanding for the complex work domain which they are using

• Designing for the unexpected is also a large part of EID
• These things are accomplished by modeling the work

domain and analyzing it to elicit information that

• therwise would not be possible to elicit

What is the next step after having performed a work domain analysis? How is the data to be used in the actual design of the interface? G6, Q1

• The next step after WDA is to filter and derive

constraints and requirements

• This can be done by for example task analysis
• The requirements and constraints that is produced will

then serve as the basis for the actual design of the interface

• After the breakdown of the requirements normal UCD

methods can be used to design the interface, e.g. iterative, user tests, rapid prototyping etc.

• G. A. Jamieson, D. V. C. Reising, & J. R. Hajdukiewicz. (2001). "EID Design Rationale Project:

Case Study Report" CEL 01-03. < http://www.mie.utoronto.ca/labs/cel/publications/files/tech_reports/CEL01-03.pdf >

• G. A. Jamieson, D. V. C. Reising, & W. H. Ho. (2003). “Ecological Interface Design in Practice: A

Design for Petrochemical Processing Operations “. In Julie Jacko and Constantine Stephanidis (Eds.), Human-Computer Interaction: Theory and Practice, Part I (pp. 133-137). Mahwah, NJ:

• Erlbaum. <

http://www.mie.utoronto.ca/labs/cel/publications/files/conference/HCII2003_Jamieson.pdf >

• Wong, W.B.L.; Sallis, P.J.; Oapos;Hare, D. (1998). ”The ecological approach to interface design:

applying theabstraction hierarchy to intentional domains”. Computer Human Interaction Conference, 1998. Proceedings. 1998 Australasian Volume , Issue , 30 Nov-4 Dec 1998 Page(s):144 – 151

• S. D. Pinder, D. N. Bristow, T. C. Davies. (2006). ”Interface design for an aircraft thrust and

braking indicator/advisor”. OZCHI '06: Proceedings of the 20th conference of the computer-human interaction special interest group (CHISIG) of Australia on Computer-human interaction: design: activities, artefacts and environments

• C. Upton, G. Doherty. (2008). “Extending Ecological Interface Design principles: A manufacturing

case study”. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, Volume 66 , Issue 4 (April 2008), Pages 271-286, Year of Publication: 2008, ISSN:1071-5819

How can we handle unanticipated events based on design constraints?

Group 3

• There are always unanticipated events
• Scenario-based design vs. constraint-based design
• Inform, indicate and instruct

Two examples of handling unanticipated events:

• Detect event -> diagnosis -> cause of fault ->

appropriate response [Roy M. Turner et.al., 1993]

• Responds to the symptoms (“do whatever works”)

[D. Payton et.al., 1992]

In order to properly control the system and processes, the human-machine system must embody constraints inherent in the work domain. What are those constraints and how can we best deal with them?

Group 7

• Identify constraints by conducting a WDA
• WDA of a fighter aircraft
• Functional constraints of a WDA = Training constraints

[N. Naikar, et.al., 1999]

How does the EID minimize the supporting recovery from errors?

Group 2

• “[EID] tends to minimize the potential for control

interference and support recovery from errors.” [Rasmussen & Vicente, 1989]

• Deal with errors instead of trying to eliminate errors

Handling human errors:

• Make all relevant data visible and available to the user
• Appropriate feedback
• Reversible and visible effects

• Roy M. Turner Peggy S. Eaton Martin J. Dempsey, Handling

unanticipated events in single and multiple AUV systems, 1993.

• D. Payton, D. Keirsey, D. Kimble, J. Krozel, and J. Rosenblatt, Do

whatever works: A robust approach to fault-tolerant autonomous control, 1992.

• N. Naikar, P. Sanderson, and G. Lintern, Work domain analysis:

Identification of training needs for simulator acquisition, 1999

• Are there instances where EID can be applied in the

design of less complex systems? (Group 6)

• One argument for EID is that it’s suitable “when asking

users doesn’t work”. Even when developing non- complex systems, study of context is needed to get a complete list of requirements. Isn’t that a reason to use EID when developing those non-complex systems as well? (Group 7)

• Can EID be applied on anything else than interfaces?

Give examples! (Group 4)

Group 6, 7, 4

• Yes, EID can be applied on non-complex systems as

well.

• Example: interactive system in the form of a meeting

schedule.

• Didn’t use the AH
• Some problems with EID....

Hsi I. and Potts C. 1995. Towards Integrating Rationalistic and Ecological Design Methods for Interactive Systems Group 6, 7, 4

Less complex systems or other domains

• Number of components

Upton, C. and Doherty, G. 2007. Integrating the visualisation reference model with ecological interface design.

• The complexity of a patient far exceeds the complexity of

any industrial process

Sharp, T. D. Helmicki, A. J. The Application of the Ecological Interface Design Approach to Neonatal Intensive Care Medicine Group 6, 7, 4

Less complex systems or other domains

• Another example of a non-industrial environment
• “when asking users doesn’t work”

Davies, T. C., Burns, C. M., and Pinder, S. D. 2006. Using ecological interface design to develop an auditory interface for visually impaired travellers. Group 6, 7, 4

Less complex systems or other domains

• Can be applied to other domains and systems
• Problems with AH
• Financial problems
• Mostly motivated in critical systems
• EID principles where context/environment is important

Group 6, 7, 4

Summary: Less complex systems or other domains Does keeping the design in the low level worth’s the effort? Aren’t human beings smart enough to take case of some difficult issues in design and learn the possible solutions easily? (Group 7)

Group 7

Group 1

• 1. One design problem is the different levels of the users. The novices prefer an interface that is simple to use while the expert prefer an interface with as much

information as possible. How can you balance these requirements in EID?

• 2. What are these terms “ecology”, “context” and “situation”? What their relationships and what’s the difference between them?
• 3. Does theoretical framework bring improvement to EID processing? Please give some examples.

Group 2

• 1. There are 4 different approaches to interface design. What advantages use-centered approach (ecological) has over other 3 approaches?
• 2. Can EID be used together with UCD? How could this be done?
• 3. How do the EID minimize the supporting recovery from errors?

Group 3

• 1. Explain how the values of a work domain model contribute to EID?
• 2. How we can handle unanticipated events based on design constraints?
• 3. How important is the users capacity and expectations from user center perspective?

Group 4

• 1. Are there situations where EID is more efficient than HCD?
• 2. Can EID be considered as a subcategory of HCD? If not are they compatible?
• 3. Is EID applicable on anything else than interfaces? Give examples!

Group 6

• 1. What is the next step after having performed a work domain analysis? How is the data to be used in the actual design of the interface?
• 2. Are there instances where EID can be applied in the design of less complex systems?
• 3. Are UCD and EID mutually exclusive or can they be combines successfully in interface design? If so, how?

Group 7 1.One argument for EID is that it’s suitable “when asking users doesn’t work”. Even when developing non-complex systems, study of context is needed to get a complete list orequirements. Isn’t that a reason to use EID when developing those non-complex systems as well?

• 2. In order to properly control the system and processes, the human-machine system must embody constraints inherent in the work domain. What are those constraints

and how can we best deal with them?

• 3. Does keeping the design in the low level worth’s the effort? Aren’t human beings smart enough to take case of some difficult issues in design and learn the possible

solutions easily?

Ecological interface design

Ecological interface design 1- Can EID be used together with UCD? How could this be done? [G2, #2] 2- Are there situations where EID is more efficient than HCD? [G4, #1] 3- Can EID be considered as a subcategory of HCD? If not are they compatible? [G4, #2] 4- Are UCD and EID mutually exclusive or can they be combines successfully in interface design? If so, how? [G6, #3]

Ecological interface design (EID) is an approach to interface design that was introduced specifically for complex socio-technical, real-time, and dynamic systems. In organizational development, socio-technical systems (or STS) is an approach to complex organizational work design that recognizes the interaction between people and technology in workplaces. The term also refers to the interaction between society's complex infrastructures and human behaviors. In this sense, society itself, and most of its sub-structures, are complex socio-technical systems. The term socio-technical systems was coined in the 1960s by Eric Trist and Fred Emery, who were working as consultants at the Tavistock Institute in London. It has been applied in a variety of domains including process control (e.g. nuclear power plants, petrochemical plants), aviation, and medicine.[1]

EID differs from some interface design methodologies like User-Centered Design (UCD) in that the focus of the analysis is on the work domain or environment, rather than on the end user or a specific task. The goal of EID is to make constraints and complex relationships in the work environment perceptually evident (e.g. visible, audible) to the user. This allows more of users' cognitive resources to be devoted to higher cognitive processes such as problem solving and decision making. By reducing mental workload and supporting knowledge-based reasoning, EID aims to improve user performance and overall system reliability for both anticipated and unanticipated events in a complex system.[2] The UCD approach commonly focuses on single user interactions between the user and the interface which is not enough to deal with today’s increasingly complex systems where centralized control of information is needed and it is displayed on a variety of interfaces in varying detail. EID is a preferable addition to the complex systems’ design process when even very experienced users do not have a complete understanding of how the entire complex system (power plant, nuclear plant, petrochemical refinery etc.) works. It is a known fact that users don’t always understand or even feel the need to understand all the relationships behind the complex processes that they control via their interfaces.[3] Furthermore, the users are not always aware of the constraints that affect the system that they work with, and discovering these constraints can take some extra effort (Burns & Hajdukiewicz, 2004). The constraint based style in interface design also facilitates the handling of unanticipated events because, regardless of the event, the constraint is broken and it can be seen by the user who in turn can proactively work with the interface to restore the constrain and fix the system. This does not in any way take away the usefulness of UCD but stresses the fact that that EID offers some unique insight into the design process and it could be used in conjunction with other cognitive engineering techniques to enhance the user interfaces and increase human reliability in human-machine interactions.[4] EID incorporates this constraint based style in the design approach where it examines the constraints of the user domain before getting user input. EID focuses on understanding the complex system – its build, its architecture, and its original intent and then relaying this information to the end user thereby reducing their learning curve and helping them achieve higher level of expertise.[5] Example: Screenshots from IFE’s Human System Interface design projects [6]

References: 1-Burns, C. M. & Hajdukiewicz, J. R. (2004). Ecological Interface Design. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. ISBN 0-415-28374-4 2-Rasmussen, J. (1983). Skills, rules, knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 13, 257-266. 3-Vicente, K. J. (1999b). Ecological Interface Design: Supporting operator adaptation, continuous learning, distributed, collaborative work. Proceedings of the Human Centered Processes Conference, 93-97 4-Rasmussen, J. (1990). Mental models and the control of action in complex environments. In D. Ackermann, D. & M.J. Tauber (Eds.). Mental Models and Human-Computer Interaction 1 (pp.41-46). North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers. ISBN 0-444-88453-X 5-Vicente, K. J. & Rasmussen, J. (1992). Ecological Interface Design: Theoretical

• foundations. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, 22, 589-606.

6- http://www.ife.no/departments/visual_interface_technologies/products/procsee/ screenshots/ifehsi