The benefits of human factors early in the design
on
Jef Raskin Talks Skins
·
· Score: 1
I took a class in usability back in the Fall, under Rex Hartson, another well-known expert in the field. The points brought up in the article make so much sense to me now. In the course students were teamed randomly, and due to the class mix, about half were human factors types and the other half were CS majors. Through the course of the semester we worked on a project which was the design of an interface for time and project-keeping purposes, and the one thing that came up so often was the human factors engineers' concerns being paid no more than lip service by the CS majors. This was not always the case, but the programmers simply could not be shaken from their desire to create whatever worked, with whatever code, and 'that's the way it should be' without understanding that their job is to code to the needs of the user, which are demonstrated only through a concerted effort to elucidate such needs, through all available techniques if need be (interviews, ethnographic analyses, etc.)--it is only then can we even attempt to approach the 'ubiquitous GUI.' All too often, and certainly not limited to interfaces, user requirements and expectations are not incorporated into the design, or, if they are, it is usually in a 'mopping up' fashion, which will always cost more.
Some more wonder from down under. And more, across the way to the east, in New Zealand. Lots of film makers are producing where there's lots of room, plenty of interesting sets, and loads of skilled labor to utilize. I too really like this show; if for quality or lack of other scifi fare I know not for sure. However, the characters, who were at first somewhat cheesy but quickly materialized into believable and worthy protagonists, coupled with the usually realistic-looking settings, make this show at the very least likable. Of course, the female characters certainly are done well. Claudia Black is an extremely attractive woman....(and she sings jazz)
You can try, but it will not be denied.
For good or ill, treading into this minefield of ethical issues will continue, like it or not.
I, for one, am cautious but I am convinced (through a personal, perhaps idealistic viewpoint) that such research will ultimately benefit us all.
Those who wish to discontinue this research are usually ignorant, either through circumstance or a desire to remain so, through ethics or otherwise; science will continue. Pending bills or to make it illegal merely satisfy those who sleep better at night knowing it's so; you cannot stop it.
Traditionally, id software has been the only major game manufacturer to contiually support joysticks in their games. However, I have heard in many newsgroups and posts that this is not the case with RTCW. I think that this is sad.
Surely, the VAST majority of gamers use the k/m combo. But I contend that it is a small matter to add (or continue) joystick support. I have always used a joystick in gaming (did the Atari 2600 have a k/m? No. It had a joystick). Notwithstanding the inherent ergonomic nightmare that using a k/m presents, the joystick I use (pantherXL) is superb--a trackball on the left for looking and aiming, and a joystick on the right for movement. 14 additional keys around the stick and trackball can be bound to what normal k/mers would use. I never even have to reach for the keyboard.
I guess I'm in the dwindling minority of gamers who still use the joystick. If id won't support us, I see a dark future ahead for joystick users.
I am involved with SATS and will attempt to respond to your points.
1) The implementation of new technology will reduce the effects of pollution. Witness, for example, Embry Riddle Aeronautical University's recent Cessna powered by JetA fuel. This internal combustion powerplant has the potential to save millions in fuel costs--and it is less pollutive. Such technology will likely be utilized in SATS aircraft. If more SATS aircraft are flying and less ground transportation, which contributes greatly to pollution, is utilized, there'll be less gridlock and less pollution. As for the 'bigger engines' comment, I can only say that the overwhelming majority of GA aircraft have much smaller (and less polluting) engines than do the ubiquitous Suburban behemoths on our highways today. Pollution is not limited to the air. Noise pollution technologies have been phased in to commerical airliners for years, and the latest Stage 3 and 4 aircraft are even quieter. Sure, most SATS aircraft will likely be piston-powered propeller-driven transports, but noise-abatement technologies continue to improve to address this issue.
2) This is a relative statement. The first autos were too expensive for the average person, but became an option soonafter. Surely, at least in the early years, SATS will likely be used by the time-conscious business class. The money and time saved through bypassing traditional commercial transport will fuel the growth of SATS for average people.
3) You are correct in that many drivers can't drive too well, and one would logically conclude that the same would apply to SATS. It may be, but I would like to explain why I don't think so. SATS aircraft will incorporate instrumentation that will allow the plane to fly (and possibly land) by itself. If the pilot chooses to fly, the glass cockpit will likely display a 'highway in the sky' (HITS), which is essentially 'brackets' superimposed over a graphical depiction of what is seen out the windscreen; the pilot simply stays within those brackets (much like drivers today stay within their lines...or don't). All SATS aircraft have the same HITS on their screens, outlining their own personal vector, and all aircraft are in constant contact and are aware of others' positions. HITS has already been shown to be highly effective in both seasoned and novice pilots. I also suspect that the training and evaluation of would-be SATS pilots is more comprehensive than that of your DMV. There exist numerous separation-maintenance technologies, even today, and SATS aircraft will take over if a collision is imminent. As for weather, next-generation displays of weather will be displayed to the pilot in real time to avoid such conditions. Stalling occurs when there is not enough lift to maintain flight; the aircraft simply points down and, given enough altitude, the aircraft will automatically emerge from the stall. Running out of gas is unlikely in that the system is constantly monitoring itself (unlike most of the current GA, wherein the pilot must monitor the fuel) and reporting, via datalink, to the ground; however, it is conceivable.
4) You're correct on that, but the whole idea of SATS is for self-maintenance of separation and vector through the utilization of current and new technologies to perform these actions. ATC is not meant to direct SATS aircraft in all stages of flight, only that around dense, higher-class airspace. On the other hand, however, preliminary studies have shown that overall ATC workload will be increased with SATS, and this issue must be addressed.
5) Downtown Manhattan, as far as I am aware, doesn't have any runways.
I think that your concerns are legitimate, and represent what most of America would say as well. We are in the early stages of SATS--we aren't even projected to have a functioning SATS aircraft demonstration in a closed airspace until 2005, with the entire program stretching over decades. I am confident that this can be done, and once the public is educated about SATS and their concerns addressed, they will be too.
I am a postgrad working on my doctoral and am involved in the Human Factors issues of SATS. Many are worried about the impacts of such an endeavor, and rightly so. Especially with the events of 911, one wonders if this is feasible at all. There are two sides to this issue: one side is that SATS, and GA in general, is dead; the other says that, due to the currently inherent security issues with commercial transportation, SATS and GA will grow exponentially (i.e., no knowledge of who you're flying with or how intense the security scrutiny of others' baggage causing droves of travellers who wish to have SOME control to seek out alternatives).
Being on the Human Factors side of things in SATS, I am more concerned with the interactions that will occur with respect to the 'human in the loop': the displays (visual or auditory), human performance in such things as terminal area procedures and separation maintenance, and investigations into optimal cockpit and aircraft design.
Make no mistake: we have (or soon will have) the technology to do this. Surely, some aspects, such as ATC issues and flight path security (i.e., flying over sensitive areas), still need resolving. But, with the data gleaned from the AGATE research and others, we are confident that this will become reality. Current plans are for a demonstration of a fully-operational system, limited to a specific test area, in 2005. Time will tell if this system sells with the public, but I think it will. Witness the increases in chartered aircraft, both for business and pleasure. Several aircraft currently exist and are flying that contain SATS technology (Cirrus, Glasair). Consortia involved in SATS (Florida, Virginia, and a conglomeration of others in Baltimore and Ohio) are feverishly working out testing and experimental designs that produce the data that the FAA and NASA need to make the decisions to continue.
I am excited about this, very excited. You should be, too.
...this week, on Thursday, and when talking to the head office (had some trouble getting Verizon to switch over) the ISP, NAXS, said that they are EXPANDING into Blacksburg....so I don't know where you get your information, at least for BBurg being 'dead'...
Slashdot Mirror
I took a class in usability back in the Fall, under Rex Hartson, another well-known expert in the field. The points brought up in the article make so much sense to me now. In the course students were teamed randomly, and due to the class mix, about half were human factors types and the other half were CS majors. Through the course of the semester we worked on a project which was the design of an interface for time and project-keeping purposes, and the one thing that came up so often was the human factors engineers' concerns being paid no more than lip service by the CS majors. This was not always the case, but the programmers simply could not be shaken from their desire to create whatever worked, with whatever code, and 'that's the way it should be' without understanding that their job is to code to the needs of the user, which are demonstrated only through a concerted effort to elucidate such needs, through all available techniques if need be (interviews, ethnographic analyses, etc.)--it is only then can we even attempt to approach the 'ubiquitous GUI.' All too often, and certainly not limited to interfaces, user requirements and expectations are not incorporated into the design, or, if they are, it is usually in a 'mopping up' fashion, which will always cost more.
Certainly, Asimov's three rules. Let's just hope that some entity akin to 'CyberDyne Systems' doesn't get to the punch first.
Some more wonder from down under. And more, across the way to the east, in New Zealand. Lots of film makers are producing where there's lots of room, plenty of interesting sets, and loads of skilled labor to utilize. I too really like this show; if for quality or lack of other scifi fare I know not for sure. However, the characters, who were at first somewhat cheesy but quickly materialized into believable and worthy protagonists, coupled with the usually realistic-looking settings, make this show at the very least likable. Of course, the female characters certainly are done well. Claudia Black is an extremely attractive woman....(and she sings jazz)
You can try, but it will not be denied. For good or ill, treading into this minefield of ethical issues will continue, like it or not. I, for one, am cautious but I am convinced (through a personal, perhaps idealistic viewpoint) that such research will ultimately benefit us all. Those who wish to discontinue this research are usually ignorant, either through circumstance or a desire to remain so, through ethics or otherwise; science will continue. Pending bills or to make it illegal merely satisfy those who sleep better at night knowing it's so; you cannot stop it.
Traditionally, id software has been the only major game manufacturer to contiually support joysticks in their games. However, I have heard in many newsgroups and posts that this is not the case with RTCW. I think that this is sad.
Surely, the VAST majority of gamers use the k/m combo. But I contend that it is a small matter to add (or continue) joystick support. I have always used a joystick in gaming (did the Atari 2600 have a k/m? No. It had a joystick). Notwithstanding the inherent ergonomic nightmare that using a k/m presents, the joystick I use (pantherXL) is superb--a trackball on the left for looking and aiming, and a joystick on the right for movement. 14 additional keys around the stick and trackball can be bound to what normal k/mers would use. I never even have to reach for the keyboard.
I guess I'm in the dwindling minority of gamers who still use the joystick. If id won't support us, I see a dark future ahead for joystick users.
I am involved with SATS and will attempt to respond to your points. 1) The implementation of new technology will reduce the effects of pollution. Witness, for example, Embry Riddle Aeronautical University's recent Cessna powered by JetA fuel. This internal combustion powerplant has the potential to save millions in fuel costs--and it is less pollutive. Such technology will likely be utilized in SATS aircraft. If more SATS aircraft are flying and less ground transportation, which contributes greatly to pollution, is utilized, there'll be less gridlock and less pollution. As for the 'bigger engines' comment, I can only say that the overwhelming majority of GA aircraft have much smaller (and less polluting) engines than do the ubiquitous Suburban behemoths on our highways today. Pollution is not limited to the air. Noise pollution technologies have been phased in to commerical airliners for years, and the latest Stage 3 and 4 aircraft are even quieter. Sure, most SATS aircraft will likely be piston-powered propeller-driven transports, but noise-abatement technologies continue to improve to address this issue. 2) This is a relative statement. The first autos were too expensive for the average person, but became an option soonafter. Surely, at least in the early years, SATS will likely be used by the time-conscious business class. The money and time saved through bypassing traditional commercial transport will fuel the growth of SATS for average people. 3) You are correct in that many drivers can't drive too well, and one would logically conclude that the same would apply to SATS. It may be, but I would like to explain why I don't think so. SATS aircraft will incorporate instrumentation that will allow the plane to fly (and possibly land) by itself. If the pilot chooses to fly, the glass cockpit will likely display a 'highway in the sky' (HITS), which is essentially 'brackets' superimposed over a graphical depiction of what is seen out the windscreen; the pilot simply stays within those brackets (much like drivers today stay within their lines...or don't). All SATS aircraft have the same HITS on their screens, outlining their own personal vector, and all aircraft are in constant contact and are aware of others' positions. HITS has already been shown to be highly effective in both seasoned and novice pilots. I also suspect that the training and evaluation of would-be SATS pilots is more comprehensive than that of your DMV. There exist numerous separation-maintenance technologies, even today, and SATS aircraft will take over if a collision is imminent. As for weather, next-generation displays of weather will be displayed to the pilot in real time to avoid such conditions. Stalling occurs when there is not enough lift to maintain flight; the aircraft simply points down and, given enough altitude, the aircraft will automatically emerge from the stall. Running out of gas is unlikely in that the system is constantly monitoring itself (unlike most of the current GA, wherein the pilot must monitor the fuel) and reporting, via datalink, to the ground; however, it is conceivable. 4) You're correct on that, but the whole idea of SATS is for self-maintenance of separation and vector through the utilization of current and new technologies to perform these actions. ATC is not meant to direct SATS aircraft in all stages of flight, only that around dense, higher-class airspace. On the other hand, however, preliminary studies have shown that overall ATC workload will be increased with SATS, and this issue must be addressed. 5) Downtown Manhattan, as far as I am aware, doesn't have any runways. I think that your concerns are legitimate, and represent what most of America would say as well. We are in the early stages of SATS--we aren't even projected to have a functioning SATS aircraft demonstration in a closed airspace until 2005, with the entire program stretching over decades. I am confident that this can be done, and once the public is educated about SATS and their concerns addressed, they will be too.
I am a postgrad working on my doctoral and am involved in the Human Factors issues of SATS. Many are worried about the impacts of such an endeavor, and rightly so. Especially with the events of 911, one wonders if this is feasible at all. There are two sides to this issue: one side is that SATS, and GA in general, is dead; the other says that, due to the currently inherent security issues with commercial transportation, SATS and GA will grow exponentially (i.e., no knowledge of who you're flying with or how intense the security scrutiny of others' baggage causing droves of travellers who wish to have SOME control to seek out alternatives). Being on the Human Factors side of things in SATS, I am more concerned with the interactions that will occur with respect to the 'human in the loop': the displays (visual or auditory), human performance in such things as terminal area procedures and separation maintenance, and investigations into optimal cockpit and aircraft design. Make no mistake: we have (or soon will have) the technology to do this. Surely, some aspects, such as ATC issues and flight path security (i.e., flying over sensitive areas), still need resolving. But, with the data gleaned from the AGATE research and others, we are confident that this will become reality. Current plans are for a demonstration of a fully-operational system, limited to a specific test area, in 2005. Time will tell if this system sells with the public, but I think it will. Witness the increases in chartered aircraft, both for business and pleasure. Several aircraft currently exist and are flying that contain SATS technology (Cirrus, Glasair). Consortia involved in SATS (Florida, Virginia, and a conglomeration of others in Baltimore and Ohio) are feverishly working out testing and experimental designs that produce the data that the FAA and NASA need to make the decisions to continue. I am excited about this, very excited. You should be, too.
...this week, on Thursday, and when talking to the head office (had some trouble getting Verizon to switch over) the ISP, NAXS, said that they are EXPANDING into Blacksburg....so I don't know where you get your information, at least for BBurg being 'dead'...