conclusion is that now is the time to make a strong research attack on computer-based documentation, including self-instructional programs, coherent system-wide help systems, documentation keyed to the behavior of programs (so that an error calls forth an explanation of what went wrong), and programming languages that write programs to explain themselves.

Capturing the Intent of the Creators of the System

As suggested earlier, documentation must be viewed as a part of the overall system that interacts with other parts of the overall system. The time dimension—the history—of the overall system is a very important base of the interaction. Most systems are developed through efforts to improve earlier systems, and those that do not are developed from some kind of design activity in the minds of system designers. (Programs are systems, of course, so the same can be said of programs). The intentions of the improvers and designers are crucially important to understanding what the systems do, how they work, and how they should be used—but intentions tend not to be captured in the plans and designs. A computer program, for example, usually tells how to do something, not what it is that is being done, and it is very difficult to reconstruct the programmer’s intentions from the program. Research on this topic may or may not improve the situation, but it clear that the situation needs to be improved. A broad view of documentation is important. The right approach may be to create computer-based design and upgrading metasystems, within which improvers and designers would work under constant monitoring, with as much emphasis on recording intentions and goals as on devising the means for achieving them. Note that this notion, if not developed with sensitivity to privacy issues, could lead to serious ethical problems.

Dynamic Graphics and Documentation

Although documentation was, in earlier days, primarily print on paper, some documentation has been available in other media, such as recorded speech and movies. The latter offered, at considerable cost, the advantages of kinematic graphics and moving gray-scale and color pictures. The computer promises to reduce the cost of



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 111
Research Needs for Human Factors conclusion is that now is the time to make a strong research attack on computer-based documentation, including self-instructional programs, coherent system-wide help systems, documentation keyed to the behavior of programs (so that an error calls forth an explanation of what went wrong), and programming languages that write programs to explain themselves. Capturing the Intent of the Creators of the System As suggested earlier, documentation must be viewed as a part of the overall system that interacts with other parts of the overall system. The time dimension—the history—of the overall system is a very important base of the interaction. Most systems are developed through efforts to improve earlier systems, and those that do not are developed from some kind of design activity in the minds of system designers. (Programs are systems, of course, so the same can be said of programs). The intentions of the improvers and designers are crucially important to understanding what the systems do, how they work, and how they should be used—but intentions tend not to be captured in the plans and designs. A computer program, for example, usually tells how to do something, not what it is that is being done, and it is very difficult to reconstruct the programmer’s intentions from the program. Research on this topic may or may not improve the situation, but it clear that the situation needs to be improved. A broad view of documentation is important. The right approach may be to create computer-based design and upgrading metasystems, within which improvers and designers would work under constant monitoring, with as much emphasis on recording intentions and goals as on devising the means for achieving them. Note that this notion, if not developed with sensitivity to privacy issues, could lead to serious ethical problems. Dynamic Graphics and Documentation Although documentation was, in earlier days, primarily print on paper, some documentation has been available in other media, such as recorded speech and movies. The latter offered, at considerable cost, the advantages of kinematic graphics and moving gray-scale and color pictures. The computer promises to reduce the cost of

OCR for page 111
Research Needs for Human Factors preparing kinematic graphics by having a single, static program create dynamic multidimensional patterns that develop over time. The video disk promises to reduce the cost of storing and playing back all kinds of information, especially pictorial information. Together the computer and the video disk may open up a new era for dynamic graphic documentation. At present the computer can select and present in a few milliseconds any one of the approximately 55,000 pictures on a video disk. It can run off sequences of continuous frames as a movie or skip around under program control and show fast slide sequences. What it selects can be conditioned, of course, by the responses of the viewer or viewers. These capabilities present an exciting opportunity to explore and develop new approaches to documentation. Another exciting opportunity is being studied under the rubric of program visualization. The computer is capable, of course, of displaying representations of its own internal operation. It can present sequences of symbols representing the program that is being executed and the data on which the program is operating. Alternatively, it can present graphs, diagrams, and pictures to tell the person at the console what the program should be doing and what it is in fact doing. This latter approach to documentation, which requires sophisticated graphic display not widely available in the past, is now economically as well as technically feasible. The hope is that iconic displays will prove superior to symbolic displays in presenting the broad picture of the behavior of computer programs and systems and in helping people deal with their intrinsic complexity. With the iconic approach, it may be possible to provide something analogous to a zoom lens, through which one would be able to monitor and control the broad picture as long as everything proceeds according to plan, then focus on the offending details as soon as trouble arises. Documentation in the Form of Knowledge Bases Conventional documentation takes the forms of natural language text, diagrams, sketches, pictures, and tables of data; it is designed exclusively to be read by eye. New forms of documentation are becoming essential: pointer structures, semantic networks, procedural networks, and production rules, documentation designed to be

OCR for page 111
Research Needs for Human Factors interpreted by computer programs. Such documentation will probably be used first in interactive computer systems to help end users or programmers and maintenance workers, but in due course it will be used also in fully automatic systems sophisticated enough to read their own documentation and restructure themselves to overcome difficulties and maximize performance. Some work has already been done on such documentation in the field of artificial intelligence; much more needs to be done. It is essential to couple research on documentation closely with other research pertinent to the systems in which it will be used—for example, with work on interactive tutorial systems for end users, interactive maintenance systems, and robotic maufacturing systems. Computer Systems to Facilitate Conventional Documentation The foregoing emphasis on computer-based documentation expresses our conviction that it is the high-payoff area within the documentation field, but it should not be taken to imply that conventional documentation is dead. We think that two main foci have the greatest potential payoff for research in conventional documentation: (1) understanding the target group of people that the documentation is intended to help and the tasks in which they will be engaged when they use the documentation and (2) using computer systems, with good editors, formatters, and composers to facilitate creation and production of c onventional documentation. The theme of understanding the users is developed elsewhere in this chapter. Great advances have been made in the last few years in the design of computer-based systems for creating and producing conventional documents, and research in that area has much new technology to work on. Indeed, research is needed to develop the capability to make the new editors, formatters, and composers easy to use in order to facilitate the preparation of documentation that will make them and other systems easy to use. Kruesi, for example, supported by the Office of Naval Research (NR 196–160), is investigating the relationship between the types of documentation provided to programmers and their performance on a wide variety of software-related tasks. In summary, research should be emphasized in several areas pertinent to documentation: (1) techniques of

OCR for page 111
Research Needs for Human Factors on-line documentation, (2) interactions and information flows between document subsystems and other subsystems, (3) efforts to capture the intent of designers and upgraders of systems, (4) dynamic graphics and the video disk, (5) dynamic graphics and program visualization, (6) knowledge bases, (7) understanding the uses and users of documentation, and (8) computer-based systems for the development of conventional documentation. Of these suggestions two primary research needs are to know how and when to use display documentation with graphics and what program visualization techniques are most helpful to users. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The primary research recommendatons in the areas of users, tasks, hardware, software, and documentation include a major emphasis on developing new methodologies to evaluate what is meant by ease of use in human-computer interaction. Does ease of use mean the extent to which it is easy to learn to use a computer; does it imply good design of hardware and software for a variety of naive, casual, and professional users; does it mean that any task can be done quickly and without errors; does it encompass a component of judged satisfaction about use; or does it mean all of these? We need to know what user characteristics are important determinants of successful human-computer interaction for a specified set of tasks, such as data base inquiries, computation and accounting problems, and editor or word processing functions. In the area of hardware design, more research is needed to evaluate alternatives to keyboard input (including voice input), uses of color in displays, the best sizes of displays, and alternatives to CRT displays. Studies in evaluating software are barely beginning to provide data for design use. We don’t yet know how to conduct systematic research studies in software design, what independent variables are most important, and what dependent variables of human-computer interaction should be recorded. We don’t have data to support the design of a simulation facility to effectively evaluate commands in operating systems, editing systems, knowledge-based systems, and query systems. We need to understand users’ conceptual models in interacting with specific software systems, and we need more information about the advantages and disadvan-

OCR for page 111
Research Needs for Human Factors tages of natural language software systems. Documentation may well become part of the available software for users; when and how to display documentation is an important area for research. Research is needed on how best to use graphics and special knowledge bases to facilitate uses of documentation either on line or in manuals. Current documentation is designer-oriented rather than user-oriented, and the perspectives should be changed so that documentation is used more effectively. Although the research needs outlined are numerous, a major emphasis in this chapter is on systematic studies that include all four substantive variables—user and task characteristics, hardware, software, and documentation—and the interaction of these components with a clear-cut set of studies to define ease of use. REFERENCES Addis, T. R. 1972 Human behaviour in an interactive environment using a simple spoken work recognizer. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 4:255–284. Al-Awar, J., Chapanis, A., and Ford, W.R. 1981 Tutorials for the first-time computer user. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication PC-24:30–37. Alden, D.G., Daniels, R.W., and Kanarick, A.F. 1972 Keyboard design and operation: a review of the major issues. Human Factors 14:275–293. (A very similar paper by the same authors is Technical Report 12180-FRIA, Honeywell Systems and Research Center, St. Paul, Minn., March 1970). Apsey, R.S. 1976 Human factors of constrained handprint for OCR. Pp. 466–470 in Proceedings, IEEE International Conference on Cybernetics and Society. November 1976. New York: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. Barnard, P.J., Hammond, N.V., Morton, J., and Long, J. 1981 Consistency and compatability in human-computer dialogue. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 15:87–123.

OCR for page 111
Research Needs for Human Factors Bennett, J.L. 1979 Incorporating usability into system design. Design ‘79 Symposium. Monterey, Calif., April 1979. Bezdel, W. 1970 Some problems in man-machine communication using speech. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 2:157–168. Bigelow, R.P. 1981 Two is the prime number in love, war, and lawsuits. Infosystems 28(11):92, 94. Branscomb, Lewis M. 1982 Electronics and computers: an overview. Science 215:755–760. Braunstein, M., and Anderson, N.W. 1961 A comparison of the speed and accuracy of reading aloud and key-punching digits. IEEE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics HFE-2:56–57. Brown, B.S., Rinalducci, E.J., and Dismukes, R.K. 1982 Video Display Terminals and Vision of Workers; Summary and Overview of a Symposium. Committee on Vision, National Research Council. Behaviour and Information Technology 1(2):121–140. Card, S.K., English, W.K., and Burr, B.J. 1978 Evaluation of mouse, rate-controlled isometric joystick, step keys, and text keys for text selection on a CRT. Ergonomics 21:601–631. Card, S.K., Moran, T.P., and Newell, A. 1980 The keystroke-level model for user performance time with interactive systems. Communications of the ACM 23:396–410. Chapanis, A. 1972 Design of controls. Pp. 345–379 in H.P.Van Cott and R.G.Kinkade, eds., Human Engineering Guide to Equipment Design. Revised edition. Sponsored by the Joint Army-Navy-Air Force Steering Committee. Washington, D.C.: U. S. Government Printing Office. 1975 Interactive human communication. Scientific American 232 (3):36–42. 1981 Interactive human communication: some lessons learned from laboratory experiments. Pp. 65–114 in B.Shackel, ed., Man-Computer Interaction: Human Factors Aspects of

OCR for page 111
Research Needs for Human Factors Computers and People. Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands: Sijthoff and Noordhoff. 1982 Humanizing computers. In Proceedings ITT Europe Human Factors Symposium, 18–19 May. London: ITT Europe Engineering Support Centre, 20–53. Cornog, D.Y., and Rose, F.C. 1967 Legibility of Alphanumeric Characters and Other Symbols: II. A Reference Handbook. National Bureau of Standards Miscellaneous 262–2. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office. Cuff, R. 1980 On casual users. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 12:163–187. Deatherage, B.H. 1972 Auditory and other sensory forms of presentation. Pp. 123–160 in H.P.Van Cott and R.G.Kinkade, eds., Human Engineering Guide to Equipment Design. Revised edition. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office. Dertouzos, M.L., and Moses, J. 1980 The Computer Age: A Twenty-Year View. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Devoe, D.B. 1967 Alternatives to handprinting in the manual entry of data. IEEE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics HFE-8:21–32. Dolotta, T.A. 1970 Functional specifications for typewriter-like time-sharing terminals. Computing Surveys 2:5–31. Dzida, W., Herda, S., and Itzfeldt, W. D. 1978 User-perceived quality of interactive systems. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering SE-4:270–276. Eason, K.D. 1974 The manager as a computer user. Applied Ergonomics 5:9–14. Ehrenreich, S.L. 1981 Query languages: design recommendations derived from the human factors literature. Human Factors 23:709–726. Engelbart, D.C. 1973 Design considerations for knowledge workshop terminals. AFIPS Conference Proceedings 42:221–227.

OCR for page 111
Research Needs for Human Factors Engle, Stephen E., and Granda, Richard E. 1975 Guidelines for Man/Display Interfaces. IBM Poughkeepsie Laboratory Technical Report TR 00.2720, December 19, 1975. English, W.K., Engelbart, D.C., and Berman, M.L. 1967 Display-selection techniques for text manupulation. IEEE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics HFE-8:5–15. Federico, Pat-Anthony 1980 Management Information Systems and Organizational Behavior. New York: Praeger. Feigenbaum, Edward A. 1978 The art of artificial intelligence—themes and case studies of knowledge engineering. In Sakti P.Ghosh and Leonard Y.Liu, eds., Proceedings of the American Federation of Information Processing Societies. Volume 47. Montvale, N.J.: AFIPS Press. Galitz, W.O. 1981 Handbook of Screen Format Design. Wellesley, Mass.: Q.E.D. Information Science, Inc. Gantz, J., and Peacock, J. 1981 Computer systems and services for business and industry. Fortune 103 (8):39–84 (advertisement). Goodwin, N.C. 1975 Cursor positioning on an electronic display using lightpen, lightgun, or keyboard for three basic tasks. Human Factors 17:289–295. Grandjean, E., and Vigliani, E., eds. 1980 Ergonomic Aspects of Visual Display Terminals. London: Taylor and Francis. Haramond, N.V., Long, J.B., Clark, I.A., Barnard, P.J., and Morton, J. 1980 Documenting human-computer mismatch in the interactive system. Proceedings of the Ninth International Symposium on Human Factors in Telecommunications. Holmdel, N.J., September 17–24, 1980. Hirsch, R.S. 1981 Procedures of the human factors center at San Jose. IBM Systems Journal 20:123–171. Hlady, A.M. 1969 A touch sensitive X-Y position encoder for computer input. AFIPS Conference Proceedings 35:545–551.

OCR for page 111
Research Needs for Human Factors Hornsby, M.E. 1981 A comparison of full- and reduced-alpha keyboards for aircraft data entry. P. 257 in Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, 25th Annual Meeting. Institute for Computer Sciences and Technology, National Bureau of Standards, and Washington, D. C., Chapter, Association for Computing Machinery 1982 Proceedings: Human Factors in Computer Systems. March 15–17, Gaithersburg, Md. Irving, G.W., Horinek, J.J., Walsh, D.H., and Chan, P.Y. 1976 ODA Pilot Study II; Selection of an Interactive Graphics Control Device for Continuous Subjective Functions Applications. Report No. 215–2. Santa Monica, Calif.: Integrated Sciences Corp. Johnson, J.K. 1977 Touching data. Datamation 23(1):70–72. Ketchel, J. 1981 Visual display terminal research—the opportunity and the challenge. Human Factors Society Bulletin 24(10):2–3. Kulp, R.A., and Kulp, M.J. 1972 A comparison of mark sensing and handprinting coding methods. Pp. 416–421 in Proceedings of the Sixteenth Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society. Santa Monica, Calif.: Human Factors Society. Landis, D., Slivka, R.M., Jones, J.M., Harrison, S., and Silver C.A. 1967 Evaluation of Large Scale Visual Displays. Technical Report No. RADC-TR-67–57. Griffiss AFB, Rome, N.Y.: Rome Air Developmental Center. (NTIS No. AD 651372) Ledgard, H., Singer, A., and Whiteside, J. 1981 Directions in human factors for interactive systems. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science 103. New York: Springer-Verlag. Lewis, R.A. 1972 Legibility of capital and lowercase computer printout. Journal of Applied Psychology 56:280–281. Ling, R.F. 1973 A computer generated aid for cluster analysis. Communications of the ACM 16:355–361.

OCR for page 111
Research Needs for Human Factors Martin, J. 1973 Design of Man-Computer Dialogues, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Masterson, J.L., and Hirsch, R.S. 1962 Machine recognition of constrained hand-written Arabic numbers. IEEE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics HFE-3:62–65. Mayer, Richard E. 1981 The psychology of how novices learn computer programming. Computing Surveys 13:121–141. Mayer, R.E., and Bayman, P. 1981 Psychology of calculator languages: a framework for describing differences in users’ knowledge. Communications of the ACM 24:511–520. Miller, L.A. 1974 Programming by non-programmers. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 6:237–260. 1981 Natural language programming: styles, strategies, and contrasts. IBM Systems Journal 20:184–215. Miller, L.A., and Thomas, J.C. 1977 Behavioral issues in the use of interactive systems. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 9:509–536. Mills, H.D. 1980 Management of software engineering systems, Part I. Principles of Software Engineering. IBM Systems Journal 19:415–420. Moran, Thomas P. 1981 An applied psychology of the user. Computing Surveys 13:1–11. Murray, W.E., Moss, C.E., and Parr, W.H. 1981 A radiation and industrial hygiene survey of video display terminal operations. Human Factors 23:413–420. Murray, W.E., Moss, C.E., Parr, W.H., Cox, C., Smith, M.J., Cohen, B.F.G., Stammerjohn, L.W., and Happ, A. 1981 Potential Health Hazards of Video Display Terminals. U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Center for Disease Control, National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, Division of Biomedical and Behavioral Science, Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations and Field Studies. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office.