3.8 Article

Evaluation of an Ecological Interface Design for Military Command and Control

期刊

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1555343412440696

关键词

cognitive systems engineering; visual displays; ecological interface design; tactical operations; direct perception; direct manipulation; visual momentum; decision support; distributed supervisory control systems; military command and control

资金

  1. Advanced Decision Architectures Collaborative Technology Alliance Consortium, U.S. Army Research Laboratory (ARL) [DAAD19-01-2-0009]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Two alternative interfaces developed for military command and control were evaluated. The theoretical frameworks and concepts used during their development are discussed, and the findings are related to larger issues in display, interface, and system design. Key aspects of cognitive systems engineering (CSE) and ecological interface design (EID) are discussed. An ecological interface was designed with principles of direct perception, direct manipulation, and visual momentum. An experimental version of an existing interface was also developed. An experiment was conducted with a synthetic task environment that incorporated scenarios of tactical operations. Participants were experienced army officers. Dependent variables included status reports for friendly and enemy resources and activities, subjective workload, and information access. Significant results favoring the ecological interface were obtained for six of seven dependent measures. The ecological interface was easy to learn, easy to use, and dramatically more effective than the existing interface. The results are interpreted from the CSE-EID perspective, but insights from naturalistic decision making and situation awareness are also described. The specific design features of the ecological interface are directly applicable to military command and control and similar domains; the overall CSE-EID approach is applicable to interface design for all work domains.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据