SAE ARP 4155A-1997 Human Interface Design Methodology for Integrated Display Symbology《用于综合显示符号与人的界面的设计方法》.pdf

《SAE ARP 4155A-1997 Human Interface Design Methodology for Integrated Display Symbology《用于综合显示符号与人的界面的设计方法》.pdf》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《SAE ARP 4155A-1997 Human Interface Design Methodology for Integrated Display Symbology《用于综合显示符号与人的界面的设计方法》.pdf（19页珍藏版）》请在麦多课文档分享上搜索。

1、ARP4155Issued 1990-10Revised 1997-10Superseding ARP4155H uman I nterface D esign M ethodologyfor I ntegrated D isplay S ymbology1. SCOPE :The recommended design approach is described in Figure 1. The approach emphasizes the fundamental relationship between symbols, the information they encode, the c

2、ontext within which the symbols are displayed, and the tasks being supported. While this document is aimed at aircraft displays involving dynamic control or monitoring tasks, the methodology is applicable to a wide range of symbology development situations.1.1. Purpose :This document outlines a reco

3、mmended approach for the design of integrated display symbology in support of flight tasks.2. APPLICABLE DOCUMENTS :2.1 SAE Publications :Available from SAE, 400 Commonwealth Drive, Warrendale, PA 15096-0001.ARP1068 Flight Deck Instrumentation, Display Criteria and Associated Controls for Transport

4、AircraftARP1093 Numeral, Letter and Symbol Dimensions for Aircraft Instrument DisplaysARP4032 Human Engineering Considerations in the Application of Color to Electronic Aircraft DisplaysARP4102 Flight Deck Panels, Controls, and DisplaysARP4107 Aerospace Glossary for Human Factors EngineersAEROSPACE

5、RECOMMENDED PRACTICESAE Technical Standards Board Rules provide that: “This report is published by SAE to advance the state of technical and engineering sciences. The use of this report is entirely voluntary, and its applicability and suitability for any particular use, including any patent infringe

6、ment arising therefrom, is the sole responsibility of the user.” SAE reviews each technical report at least every five years at which time it may be reaffirmed, revised, or cancelled. SAE invites your written comments and suggestions. Copyright 2008 SAE International All rights reserved. No part of

7、this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of SAE. TO PLACE A DOCUMENT ORDER: Tel: 877-606-7323 (inside USA and Canada) Tel: 724-776-

8、4970 (outside USA) Fax: 724-776-0790 Email: CustomerServicesae.org SAE WEB ADDRESS: http:/www.sae.org REV.AReaffirmed 2008-02SAE ARP4155 Revision A- 2 -3. DEFINITIONS:This section contains definitions of terms used in this document CULTURAL STEREOTYPES: Information interpretations or expectations th

9、at are characteristic of a particular culture, discipline, or user community.DISPLAY MEDIA: The various basic technologies through which information can be communicated visually printed paper, cathode ray tube (CRT) display, liquid crystal display (LCD), etc.DISPLAY TECHNOLOGY: The technical means b

10、y which symbology is presented to an operator.DYNAMIC INFORMATION: Information which changes during the time of relevant task performance.HUMAN FACTORS: The study of the physical, mental, and social variables which affect human performance and behavior.INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES: Behavioral or performan

11、ce characteristics which vary between people even though they have equal qualifications or have received identical training.INTEGRATION: The combination of two or more functions into a coherent operating entity.NOTE: Integrated symbology is frequently characterized as having more specific informatio

12、n content than the total number of symbols used. Integrated symbology may also refer to displays containing multiple symbols having a common context.PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES: Criteria setting forth the maximum allowable deviations from the relevant dimensions of perfect performance.REDUNDANT CODING: T

13、he use of more than one symbol or symbol characteristic to convey the same information.STATIC INFORMATION: Information which remains constant during the time of relevant task performance.SYMBOL: An identifiable display element characterized by shape, size, structure, location, brightness, and color.

14、 Any of these characteristics may be static or dynamic. One or more of these characteristics is used to encode information.SYMBOLOGY: The use of one or more symbols which make up a format to portray or define information.SYMBOL-TASK PAIRING: The relationship between symbol attributes, information co

15、ntent, and the task to be accomplished by the end-user.SAE ARP4155 Revision A- 3 -3. (Continued):TRANSFER OF TRAINING: The degree to which learning one skill is facilitated by the prior learning of another task.NOTE: Negative transfer of training can occur when a previously learned skill interferes

16、with learning of a new skill.TASK: A physical or mental operation, or a sequence of such operations, performed by a human operator to achieve a specific goal.TASK ANALYSIS: The process of breaking a task into its component parts, such as skills, actions and decisions.4. BACKGROUND:The designer must

17、ensure that display symbols: a. Are able to convey, without bias, the specific information they encode.b. Are effective, in combination with related symbols, in enabling the user to achieve criterion task performance.c. Do not interfere with the interpretation of other flight deck symbols and the pe

18、rformance of other flight deck tasks.As flight decks become more information intensive and display devices become more flexible, the possibility diminishes of satisfying all three of these requirements at the same time without compromise. Achievement of an effective display is greatly enhanced if th

19、e designer uses a structured design approach early in the development cycle.Consistent use of symbol-task pairings is known to improve transfer-of-training as pilots operate different subsystems in one aircraft or as they make the transition from one aircraft type to another. The increasing sophisti

20、cation of aircraft flight decks negates much of the one-symbol-one-function simplicity characteristic of earlier aircraft. Highly integrated aircraft and aircraft systems require integrated display symbols. These trends make it more difficult to maintain consistency. The users finite capacity for re

21、cognition, identification, and memory dictates that proliferation of symbols must be carefully managed.Symbology selection is made more difficult by the fact that modern aircraft flight decks seldom remain in exactly the same configuration throughout their operating life. Changing regulatory, airlin

22、e, and ATC requirements dictate certain modifications. Improvements in technology and the continuing search for operating advantage and increased efficiency also contribute to the inevitability of flight deck change. For most aircraft many people will be involved in the selection of symbology for us

23、e on the flight deck.SAE ARP4155 Revision A- 4 -FIGURE 1 - Display Symbology Design FlowchartSAE ARP4155 Revision A- 5 -4. (Continued):This document is offered as a first step in expanding the understanding of all who design, integrate, regulate or specify symbology for flight decks and by those who

24、 use the symbology. The quality and utility of future versions of this document will benefit from feedback of your comments, insights, and criticisms to the SAE G-10 Committee.5. DESIGN METHODOLOGY:The methodological steps shown in Figure 1 are explained in the sections which follow. The recommended

25、 approach for achieving the action or decision covered by each step in the process is identified along with one or more reasons why the step is necessary. This is followed by a brief explanation of the key elements involved in completing the step. Any significant cautions or limitations associated w

26、ith the step are highlighted within a box.5.1 Recognize a New or Modified Task (Action) : 5.1.1 Approach: The designer should clearly identify the task and related performance objectives the desired symbology is meant to support.5.1.2 Reason: a. Identification of quantifiable performance objectives

27、associated with an identifiable task increases the likelihood that the proper task has been recognized.b. These performance objectives will be the criteria against which the selected symbology will be evaluated.5.1.3 The task recognized in this step can result from: a. a new user requirement,b. the

28、use of technology new to the application,c. the transfer of information from one display medium to another,d. a change in the means of response available to the user,e. the integration of several subordinate or related tasks,f. the physical or conceptual integration of two or more existing displays,

29、g. a change in the user population, orh. the failure of existing symbology to achieve expected performance.Appropriate task definitions are best developed by beginning from a clearly stated top level system goal, proceeding through identification of applicable constraints on the goal and its achieve

30、ment, and finally establishing appropriate monitoring requirements for functions assigned to machines or other operators.While the task likely will be application specific, identification of similarities between this task and other tasks associated with the same user population will aid the effort t

31、o achieve consistent symbology usage.SAE ARP4155 Revision A- 6 -5.1.3 (Continued):The task performance requirements must be as objective as possible since they will be used as performance evaluation criteria in step 5.8.SAE ARP4155 Revision A- 7 -5.2 Perform a Detailed Task Analysis (Action) :5.2.1

32、Approach: The designer should perform a detailed task anaysis to break the top level task definition into smaller, manageable decision or action steps.5.2.2 Reason:a. Recognition of all elementary steps in the task is a prerequisite to identification of all relevant information requirements.b. Knowl

33、edge of the elementary steps in the task increases the probability of finding similarities with other tasks.This step is accomplished by iterative decomposition of the high level task into progressively lower level subtasks. Generally this process is continued until single actions or decisions have

34、been identified. The availability of reliable on-board computational capability makes it feasible to consider halting the decomposition at an intermediate task level, if the resulting man-machine interface would be simpler to train or less susceptible to error.Through this analysis all significant d

35、ecision or action characteristics, risks, relevant human performance capabilities and limitations are identified. This step is critical to the success of the design process, since information requirements follow directly from the detailed tasks.This step also serves to clarify human interface issues

36、 early in the design process when they can be addressed most easily.Because of the intimate relationship between tasks and supporting information, the task analysis is often done in conjunction with step 5.3, the definition of information requirements.SAE ARP4155 Revision A- 8 -5.3 Define the Inform

37、ation Requirements (Action) :5.3.1 Approach: Using the detailed breakdown provided by the task analysis, the designer should determine what information is necessary to support each decision or action step in the task.5.3.2 Reason:a. Clearly established task-information links enable the designer to d

38、evelop specific performance requirements and to establish the relative importance for each information element.b. Sources must be found for each information element.Recognition of the wide variety of information sources available to the human operator can help to identify that portion of the total i

39、nformation requirement which needs to be explicitly coded into the symbology.The degree of specification for qualitative information is less well standardized and often changes from one application to another.With the information requirements established, the designer should determine if the informa

40、tion is available in a suitable form or can be derived from available sources. The lack of properly matched information is reason enough to refine the detailed task analysis of step 5.2. Several iterations may be necessary before a suitable combination of action-decision steps and supporting informa

41、tion can be found.Quantitative information requirements must be specified fully in terms of range, accuracy and resolution. If the information is dynamic; latency, bandwidth and refresh rate would be of concern as well.SAE ARP4155 Revision A- 9 -5.4 Does Related Standard Symbology or Task Exist ? (D

42、ecision) :5.4.1 Approach: The designer should compare the newly-established specific information requirement with the information encoded in existing standard symbols.5.4.2 Reason:a. Standard symbology can simplify training requirements.b. Standard symbology can minimize the risk of misinterpretatio

43、n in use.The search for suitable standard symbology should start with symbols used in closely related tasks, then proceed through other aviation-related tasks, and finally to consideration of symbols used for generically related information in other applications. The search should encompass all medi

44、a to which the operator will be exposed (e.g., CRTs, paper, placards, electromechanical indicators).Standard symbols portraying static information are easiest to find, since the information encoding is usually simple and direct with minimal limitations imposed by the overall display context. If the

45、primary task is dynamic, it will be necessary to match symbol dynamics, within the context of the display format, with the desired task dynamics. Similarly, if the detailed action or decision step involves a comparison, the designer must ensure compatibility between relevant attributes and dynamics

46、of all symbols to be used in the comparison.Wherever possible use existing standard or recommended common-usage symbology. This will reinforce the standard and facilitate training. The use of slightly different symbols for identical tasks should be avoided, since the potential confusion created by t

47、he difference cannot be corrected easily.Symbols cannot be associated solely with the information they encode, the symbol-response relationship is vitally important as well. The linkage between symbology and the various types of behavior (knowledge-, rule- or skill-based) is a key element in assessi

48、ng the usability of any standard symbology.In skill-based behavior tasks (such as most manual flying), the operator reacts to the situation with a minimum of investment of conscious effort. (The pilot doesnt have to think about which direction to turn his wheel to initiate a turn; he just reacts.) A

49、 skill-based behavior is established by linking particular symbology with a unique response to such a point that the response becomes automatic, resulting in the achievement of very high performance levels.Once established, the symbol-response links can affect training to a new task. If a new response to a set of symbology is required, the old link must be completely broken and substituted with the new desired link. Even after significant training on the new task, the operator may still revert to the previously linked response, particularly when under hi