Conceptual Frameworks to Guide Design

Smith, Philip J.

doi:10.1177/1555343417732239

Cited by 11 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 11 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…designing human-automation interaction Smith (2018) observed that the structure of design methodologies necessarily influences how designers think about systems and make decisions on types of automation. He contended that the notion of "teamwork" generates a broad set of design questions (relative to the LOA approach and simply evaluating "who can do what").…”

Section: Factors In Automation Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflections on Commentaries on “Issues in Human–Automation Interaction Modeling”

Kaber

2017

Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This "reflections" piece identifies major themes emerging from the commentaries in the issue. I discuss how some existing issues with the levels of automation (LOAs) approach may be further resolved as well as how different perspectives can lead to richer humanautomation interaction (HAI) model development. The overarching objective here is to offer some reflections and last thoughts on the overall discussion of LOA issues, but of course, there may be some concerns on which some researchers may need to "agree to disagree." Related to this, there are a few observations in the commentaries that I respond to with points of fact. Lastly, I suggest a set of future research directions based on several methodological recommendations by commentators as well as my own perspective on what is needed in HAI modeling to move forward.

show abstract

Section: Factors In Automation Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reflections on Commentaries on “Issues in Human–Automation Interaction Modeling”

Kaber

2017

Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, the humans and automated agents might work cooperatively on a task, taking on different portions of the task fluidly as their local relative advantages change (e.g., based on their physical position and visual perspective). The concern is that an LOA approach may promote an overly narrow conception of the range of design options available and the range of design questions that should be explored when addressing a new Human–Automation Interaction Design problem (Roth, Depass, Harter, Scott, & Wampler, 2018; Roth & Pritchett, 2018; Smith, 2018).…”

Section: Traditional Approaches To Function Allocationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Function Allocation Considerations in the Era of Human Autonomy Teaming

Roth¹,

Sushereba²,

Militello³

et al. 2019

Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Function allocation refers to strategies for distributing system functions and tasks across people and technology. We review approaches to function allocation in the context of human machine teaming with technology that exhibits high levels of autonomy (e.g., unmanned aerial systems). Although most function allocation projects documented in the literature have employed a single method, we advocate for an integrated approach that leverages four key activities: (1) analyzing operational demands and work requirements; (2) exploring alternative distribution of work across person and machine agents that make up a human machine team (HMT); (3) examining interdependencies between human and autonomous technologies required for effective HMT performance under routine and off-nominal (unexpected) conditions; and (4) exploring the trade-space of alternative HMT options. Our literature review identified methods to support each of these activities. In combination, they enable system designers to uncover, explore, and weigh a range of critical design considerations beyond those emphasized by the MABA–MABA (“Men are better at, Machines are better at”) and Levels of Automation function allocation traditions. Example applications are used to illustrate the value of these methods to design of HMT that includes autonomous machine agents.

show abstract

“…This ambiguity may lead to misuse or even disuse of the system, mitigating potential benefits that automation support can offer (Parasuraman et al, 2000). Second, Smith (2018) argues that the established taxonomies affect how designers think about the system, leading to design decisions based on technology-centered taxonomies. Therefore, having a technology-centered taxonomy may lead to design decisions that will miss important user perspectives, such as how users perceive and understand the systems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Levels of What?Investigating Drivers’ Understanding of Different Levels of Automation in Vehicles

Novakazi

Johansson

Strömberg

2021

Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Extant levels of automation (LoAs) taxonomies describe variations in function allocations between the driver and the driving automation system (DAS) from a technical perspective. However, these taxonomies miss important human factors issues and when design decisions are based on them, the resulting interaction design leaves users confused. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to describe how users perceive different DASs by eliciting insights from an empirical driving study facilitating a Wizard-of-Oz approach, where 20 participants were interviewed after experiencing systems on two different LoAs under real driving conditions. The findings show that participants talked about the DAS by describing different relationships and dependencies between three different elements: the context (traffic conditions, road types), the vehicle (abilities, limitations, vehicle operations), and the driver (control, attentional demand, interaction with displays and controls, operation of vehicle), each with associated aspects that indicate what users identify as relevant when describing a vehicle with automated systems. Based on these findings, a conceptual model is proposed by which designers can differentiate LoAs from a human-centric perspective and that can aid in the development of design guidelines for driving automation.

show abstract

Conceptual Frameworks to Guide Design

Cited by 11 publications

References 11 publications

Reflections on Commentaries on “Issues in Human–Automation Interaction Modeling”

Reflections on Commentaries on “Issues in Human–Automation Interaction Modeling”

Function Allocation Considerations in the Era of Human Autonomy Teaming

Levels of What?Investigating Drivers’ Understanding of Different Levels of Automation in Vehicles

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About