A Method for Optimizing Complex Graphical Interfaces for Fast and Correct Perception of System States

  • Marie-Christin HarreEmail author
  • Sebastian Feuerstack
  • Bertram Wortelen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11262)


The amount of information a human has to process continuously increases. In this regard, successful human performance depends on the ability of a human to perceive a system state as quickly and accurately as possible - ideally with a single glance. This becomes even more important in case several tasks have to be performed in parallel. It was shown earlier that monitoring user interfaces with a limited amount of information can be optimized for fast and accurate perception by combining all information into one integrated visual form. But systems that consist of several parallel tasks, each involving a whole bunch of parameters cannot be condensed into one single visual form. We propose an improved method that supports optimizing entire user interfaces consisting of several parallel tasks for fast and accurate perception (Konect). We evaluated the method in 6 workshops for that a total of 12 designers applied the method, which they learned by written instruction cards. Working in teams of two they were all able to design and optimize their designs first on a single task level (i.e. the original method) and thereafter on the global level (i.e. applying the new version). We evaluated their design outcomes thereafter in a laboratory experiment with 18 participants that were asked to distinguish critical and non-critical situations as fast and accurate as possible. Subjects were significantly faster (\(p<0.001\)) and also significantly more accurate (\(p<0.001\)) for those designs that were gained by the new version of Konect than those for the old one.


Information visualization Graphical interfaces High amount of information in parallel Systematic method 


  1. 1.
    Ando, H.: Performance monitoring and analysis for operational improvements. In: International Conference on Ship Efficicency (2011)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balme, L., Demeure, A., Barralon, N., Coutaz, J., Calvary, G.: CAMELEON-RT: a software architecture reference model for distributed, migratable, and plastic user interfaces. In: Markopoulos, P., Eggen, B., Aarts, E., Crowley, J.L. (eds.) EUSAI 2004. LNCS, vol. 3295, pp. 291–302. Springer, Heidelberg (2004). Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bennett, K.B., Flach, J.M.: Visual momentum redux. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 70(6), 399–414 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Biederman, I.: Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. Psychol. Rev. 94(2), 115 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bornoe, N., Bruun, A., Stage, J.: Facilitating redesign with design cards: experiences with novice designers. In: OZCHI (2016)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Calvary, G., Coutaz, J., Thevenin, D., Limbourg, Q., Bouillon, L., Vanderdonckt, J.: A unifying reference framework for multi-target user interfaces. Interact. Comput. 15(3), 289–308 (2003). Scholar
  7. 7.
    Card, S.K., Mackinlay, J.D., Shneiderman, B.: Readings in Information Visualization: Using Vision to Think. Interactive Technologies Series. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Burlington (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Card, S.K., Moran, T.P., Newell, A.: The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1983)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cleveland, W.S., McGill, R.: Graphical perception: theory, experimentation, and application to the development of graphical methods. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 79(387), 531–554 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    van Dam, A.: Post-wimp user interfaces. Commun. ACM 40(2), 63–67 (1997). Scholar
  11. 11.
    Demeure, A., Calvary, G., Coninx, K.: COMET(s), a software architecture style and an interactors toolkit for plastic user interfaces. In: Graham, T.C.N., Palanque, P. (eds.) DSV-IS 2008. LNCS, vol. 5136, pp. 225–237. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). Scholar
  12. 12.
    Diaper, D., Stanton, N. (eds.): The Handbook of Task Analysis for Human-Computer Interaction. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Faber, J., ‘t Hoen, M.: Historical trends in ship design efficiency. Technical. report (2015).
  14. 14.
    Faber, J., ‘t Hoen, M.: Estimated index values of ships 2009–2016: analysis of the design efficiency of ships that have entered the fleet since 2009. Technical report 17.7L97.69, CE Delft (2017).
  15. 15.
    Fahssi, R., Martinie, C., Palanque, P.: Embedding explicit representation of cyberphysical elements in task models. In: IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics (SMC 2016) (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Feuerstack, S., Wortelen, B.: The human efficiency evaluator: a tool to predict and explore monitoring behaviour. Kogn. Syst. 2017(1) (2017)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gruhn, P.: Human machine interface (HMI) design: The good, the bad, and the ugly (and what makes them so) (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hegarty, M.: The cognitive science of visual-spatial displays: implications for design. TopiCS 3(3), 446–474 (2011)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    ISO - International Organization for Standardization: ISO 9241: Ergonomics of human system interaction (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kosslyn, S.M.: Graph Design for the Eye and Mind. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mackinlay, J.: Automating the design of graphical presentations of relational information. ACM Trans. Graph. TOG 5(2), 110–141 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mbaki, E., Vanderdonckt, J., Guerrero, J., Winckler, M.: Multi-level dialog modeling in highly interactive web interfaces. In: ICWE 2008 Workshops, 7th International Workshop on Web-Oriented Software Technologies - IWWOST 2008 (2008)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Meirelles, I.: Design for Information: An Introduction to the Histories, Theories, and Best Practices Behind Effective Information Visualizations. EBSCO ebook Academic Collection. Rockport Publishers, Beverly (2013)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Meixner, G., Paternó, F., Vanderdonckt, J.: Past, present, and future of model-based user interface development. i-com J. Interact. Media 10(3), 2–11 (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Marine Environment Protection Committee: 2016 guidelines for the development of a ship energy efficiency managment plan (SEEMP). Resolution MEPC.282(70), International Maritime Organization (IMO), 28 October 2016. (search: “MEPC.282(70)”), annex 10 to the report of the Marine Environement Protection Committee on its 70th Session
  26. 26.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability Engineering. Interactive technologies. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington (1994)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ostendorp, M.C., Feuerstack, S., Friedrichs, T., Lüdtke, A.: Engineering automotive HMIs that are optimized for correct and fast perception. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems, EICS 2016, pp. 293–298. ACM, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ostendorp, M.C., Friedrichs, T., Lüdtke, A.: Supporting supervisory control of safety-critical systems with psychologically well-founded information visualizations. In: Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, NordiCHI 2016, pp. 11:1–11:10. ACM, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Paternò, F.: ConcurTaskTrees: an engineered notation for task models. In: Diaper, D., Stanton, N. (eds.) The Handbook of Task Analysis for Human-Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2004)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rosenholtz, R., Li, Y., Nakano, L.: Measuring visual clutter. J. Vis. 7(2), 17–17 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Shneiderman, B., Plaisant, C., Cohen, M., Elmqvist, N., Jacobs, S., Diakopoulos, N.: Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction. Pearson Education Limited, London (2016)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tidwell, J.: Designing Interfaces: Patterns for Effective Interaction Design. O’Reilly Media, Sebastopol (2010)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Treisman, A.: Preattentive processing in vision. Comput. Vis. Graph. Image Process. 31(2), 156–177 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Tufte, E.R.: Envisioning Information. Graphics Press, Cheshire (1990)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Viana, M., Hammingh, P., Colette, A., Querol, X., Degraeuwe, B., de Vlieger, I., van Aardenne, J.: Impact of maritime transport emissions on coastal air quality in europe. Atmos. Environ. 90, 96–105 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Ware, C.: Information Visualization: Perception for Design. Interactive Technologies. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam (2004)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Ware, C.: Visual Thinking: For Design. Morgan Kaufmann Series in Interactive Technologies. Morgan Kaufmann, Amsterdam (2008)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wertheimer, M.: Laws of organization in perceptual forms. In: Ellis, W. (ed.) A Source Book of Gestalt Psychology. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Company (1938)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wickens, C.D., Helleberg, J., Goh, J., Xu, X., Horrey, W.J.: Pilot task management: testing an attentional expected value model of visual scanning. Technical report ARL-01-14/NASA-01-7, University of Illinois, Aviation Research Lab, Savoy, IL, November 2001Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Wickens, C.D., Hollands, J.G., Banbury, S., Parasuraman, R.: Engineering Psychology & Human Performance. Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton (2015)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wickens, C.D., McCarley, J.S.: Applied Attention Theory. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Wolfe, J.M.: Guided search 2.0 a revised model of visual search. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 1(2), 202–238 (1994). Scholar
  43. 43.
    Woods, D.D.: Visual momentum: a concept to improve the cognitive coupling of person and computer. Int. J. Man Mach. Stud. 21(3), 229–244 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Garner, W.R., Clement, D.E.: Goodness of pattern and pattern uncertainty. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 2, 446–452 (1963)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zhang, J.: A representational analysis of relational information displays. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 45(1), 59–74 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Marie-Christin Harre
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sebastian Feuerstack
    • 1
  • Bertram Wortelen
    • 1
  1. 1.OFFIS - Institute for Information TechnologyOldenburgGermany

Personalised recommendations