Human-Centered Design of a 3D-Augmented Strategic Weather Management System: First Design Loops

  • Sebastien BoulnoisEmail author
  • Lucas StephaneEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 823)


Convective weather is one of the main causes of accidents in the National Airspace System according to the Federal Aviation Administration. This paper describes how the use of Human-Centered Design principles, along with Design Thinking, led to the design and development of a 3D-Augmented Strategic Weather Management System aiming to determine how strategic weather information presented both in 2D and 3D could impact pilots’ weather situation awareness and decision-making capabilities. This paper explains the five design iterations that were carried out over four years, including several knowledge elicitation, participatory design and evaluation sessions. The results are positive overall; pilots’ feedback is very rich and meaningful and will be implemented in the next prototypes. Further human-in-the-loop simulation evaluations will be conducted for consolidating usability and for evaluating pilots’ weather situation awareness and decision-making capabilities.


Human-Centered Design Weather 3D visualization 


  1. Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (n.d.) (2017) Thunderstorms and ATC. Accessed 09 Nov 2017
  2. Anderson R (n.d.): EarthView. Accessed 09 Oct 2015
  3. Ansari S (n.d.): NOAA’s Weather and Climate Toolkit. Accessed 15 Feb 2017
  4. Bangor A, Kortum P, Miller J (2009) Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. J Usability Stud 4(3):114–123Google Scholar
  5. Booher HR (2003) Handbook of human systems integration. Wiley, pp 1–29Google Scholar
  6. Boulnois S, Tan W, Boy GA (2015) The onboard context-sensitive information system for commercial aircraft. In: Proceedings of the 19th triennial congress of the IEA (2015)Google Scholar
  7. Boulnois S, Boy GA (2016) Onboard weather situation awareness system: a human-systems integration approach. In: Proceedings of the international conference on human-computer interaction in aerospace, HCI-Aero 2016. ACM Digital Library, p 9Google Scholar
  8. Brooke J (1996) SUS-A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability Eval Ind 189(194):4–7Google Scholar
  9. Crutchfield DN, Moertl PM, Ohrt D. (n.d.) Expertise and Chess: A Pilot Study Comparing Situation Awareness MethodologiesGoogle Scholar
  10. E. Point “Earth Point”. Accessed 30 Apr 2018
  11. Endsley MR (1988) Situation awareness global assessment technique (SAGAT). In: Aerospace and electronics conferenceGoogle Scholar
  12. FAA. FAQ: Weather Delay (n.d.). Accessed 09 Nov 2017
  13. FAA Operations & Performance Data (n.d.). Accessed 09 Nov 2017
  14. Hart SG, Staveland LE (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): results of empirical and theoretical research. Adv Psychol 52:139–183Google Scholar
  15. Globe3Mobile. (n.d.). Accessed 08 Oct 2015
  16. Grandin Q (2016) Onboard Weather Situation Awareness System. Florida Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  17. Kessinger C, Blackburn G, Rehak N, Ritter A, Milczewski K, Sievers K, McParland T (2015) Demonstration of a convective weather product into the flight deck. Accessed 10 Mar 2016
  18. Lang JF (2015) Improvement on the Onboard Weather Situation Awareness System (OWSAS). Florida Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  19. Laurain T (2014) Design of an onboard weather system. Florida Institute of TechnologyGoogle Scholar
  20. Laurain T, Boy G, Stephane L (2015) Design of an on-board 3D weather situation awareness system. In: Proceedings of the 19th Triennial Congress of the IEA, vol. 9, p 14Google Scholar
  21. Letondal C, Zimmerman C, Vinot JL, Conversy S (2015) 3D visualization to mitigate weather hazards in the flight deck: findings from a user study. In: IEEE symposium - 3D user interfaces (3DUI), pp 27–30Google Scholar
  22. Meinel C, Leifer L (2011) Design thinking research. In: Plattner H, Meinel C, Leifer L (eds) Design thinking: understand, improve, apply. Springer, Heidelberg, pp xiii–xxiGoogle Scholar
  23. MouseBird Consulting. WhirlyGlobe. Accessed 01 May 2018
  24. National Severe Storm Laboratory (n.d.). Thunderstorm Basics. Accessed 09 Nov 2017
  25. National Transportation Safety Board. (n.d.) (1980). Flight accidents occurring in the United StatesGoogle Scholar
  26. Rasmussen J (1983) Skills, rules, and knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern SMC-13:257–266Google Scholar
  27. SketchUp (2018). Accessed 30 Apr 2018
  28. Stephane L (2013) Visual intelligence for crisis management. Ph.D. dissertation, Florida Institute of Technology. Proquest LLCGoogle Scholar
  29. Stephane L (2014) Situated risk visualization in crisis management. In: Millot P (ed) Risk management in life-critical systems, Chap. 4, 1st edn. ISTE Ltd & John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp 59–77Google Scholar
  30. Taylor RM (1995) CC-SART: The development of an experiential measure of cognitive compatibility in system design. In: Report to TTCP UTP-7 human factors in aircraft environments, annual meeting, DCIEM, Toronto, 12–16 June 1995Google Scholar
  31. Tory M, Kirkpatrick AE, Atkins MS, Moller T (2006) Visualization task performance with 2D, 3D, and combination displays. IEEE Trans. Vis Comput. Graph 12(1):2–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wharton C, Rieman J, Lewis C, Polson P (1994) The cognitive walkthrough method: a practitioner’s guide. In: Nielsen J, Mack Rl (eds) Usability inspection methods. Wiley, pp 105–140Google Scholar
  33. Wu SC, Luna R, Johnson WW (2013) Flight deck weather avoidance decision support: implementation and evaluation. In: Digital avionics systems conference (DASC) - IEEE/AIAA 32nd, p 5A2-1Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Florida Institute of TechnologyMelbourneUSA

Personalised recommendations