Conceptual Intermediate Structures for Interaction Design in Complex Safety-Critical Systems

  • Vivek KantEmail author
  • Mikael Wahlström
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 134)


What are generic processes by which theories of cognitive and social sciences provide interaction design input for complex safety-critical systems? In this article, we identify the need for intervening cognitive structures in the form of conceptual-based abstract frameworks that translate the insights from human studies to the design of human technology interaction in safety-critical systems. Using examples of two human systems design frameworks, cognitive work analysis and core task analysis, the aim will be to draw generic implications for these intervening conceptual-based translational structures linking cognitive and social sciences to complex safety-critical interaction design.


Safety-critical systems Interaction design Translation Intermediate structures 


  1. 1.
    Gaver, W.: Science and design: the implications of different forms of accountability. In: Olson, J.S., Kellogg, W.A. (eds.) Ways of Knowing in HCI, pp. 143–165. Springer, New York (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Norros, L.: Developing human factors/ergonomics as a design discipline. Appl. Ergon. 45, 61–71 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Robertson, J., Robertson, S.: Mastering the requirements process. Addison-Wesley, Harlow (2017)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Höök, K., Löwgren, J.: Strong concepts: intermediate-level knowledge in interaction design research. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 19, 23 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ghemraoui, R., Mathieu, L., Tricot, N.: Design method for systematic safety integration. CIRP Ann. 58, 161–164 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sadeghi, L., Mathieu, L., Tricot, N., Al Bassit, L., Ghemraoui, R.: Toward design for safety part 1: functional reverse engineering driven by axiomatic design. Presented at the International Conference on Axiomatic Design, 7th ICAD (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sadeghi, L., Mathieu, L., Tricot, N., Al Bassit, L., Ghemraoui, R.: Toward design for safety part 2: functional re-engineering using axiomatic design and FMEA. Presented at the Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Axiomatic Design, ICAD (2013)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bardzell, J., Bolter, J., Löwgren, J.: Interaction criticism: three readings of an interaction design, and what they get us. Interactions 17, 32–37 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lidwell, W., Holden, K., Butler, J.: Universal principles of design, revised and updated: 125 ways to enhance usability, influence perception, increase appeal, make better design decisions, and teach through design. Rockport Pub (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Löwgren, J.: Toward an articulation of interaction esthetics. New Rev. Hypermedia Multimedia 15, 129–146 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gaver, B., Bowers, J.: Annotated portfolios. Interactions 19, 40–49 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Vicente, K.J.: Cognitive work analysis: toward safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work. CRC-Press, Boca Raton (1999)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rasmussen, J., Goodstein, L.P., Pejtersen, A.M.: Cognitive systems engineering. Wiley, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rasmussen, J.: On the structure of knowledge—a morphology of metal models in a man-machine system context. Risø National Laboratory ER (1979)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dal Vernon, C.R., Sanderson, P.M.: Work domain analysis and sensors II: Pasteurizer II case study. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 56, 597–637 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Burns, C.M., Kuo, J., Ng, S.: Ecological interface design: a new approach for visualizing network management. Comput. Netw. 43, 369–388 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Amelink, M.H., Van Paassen, M.M., Mulder, M., Flach, J.M.: Total energy-based perspective flight path display for aircraft guidance along complex approach trajectories. Presented at the Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology (2003)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Norros, L.: Acting under uncertainty: the core-task analysis in ecological study of work. VTT Espoo (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Norros, L., Savioja, P., Koskinen, H.: Core-task design: a practice-theory approach to human factors. Synth. Lect. Hum. Centered Inform. 8, 1–141 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wahlström, M., Karvonen, H., Norros, L., Jokinen, J., Koskinen, H.: Radical innovation by theoretical abstraction—a challenge for the user-centred designer. Des. J. 19, 857–877 (2016)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wahlström, M., Karvonen, H., Kaasinen, E., Mannonen, P.: Designing user-oriented future ship bridges–an approach for radical concept design. Ergonomics in Design: Methods and Techniques, pp. 217–231 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Woods, D.D.: Cognitive technologies: the design of joint human-machine cognitive systems. AI Mag. 6, 86 (1985)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Woods, D.D., Hollnagel, E.: Joint Cognitive Systems: Foundations of Cognitive Systems Engineering. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2005)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stolterman, E., Wiberg, M.: Concept-driven interaction design research. Hum. Comput. Interact. 25, 95–118 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stolterman, E., Pierce, J.: Design tools in practice: studying the designer-tool relationship in interaction design. Presented at the Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference, New York, NY, USA (2012)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stolterman, E.: The nature of design practice and implications for interaction design research. Int. J. Des. 2 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IDC School of DesignIndian Institute of Technology BombayMumbaiIndia
  2. 2.VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland LtdEspooFinland

Personalised recommendations