Skip to main content

Ecological interface design: Some premises

  • Part III Technical Aspects
  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
  • 89 Accesses

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences ((LNCIS,volume 253))

Abstract

This chapter presents three premises of an ecological approach to human-machine systems. The first premise is that human-machine systems are dynamic, closed-loop systems that require a circular view of causality. The second premise is that the behaviour of these dynamic systems can best be understood in terms of the constraints in the functional workspace. These constraints include design intentions (e.g., functional goals), physical laws, organizational structure, and physical process and form. The final premise is that the explicit representation of the workspace constraints in the interface will greatly facilitate performance and will enhance the overall stability of the human-machine system.

Despite incredible advances in the development of automated control systems that are capable of closing many of the inner loops in complex work domains (e.g., energy production, advanced manufacturing, or aviation) human operators are ultimately responsible for controlling these work processes. That is, a human operator must monitor the system, compare the state of the system to normative expectations and functional objectives, and ultimately intervene in a way that will compensate for any deviations that are observed. At some level (more likely at multiple levels) the loop is closed through one or more human operators. Thus, stability of the system depends, in part, on the humans’ ability to perceive deviations and to act appropriately to correct those deviations. Thus, whenever a system breaks down, it will almost always be possible to trace back and find that human actions were on the error path. That is, the human made an incorrect action, failed to detect a significant deviation, or failed to diagnose the deviation (i.e., correctly compensate for the deviation). Thus, it is tempting to identify human error as the “cause” in many accidents. However, since error trajectories are often unique, it is difficult, based on analysis of the time histories (causal trajectories) of these events, to draw general principles that will help in the design of safer systems. An ecological approach attempts to take a broader holistic view that looks beyond activities (behavioural trajectories) to consider the landscape (i.e., ecology) that shapes trajectories within a work domain.

This chapter will consider some of the premises that motivate an ecological approach to the analysis of work domains and to the design of interfaces. The chapter is organized into three major sections. The first section considers the nature of the coupling between perception and action. The second section discusses the identification of constraints as a fundamental goal of analysis and as the semantic foundation for building interfaces. The third section discusses the specification of constraints within representations as a critical factor for skilled control.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abraham, R.H. & Shaw, C..D. (1984). Dynamics: The geometry of behavior. Three volumes. Santa Cruz: Aerial Press.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Flach, J.M. (1990). Control with an eye for perception: Precursors to an active psychophysics. Ecological Psychology, 2, 83–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Flach, J.M. (1999a). Beyond error: The language of coordination and stability. In Hancock, P.A. (ed.). Human performance and ergonomics. San Diego: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Flach, J. M. (1999b). Ready, fire, aim: A “Meaning-processing” approach to display design. In D. Gopher and A. Koriat (Eds.) Attention and Performance XVII: Cognitive regulation of performance: Interaction of theory and application. (197–221). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gibson, J.J. (1955/1982). Visually controlled locomotion and visual orientation in animals. British Journal of Psychology, 49, 182–194. Also in E. Reed & R. Jones (Eds.) Reasons for realism. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gibson, J.J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gibson, J.J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Gibson, J.J. & Crooks, L.E. (1938/1982). A theoretical field analysis of driving. American Journal of Psychology, 51, 453–471. Also in E. Reed & R. Jones (Eds.) Reasons for realism. Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Haber, R.N. (1987). Why low-flying fighter planes crash: Perceptual and attentional factors in collisions with the ground. Human Factors, 29, 519–532.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Kelso, (1995). Dynamic patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Kugler, P.N. & Turvey, M.T. (1987). Information, natural law, and the self-assembly of rhythmic movement. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lunteren, T. van, & Lunteren-Gerritsen, E. van. (1997). In search of design specifications for arm prostheses. In T.B. Sheridan & T. van Lunteren (Eds.) Perspectives on the human controller. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Rasmussen, J. (1986). Information Processing and Human-Machine Interaction: An Approach to Cognitive Engineering. New York: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Rasmussen, J., Pejtersen, A.M., & Goodstein, L.P. (1994). Cognitive Systems Engineering. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Sheridan, T.B. & van Lunteren, T. (Eds.) (1997). Perspectives on the human controller. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Tanabe, F., Yamaguchi, Y. & Rasmussen, J. (1998). Simulator experiments with ecological interface systems. JAERI Research Report. Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute. Thelen, E. & Smith (19).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Vicente, K.J. (1999). Cognitive work analysis: Towards safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Vicente, K.J. (1992). Memory recall in a process control system: A measure of expertise and display effectiveness. Memory & Cognition, 20, 356–373.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Vicente, K.J. & Rasmussen, J. (1990). The ecology of human-machine systems II: Mediating ‘direct perception’ in complex work domains. Ecological Psychology, 2, 207–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Vicente, K.J. & Wang, J.H. (1998). An ecological theory of expertise effects in memory recall. Psychological Review, 105, 33–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Yamaguchi, Y. Furukawa, H., & Tanabe, F. (1998). Design of subject training on reactor simulator and feasibility study: Toward an empirical evaluation of interface design concept. Paper presented at the Enlarged Halden Program Meeting, Lillehammer, Norway.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

P. F. Elzer MSc, PhD R. H. Kluwe Dr phil, Dr habil B. Boussoffara PhD

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2000 Springer-Verlag London Limited

About this paper

Cite this paper

Flach, J.M. (2000). Ecological interface design: Some premises. In: Elzer, P.F., Kluwe, R.H., Boussoffara, B. (eds) Human error and system design and management. Lecture Notes in Control and Information Sciences, vol 253. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0110465

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BFb0110465

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-85233-234-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-84628-543-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics