Asaf Degani

Information Organization in the Airline Cockpit Lessons From Flight 236

We describe the all-engine-out landing of Air Transat Flight 236 in the Azores Islands (August 24, 2001) and use certain aspects of that accident to motivate a conceptual framework for the organization and display of information in complex human-interactive systems. Four hours into the flight, the aircraft experienced unusual oil indications. Two hours later, a fuel system failure led to a full-blown emergency that was not evident to the crew until it was too late. Although all relevant data to avoid the emergency were available to the aircraft computer systems, the design choices made about what to display and how to display it kept the pilots “in the dark.” The framework proposed here consists of six levels, beginning from the extraction of data from physical signals, abstracting from raw data to form visual representations on the user interface, and finally integrating high-level elements and information structures. We illustrate how the framework can be used to analyze some of the shortcomings in current display design, and we discuss some principles of information organization and formal analysis of task logic that might help to improve design. Finally, we sketch a design for a helicopter engine display based on these principles.

HMI aspects of automotive climate control systems

In this paper we discuss a formal approach to the design and analysis of automotive systems, from a human-machine interaction (HMI) point of view. Specifically, we detail the behavior of a generic climate control system, present a statecharts model of this system, and discuss aspects of user interaction analysis. Several general principles for the design of climate control systems are illustrated and discussed. The topic of design patterns, in the context of a formal description of user interaction, is introduced, and two design patterns are illustrated and discussed.

On human–machine relations

This paper presents an approach to human–machine interactions based on the concept of teamwork and the psychological theory of object relations. We envision the human and the machine in a close relationship that has many aspects of human-to-human relations. Not only does the machine have to relate to and accommodate human wants and needs, but also, to some extent, the human is called to reciprocate. We propose a framework consisting of eleven attributes that describe generic processes in teamwork: commitment, goal definition, common ground, belief, planning, transparency, sensitivity, caring, responsibility, trust, and reflection. Using an automotive climate control system as an example, we show how some of these attributes can be used to evaluate user interactions and point to new design opportunities. Based on results from a pilot study of driver interaction with the climate control system, we operationalized sensitivity and caring for other team members, encapsulated them in a computational architecture, and implemented a control interface. The evaluation of the control interface during a driving experiment suggests that it is markedly better than a regular interface and is almost as good as a human expert who interacts with the climate control system in response to the driver’s needs and wants.

Automated driving aids: modeling, analysis, and interface design considerations

There have been rapid advances in control and automated driving aids in todays cars, with a concomitant rise in the breadth and complexity of driver interaction. Thus there is a need for a clear, consistent, logical, and holistic design methodology to the design and analysis of the driver-vehicle interaction environment. Such design method should also take into account expected future technological enhancements and advances. In this paper we present some emerging automated driving aids that are currently implemented in modern vehicles and those that are anticipated in the coming years. We focus on three automation features -- adaptive cruise control (ACC), Lane Centering (LC), and Full Speed Range ACC (FSRA). The design methodology is based on formal modeling of the functionality and user interaction of these systems and analysis of their corresponding user interfaces. The approach demonstrated here is valid for a wide range of user interaction systems where operational complexity requires careful and verifiable design.

A Team-Oriented Framework for Human-Automation Interaction: Implication for the Design of an Advanced Cruise Control System

We describe a teamwork framework to design human-automation interactive systems. Human automation interactions have been primarily considered as supervisory systems in which communication is seen as unidirectional. As systems become more complex, sophisticated, and autonomous, the opportunity for bidirectional cooperation between the human and machine becomes feasible and advantageous. To better understand bidirectional cooperation and develop computational tools we draw on concepts from philosophy, social psychology, human factors, and artificial intelligence to define “team” and understand the requirements for efficient team interaction. We define several team properties such as mutual support, mutual commitment, machine transparency (state, behavior, control) and user transparency (state, intent, action) and responsiveness as a way to analyze and guide the design of human-machine interactions. We illustrated the applicability of the approach using a generic model of a full speed range adaptive cruise control and show the potential of this type of cooperative approach to human- machine interaction.

On Sensitivity and Holding in Automotive Systems The Case of the Climate Control

We propose an approach to human-machine interactions that emphasizes sensitivity to the user’s needs and consecrates caretaking, or holding, of the user so as to fulfill these needs. We borrow the concepts of sensitivity and holding from psychoanalysis and then operationalize them in the context of human-machine interaction. A pilot study of drivers’ interactions with a climate control system was conducted to understand drivers’ needs, wants, and manner of interaction. Based on these results we built an AI-based system that is sensitive to the users’ needs and attempts to fulfill them in a dedicated manner (holding). We then evaluate the new system in another driving study. Preliminary results suggest that a sensitive/holding machine is better than the regular interface and not far behind a human expert “working” the system in response to drivers’ needs and wants.

Formal Methods in the Wild: Trains, Planes, & Automobile

Why is it that carefully researched and well-formulated theoretical and methodological constructs don’t make their way into industrial applications? This keynote speech takes a look at my personal experiences in both the aviation and automotive fields to suggest what can be done about it. I will first try to explain why engineers (and even industry scientists) tend not to use the kind of methods and tools that emerge from academic settings while working on actual products, and then show some of the consequences of not using such methods. I will end with a few vignettes from my own trials and tribulations in applying formal methods in engineering design processes as well as some of the future prospects, for both academia and industry, as human-automation systems become more demanding and complex.

Model-Based Approaches to Human-Automation Systems Design

Human-automation interaction in complex systems is common, yet design for this interaction is often conducted without explicit consideration of the role of the human operator. Fortunately, there are a number of modeling frameworks proposed for supporting this design activity. However, the frameworks are often adapted from other purposes, usually applied to a limited range of problems, sometimes not fully described in the open literature, and rarely critically reviewed in a manner acceptable to proponents and critics alike. The present paper introduces a panel session wherein these proponents (and reportedly one or two critics) can engage one another on several agreed questions about such frameworks. The goal is to aid non-aligned practitioners in choosing between alternative frameworks for their human-automation interaction design challenges.