Romy Müller

(Re-)Evaluating User Interface Aspects in ERP Systems -- An Empirical User Study

In recent years, several user studies have examined specific usability problems in the field of Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP). These studies focused on different branches, various usability aspects, and several user groups. In spite of this diversification, some common and essential usability problems have become apparent, which are related to system complexity and difficulties in finding required information. Although these results revealed essential shortcomings in ERP usability, they date back up to 2005 and comprised only individual ERP systems in specific branches with small user groups. Therefore, this paper first addresses the question of whether the identified usability problems are still present today. Second, it extends the research focus to additional considerations, such as the role of menu type, uncertainty in system usage or the support in problem situations. The results are based upon a broad survey sample of 184 ERP users from small and medium-sized enterprises.

Gaze transfer in remote cooperation: Is it always helpful to see what your partner is attending to?

Establishing common ground in remote cooperation is challenging because nonverbal means of ambiguity resolution are limited. In such settings, information about a partners gaze can support cooperative performance, but it is not yet clear whether and to what extent the abundance of information reflected in gaze comes at a cost. Specifically, in tasks that mainly rely on spatial referencing, gaze transfer might be distracting and leave the partner uncertain about the meaning of the gaze cursor. To examine this question, we let pairs of participants perform a joint puzzle task. One partner knew the solution and instructed the other partners actions by (1) gaze, (2) speech, (3) gaze and speech, or (4) mouse and speech. Based on these instructions, the acting partner moved the pieces under conditions of high or low autonomy. Performance was better when using either gaze or mouse transfer compared to speech alone. However, in contrast to the mouse, gaze transfer induced uncertainty, evidenced in delayed responses to the cursor. Also, participants tried to resolve ambiguities by engaging in more verbal effort, formulating more explicit object descriptions and fewer deictic references. Thus, gaze transfer seems to increase uncertainty and ambiguity, thereby complicating grounding in this spatial referencing task. The results highlight the importance of closely examining task characteristics when considering gaze transfer as a means of support.

Does the anticipation of compatible partner reactions facilitate action planning in joint tasks

Observing another human’s actions influences action planning, but what about merely anticipating them? In joint action settings where a partner’s subsequent actions are a consequence of one’s own actions, such contingent partner reactions can be regarded as action effects. Therefore, just like automatic effects they might facilitate those of a person’s actions that overlap with them in relevant features. In Experiments 1 and 2, the spatial compatibility of contingent partner reactions was manipulated and compared with the influence of automatic effects. Experiment 1 used a simplistic scenario in which lateral keypress actions by the subject were responded to by mouse movements of a partner producing spatially compatible or incompatible visual effects. Experiment 2 transferred the paradigm to a more complex task in which subjects manually relocated virtual objects on a multi-touch display, and these or other objects were subsequently manipulated by the partner. In Experiment 1, compatible partner reactions speeded up subjects’ preceding actions, whereas in Experiment 2 the influence was not statistically reliable. To test whether influences of partner reaction compatibility could be found in such naturalistic settings at all, Experiment 3 also used a multi-touch setting but varied temporal instead of spatial compatibility, which has several methodological advantages. This time, a compatibility effect emerged in subjects’ movement initiation times, whereas contrast effects were found for movement durations. These findings indicate that the principles of ideomotor action control can be extended to joint action settings. At the same time, they also emphasize the importance of task features in determining whether our own behaviour is influenced by anticipations of another person’s reactions.

Limitations of gaze transfer: Without visual context, eye movements do not to help to coordinate joint action, whereas mouse movements do

Remote cooperation can be improved by transferring the gaze of one participant to the other. However, based on a partners gaze, an interpretation of his communicative intention can be difficult. Thus, gaze transfer has been inferior to mouse transfer in remote spatial referencing tasks where locations had to be pointed out explicitly. Given that eye movements serve as an indicator of visual attention, it remains to be investigated whether gaze and mouse transfer differentially affect the coordination of joint action when the situation demands an understanding of the partners search strategies. In the present study, a gaze or mouse cursor was transferred from a searcher to an assistant in a hierarchical decision task. The assistant could use this cursor to guide his movement of a window which continuously opened up the display parts the searcher needed to find the right solution. In this context, we investigated how the ease of using gaze transfer depended on whether a link could be established between the partners eye movements and the objects he was looking at. Therefore, in addition to the searchers cursor, the assistant either saw the positions of these objects or only a grey background. When the objects were visible, performance and the number of spoken words were similar for gaze and mouse transfer. However, without them, gaze transfer resulted in longer solution times and more verbal effort as participants relied more strongly on speech to coordinate the window movement. Moreover, an analysis of the spatio-temporal coupling of the transmitted cursor and the window indicated that when no visual object information was available, assistants confidently followed the searchers mouse but not his gaze cursor. Once again, the results highlight the importance of carefully considering task characteristics when applying gaze transfer in remote cooperation.

The analysis of eye movements in the context of cognitive technical systems: three critical issues

Understanding mechanisms of attention is important in the context of research and application. Eye tracking is a promising method to approach this question, especially for the development of future cognitive technical systems. Based on three examples, we discuss aspects of eye gaze behaviour which are relevant for research and application. First, we demonstrate the omnipresent influence of sudden auditory and visual events on the duration of fixations. Second, we show that the correspondence between gaze direction and attention allocation is determined by characteristics of the task. Third, we explore how eye movements can be used for information transmission in remote collaboration by comparing it with verbal interaction and the mouse cursor. Analysing eye tracking in the context of future applications reveals a great potential but requires solid knowledge of the various facets of gaze behavior.

Cognitive challenges of changeability: adjustment to system changes and transfer of knowledge in modular chemical plants

In the chemical industry, highly changeable modular plants allow for system reconfigurations on shortest timescales: a number of processing units can be combined to optimize the plant setup for current demands. As a consequence, human operators are frequently confronted with newly assembled systems that differ from previous ones in some ways while not differing in others. This partial overlap creates a number of challenges with regard to operator performance and learning. Both differentiation and generalization of knowledge are needed, which leads to a goal conflict: on the one hand, operators have to know the specifics of the current system, update their understanding of functional relations between system parameters, and use operation procedures that are tailored to the requirements of the current situation. On the other hand, they need to apply the knowledge they have acquired in previous plant setups to solve problems in a new one. While unwanted carryover must be avoided, appropriate transfer is essential. The present article provides an overview of the challenges and potentials of learning and transfer in changing environments as discussed in the cognitive science and situated cognition literatures. This overview is of prescriptive nature: it presents results and theories that should be considered when analyzing operator performance and designing interfaces or training in modular plants. To this end, the article considers how learning is adapted to the volatility of the environment, how mental representations are updated, how conceptual and procedural knowledge is transferred to new situations, and how learning is shaped by interactions with the environment.

Process industries versus discrete processing: how system characteristics affect operator tasks

Despite an increasing level of automation, human operators still play a central role in industrial production. They need to monitor and adjust plant operations, compensate for process deviations, and step in when abnormal situations cannot be handled by the automation but require diagnosis and adaptive intervention. Based on a literature review, the article presents a cross-domain comparison of operator tasks and the associated knowledge and information requirements for process control in the process industries and discrete processing. While the process industries are characterized by a transformation of uniform, shapeless materials in physical or chemical processes, discrete processing is concerned with all subsequent steps in the mass production of consumer goods. It is argued that operator roles in these domains differ considerably. First, we compare technical system characteristics with regard to complex interactions, production processes, materials and products, faults and abnormal situations, and the information available to operators. Second, we describe how these technical system characteristics lay the foundation for similarities and differences in operator roles, focusing on qualification and training, routine task characteristics, dealing with abnormal situations, and the associated challenges for operators. We discuss implications for operator empowerment and operator support by assistance systems.

Partner reactions and task set selection: Compatibility is more beneficial in the stronger task

Abstract Anticipated reactions performed by a partner affect action planning but it is unclear how they affect the selection of task sets. Therefore, four experiments varied partner reaction compatibility while subjects performed two tasks of asymmetric strength. Experiment 1 used an attentional selection paradigm that required reacting to endogenously or exogenously cued targets. The standard benefit for compatible partner reactions was only observed in the stronger task, whereas in the weaker task incompatible reactions reduced distractibility by irrelevant stimulus features. Experiment 2 replicated this interaction between task type and compatibility in a picture-word interference paradigm. It was hypothesized that the weaker task requires shielding the current goal from distraction by incompatible partner reactions, which leads to a generalized reduction of distractor interference. To test this hypothesis, Experiment 3 replicated Experiment 2 but forced subjects to attend to partner reactions. The interaction between task type and compatibility disappeared. To test whether task asymmetry is a necessary condition for this interaction, Experiment 4 used an attentional selection paradigm but reduced the difference in task strength. Compatibility benefits were found in both tasks. Taken together, the results suggest that while anticipated partner reactions can affect task set selection, their specific effects depend on selection demands.