SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi / 2013 / Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 4

A MULTI CRITERIA APPROACH FOR AIRCRAFT COCPIT INTERFACE EVALUATION

HAVA ARACI KOKPİT ARAYÜZ DEĞERLENDİRMESİ İÇİN ÇOK KRİTERLİ BİR YAKLAŞIM

Metin DAĞDEVİREN
Mehmet Burak ŞENOL
Mustafa KURT
Pages
685–693
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

More satisfactory results were obtained from the unified design.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The most important factor in aircraft flight safety is the interfaces, which provide human-machine interaction.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Subjectivity within most usability evaluation techniques may lead to inaccurate results.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:More satisfactory results were obtained from the unified design.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The most important factor in aircraft flight safety is the interfaces, which provide human-machine interaction. There is a close relationship between flight safety and interface usability with pilot-cockpit interaction quality. The consequences of crew errors in interacting with cockpit interfaces are catastrophic. Interaction quality and flight safety can be improved with a user-friendly interface design. Different usability evaluation techniques are applied for interface design and usability in literature. Subjectivity within most usability evaluation techniques may lead to inaccurate results. In this study, a multi-criteria approach is offered for the usability evaluation, improvement and ranking of cockpit interfaces. Alternative interfaces, used in this study, are the results of quantitative, qualitative and unified design approaches. More satisfactory results were obtained from the unified design.

Özet

Hava araçlarında uçuş emniyetini sağlayan en önemli faktör insan-makine etkileşimini sağlayan arayüzlerdir. Pilot-kokpit etkileşim kalitesi ile uçuş emniyeti ve arayüz kullanılabilirliği arasında yakın bir ilişki vardır. Kokpit arayüzleri ile etkileşimde mürettebat hataları yıkıcı sonuçlar ortaya çıkarabilmekte olup, kullanıcı-dostu arayüz tasarımı ile etkileşim kalitesi ve uçuş emniyeti iyileştirilebilmektedir. Literatürde arayüz tasarımı ve kullanılabilirliği için farklı kullanılabilirlik değerlendirme teknikleri (KDT) kullanılmaktadır; bu tekniklerin çoğunun öznel değerlendirmelere bağlı olması sebebiyle hatalı sonuçların elde edilebilmesine sebep olmaktadır. Bu çalışmada kokpit arayüz kullanılabilirlik seviyelerinin değerlendirilmesi, geliştirilmesi ve kullanılabilirlik sıralaması için çok kriterli bir yaklaşım önerilmiştir. Çalışmada kullanılan alternatif arayüzler; nicel, nitel ve birleşik tasarım yaklaşımlarının sonucu olarak belirlenmiş ve birleşik tasarım ile daha tatminkar sonuçlar elde edildiği görülmüştür.

🔖

Cite This Article

DAĞDEVİREN, M., ŞENOL, M. B., KURT, M. (2022). A MULTI CRITERIA APPROACH FOR AIRCRAFT COCPIT INTERFACE EVALUATION. Gazi Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimarlık Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 4, 685–693. https://ajindex.com/articles/523977

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Strauch, B., "Automation and Decision Making— Lessons from the Cali Accident", Proc. Hum. Factors and Ergonomics Soc. 41st Annu. Meet. Albuquerque, NM: Hum. Factors and Ergon. Soc., 195–199, 1997
  2. Funk, K. Suroteguh, C. Wilson, J. and Lyall, B., "Flight deck automation and task management", Proc. of 1998 IEEE Int. Conf. on Syst. Man and Cybern. San Diego, Cilt 1, 863–868, 1998
  3. Sarter, N. Woods, D., Billings, C., "Automation surprises", Salvendy, G. (Eds.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics. 2nd Ed. New York: Wiley, 1926–1943, 1997
  4. Singer, G., "Filling the gaps in the human factors certification net", Dekker, S., Hollnagel, E. (Eds.), Coping with Computers in the Cockpit. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate, 87–107, 1999
  5. Billings, C.E., Aviation automation: The search for a human-centered approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assfociates, Inc, 1997
  6. Smith, C., "Design of the Eurofighter human machine interface", Air and space Europe. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, Cilt 1, No 3, 54–59, 1999
  7. Previc, F.H., Ercoline, W.R., "The outside-in attitude display concept revisited", Int. J. Aviat. Psycholo., 377-401, 2000
  8. Tlauka, M., Stanton, D. and Kenna, F.P. Dual Displays., Dept. of Psycholo. Univ. of Leicester, 2000
  9. Torenvliet, G.L., Jamieson, G.A., Vicente, K.J., "Making the most of ecological interface design: the role of individual differences", Appl. Ergon., 31, 395-408, 2000
  10. Kima, G.J., Hanb, S.H., Yangb, H., Choa, C., "Body-based interfaces", Appl. Ergon., Cilt 35, 263-274, 2004
  11. Jones, G.R., Hooper, R.H., "The effect of singleor multiple-layered garments on interface pressure measured at the backpack-shoulder interface", Appl. Ergon., Cilt 36, 79-83, 2005
  12. Wellings, T., Williams, M., Tennant, C., "Understanding customers’ holistic perception of switches in automotive human–machine interfaces", Appl. Ergon., Cilt 41, 8-17, 2010
  13. Rubens, E.M., Trotter, M.J., Lenné, M.G., "Effects on driving performance of interacting with an in-vehicle music player: A comparison of three interface layout concepts for information presentation", Appl. Ergon., Cilt 42, 583-591, 2011
  14. Rydström, A., Broström, R., Bengtsson, K.J., "A comparison of two contemporary types of in-car multifunctional interfaces", Appl. Ergon., Cilt 43, 507-514, 2012
  15. Lee, K.W., Lee, Y.C., "Design and validation of an improved graphical user interface with the ‘Tool ball’", Appl. Ergon., Cilt 43, 57-68, 2012
  16. Virzi, R.A., "Usability inspection method