Assessment of a human computer interface prototyping environment

A Human Computer Interface (HCI) prototyping environment with embedded evaluation capability has been successfully assessed which will be valuable in developing and refining HCI standards and evaluating program/project interface development, especially Space Station Freedom on-board displays for payload operations. The HCI prototyping environment is designed to include four components: (1) a HCI format development tool, (2) a test and evaluation simulator development tool, (3) a dynamic, interactive interface between the HCI prototype and simulator, and (4) an embedded evaluation capability to evaluate the adequacy of an HCI based on a user's performance

A process for prototyping onboard payload displays for Space Station Freedom

Significant advances have been made in the area of Human-Computer Interface design. However, there is no well-defined process for going from user interface requirements to user interface design. Developing and designing a clear and consistent user interface for medium to large scale systems is a very challenging and complex task. The task becomes increasingly difficult when there is very little guidance and procedures on how the development process should flow from one stage to the next. Without a specific sequence of development steps each design becomes difficult to repeat, to evaluate, to improve, and to articulate to others. This research contributes a process which identifies the phases of development and products produced as a result of each phase for a rapid prototyping process to be used to develop requirements for the onboard payload displays for Space Station Freedom. The functional components of a dynamic prototyping environment in which this process can be carried out is also discussed. Some of the central questions which are answered here include: How does one go from specifications to an actual prototype? How is a prototype evaluated? How is usability defined and thus measured? How do we use the information from evaluation in redesign of an interface? and Are there techniques which allow for convergence on a design

Computer-Based Tools for Evaluating Graphical User Interfaces

The user interface is the component of a software system that connects two very complex system: humans and computers. Each of these two systems impose certain requirements on the final product. The user is the judge of the usability and utility of the system; the computer software and hardware are the tools with which the interface is constructed. Mistakes are sometimes made in designing and developing user interfaces because the designers and developers have limited knowledge about human performance (e.g., problem solving, decision making, planning, and reasoning). Even those trained in user interface design make mistakes because they are unable to address all of the known requirements and constraints on design. Evaluation of the user inter-face is therefore a critical phase of the user interface development process. Evaluation should not be considered the final phase of design; but it should be part of an iterative design cycle with the output of evaluation being feed back into design. The goal of this research was to develop a set of computer-based tools for objectively evaluating graphical user interfaces. The research was organized into three phases. The first phase resulted in the development of an embedded evaluation tool which evaluates the usability of a graphical user interface based on a user's performance. An expert system to assist in the design and evaluation of user interfaces based upon rules and guidelines was developed during the second phase. During the final phase of the research an automatic layout tool to be used in the initial design of graphical inter- faces was developed. The research was coordinated with NASA Marshall Space Flight Center's Mission Operations Laboratory's efforts in developing onboard payload display specifications for the Space Station

Integration and evaluation of a simulator designed to be used within a dynamic prototyping environment

The human computer interface (HCI) prototyping environment is designed to allow developers to rapidly prototype systems so that the interface and functionality of a system can be evaluated and iteratively refined early in the development process. This keeps development costs down by modifying the interface during the requirements definition phase, thus minimizing changes that need to be made during and after flight code development. Problems occur within a system when the user interface is not adequately developed and when designers and developers have an incomplete understanding of the system requirements. A process has been developed for prototyping on-board payload displays for Space Station Freedom. This prototyping process consists of five phases: identification of known requirements, analysis of the requirements, development of a formal design representation and specification, development of the prototype, and evaluation of the prototype. The actual development of the prototype involves prototyping the displays, developing a low fidelity simulator, building of an interface (or communication) between the displays and the simulator, integration of these components, and testing to ensure that the interface does what the developer expects. This research integrates and evaluates a software tool which has been developed to serve as a simulator within the prototyping environment. The tool is being evaluated to determine whether or not it meets the basic requirements which are needed for a low fidelity simulator within this environment. In order to evaluate the architecture and its components, a human computer interface for and a simulator of an automobile have been developed as a prototype. The individual components (i.e., the interface and simulator) have been developed, and the current research was designed to integrate and test the complete working system within the prototyping environment. The following sections will describe the architecture and components of the rapid prototyping environment, the development of a system to assess the environment, and the integration and evaluation of PERCNET

Simulation in a dynamic prototyping environment: Petri nets or rules?

An evaluation of a prototyped user interface is best supported by a simulation of the system. A simulation allows for dynamic evaluation of the interface rather than just a static evaluation of the screen's appearance. This allows potential users to evaluate both the look (in terms of the screen layout, color, objects, etc.) and feel (in terms of operations and actions which need to be performed) of a system's interface. Because of the need to provide dynamic evaluation of an interface, there must be support for producing active simulations. The high-fidelity training simulators are delivered too late to be effectively used in prototyping the displays. Therefore, it is important to build a low fidelity simulator, so that the iterative cycle of refining the human computer interface based upon a user's interactions can proceed early in software development

Simulation in a dynamic prototyping environment: Petri nets or rules?

An evaluation of a prototyped user interface is best supported by a simulation of the system. A simulation allows for dynamic evaluation of the interface rather than just a static evaluation of the screen's appearance. This allows potential users to evaluate both the look (in terms of the screen layout, color, objects, etc.) and feel (in terms of operations and actions which need to be performed) of a system's interface. Because of the need to provide dynamic evaluation of an interface, there must be support for producing active simulations. The high-fidelity training simulators are normally delivered too late to be effectively used in prototyping the displays. Therefore, it is important to build a low fidelity simulator, so that the iterative cycle of refining the human computer interface based upon a user's interactions can proceed early in software development

Building Support for Faculty Women of Color in STEM

Given the national climate, higher education must continue to serve a vital role for our future, just as it has in our past. For historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and other minority-serving institutions, their mission-driven role is even more urgent. Communities of color depend on these institutions to be gateways for access to jobs with higher incomes for graduates in growing fields such as science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Hence, it is critical for these faculty women of color in STEM to have environments and networks that will help them to succeed

Transforming Climates for the Academic Woman of Color: Facilitating Greater Understanding in the Workplace Climate and in Social Structures

This article explores the findings of a workshop designed to determine impediments for academic success of women of color in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM), as well as Social and Behavioral Science (SBS), disciplines at Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs). Funded by a National Science Foundation (NSF) five-year ADVANCE Institutional Transformation (IT) grant, three concurrent cohorts – single women, women with partners, and the partners of the women – explored various factors that hinder academic women’s progression. Utilizing mixed methods, including focus groups, pre- and post-surveys and recorded interviews, it was found that women of color at HBCUs not only lack informal mentoring and support male colleagues find at work, but also face climates at home where spouses, partners, or family find their work demands unfamiliar. Discussions of the impact of marital status and family life on work success were previously lacking. A clear disconnect of perceptions between partnered and single women were addressed in a joint session. All three cohorts repeatedly noted a definite benefit of the workshop was development of community across the university, and across families. After the workshop, many women noted feeling less isolated and realizing their difficulties were similar to other women at the institution