Symbols for Cockpit Displays of Traffic Information

D. Chandra, M. Zuschlag, J. Helleberg, S. Estes
{"title":"Symbols for Cockpit Displays of Traffic Information","authors":"D. Chandra, M. Zuschlag, J. Helleberg, S. Estes","doi":"10.1109/DASC.2009.5347471","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A web-based study assessed pilots' ability to learn and remember traffic symbols that may be shown on Cockpit Displays of Traffic Information (CDTI). These displays convey data obtained from Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) and related Aircraft Surveillance Applications System (ASAS) technologies, as well as other surveillance data sources. We evaluated three aspects of using the traffic symbols when presented in isolation on a static display: intuitiveness, ease of learning, and ease of remembering the symbols. Four symbol sets were tested, each with approximately 22 symbols. Each participant saw only one of the four symbol sets. The sets used different visual features of the traffic symbol to represent the Directionality, Data Quality, Air/Ground Status, Alert Level, Selection Status, and Pairing Status of nearby aircraft. A total of 623 pilots with a broad range of experience participated in the main portion of the study. Results showed that while some conventions are well understood, such as the use of red and yellow for warnings and cautions (respectively), other conventions may be confusing and should be avoided. Two examples of confusing conventions are (a) using more than one visual feature (e.g., two different shapes) to represent the same traffic information, and (b) using similar visual features (e.g., two different outlines) to represent different traffic information. Results of the study were considered by a Federal Advisory Committee that develops standards for these traffic displays (RTCA Special Committee (SC) 186).","PeriodicalId":313168,"journal":{"name":"2009 IEEE/AIAA 28th Digital Avionics Systems Conference","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2009-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"2009 IEEE/AIAA 28th Digital Avionics Systems Conference","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/DASC.2009.5347471","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

A web-based study assessed pilots' ability to learn and remember traffic symbols that may be shown on Cockpit Displays of Traffic Information (CDTI). These displays convey data obtained from Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) and related Aircraft Surveillance Applications System (ASAS) technologies, as well as other surveillance data sources. We evaluated three aspects of using the traffic symbols when presented in isolation on a static display: intuitiveness, ease of learning, and ease of remembering the symbols. Four symbol sets were tested, each with approximately 22 symbols. Each participant saw only one of the four symbol sets. The sets used different visual features of the traffic symbol to represent the Directionality, Data Quality, Air/Ground Status, Alert Level, Selection Status, and Pairing Status of nearby aircraft. A total of 623 pilots with a broad range of experience participated in the main portion of the study. Results showed that while some conventions are well understood, such as the use of red and yellow for warnings and cautions (respectively), other conventions may be confusing and should be avoided. Two examples of confusing conventions are (a) using more than one visual feature (e.g., two different shapes) to represent the same traffic information, and (b) using similar visual features (e.g., two different outlines) to represent different traffic information. Results of the study were considered by a Federal Advisory Committee that develops standards for these traffic displays (RTCA Special Committee (SC) 186).
座舱显示交通信息的符号
一项基于网络的研究评估了飞行员学习和记忆可能显示在驾驶舱交通信息显示器(CDTI)上的交通标志的能力。这些显示器传输从广播自动相关监视(ADS-B)和相关飞机监视应用系统(ASAS)技术以及其他监视数据源获得的数据。我们评估了在静态显示中单独使用交通标志的三个方面:直观性、易学性和易记性。测试了四个符号集,每个符号集大约有22个符号。每个参与者只看到四组符号中的一个。这些集合使用交通标志的不同视觉特征来表示附近飞机的方向性、数据质量、空中/地面状态、警戒级别、选择状态和配对状态。共有623名经验丰富的飞行员参与了研究的主要部分。结果表明,虽然一些惯例很容易理解,例如使用红色和黄色分别表示警告和警告,但其他惯例可能令人困惑,应避免使用。混淆约定的两个例子是:(a)使用多个视觉特征(例如,两个不同的形状)来表示相同的交通信息,以及(b)使用相似的视觉特征(例如,两个不同的轮廓)来表示不同的交通信息。研究结果由制定交通显示标准的联邦咨询委员会(RTCA Special Committee (SC) 186)考虑。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信