总编辑评论

R. Maikala
{"title":"总编辑评论","authors":"R. Maikala","doi":"10.1177/1064804620905855","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The April edition of Ergonomics in Design examines the integration of visual, tactile, and/or auditory inputs to optimize designs for human use. Historically, more researchers have published on vision compared with other sensory modalities. This is unsurprising given that in the study of human factors, as in our daily lived experience, the visual modality tends to dominate spatial perception. The first article, by Lukman et al., examines this important modality vis-à-vis accessibility design standards for the visually impaired in the built environment. In this article, the authors considered whether the level of luminance contrast suggested in the Australian design standards was adequate for the participants, who were classified as either low vision or blind, when accessing public spaces. Using tactile ground surface indicators, especially the discrete type, on a variety of colored floor panels, the authors examined the level of contrast required to allow adequate warning of any upcoming danger in participants’ traveling path. The authors found that the minimum luminance contrast value (i.e., 30%) suggested within the current Australian accessibility standards is adequate for a majority of participants in detecting the discrete indicators from relatively safe distances on the travel path. However, participants preferred a contrast reserve, expressed as a ratio, that they could detect comfortably without having to realize the presence of tactile ground surface indicators at the limits of their contrast sensitivity. The authors further reported that higher the luminance contrast, greater the distance from which the participants could detect warning elements visually. Although the authors only reported the influence of discrete indicators and compared their findings with other published studies, their experimental findings are useful for human factors and ergonomics designers and architectural engineers in designing safe, optimal access to public spaces for the visually impaired. Furthermore, according to the design guidelines for the visual environment from the National Institute of Building Sciences (2015), “Illuminance is today’s standard design method, while luminance is tomorrow’s” (p. 14). Although modeling luminance-based design is complex due to factors such as viewer location, viewing angles, and floor surface characteristics, the authors were able to provide valuable insights into the “luminance” factor for the visually impaired in a laboratory “built environment” setting. In a similar vein, Katzman and Oron-Gilad’s article evaluates the integration of a tactile system with auditory communications in military environments. The authors took an off-the-shelf tactile display system and integrated it with the communication system in armored fighting vehicles to test its effectiveness for communication during an infantry training course. Team communication is critical for operating such vehicles because of the driver’s limited visual field and the need to manage vehicle stability in different terrain conditions and under extreme situations. Maintaining smooth communication with the vehicle commander throughout the task is paramount to personnel safety and success of the mission. This two-phase experiment was conducted on soldiers, including drivers, vehicle commanders, and driving instructors. First, experimenters conducted a feasibility study while operating the armored fighting vehicle in an open terrain. The study incorporated different driving scenarios, including auditory-only, auditory–tactile, and tactile-only conditions. Second, researchers designed a dismounted simulation to study the usability of the integrated system consisting of auditory and tactile communications. This study utilized a subjective questionnaire incorporating a system usability scale and Likert-type scales. Results showed that irrespective of the extreme vehicle vibrations that drivers experience while operating the armored fighting vehicles, participants successfully perceived the tactile cues from the off-the-shelf display system. The study provides evidence in support of applying ergonomics and usability principles in combat operations. Factors such as proper placement of the tactile display can lead to more efficient tactile alerts, thereby lessening the mental workload experienced by drivers of armored vehicles, especially in extreme environments. As noted by the authors, tactile interfaces for communications in the military setting are still in their infancy. However, this article shows the promise of incorporating tactile communication in such specialized environments. Both articles in this issue highlight the role of human factors and ergonomics professionals in better understanding and incorporating different sensory modalities for more efficient user–product interactions. Similarly, the classic, thought-provoking article titled “On the Design of Time” (Hancock, 2018) invites us to extend design opportunities beyond space and into the realm of time. In the current issue, Dr. Tom Sheridan, from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has observed that more human factors and ergonomics professionals approach “design” “with respect to space” than “with respect to time.” While commending Dr. Hancock’s views, Sheridan emphasizes three kinds of temporal relationships that a designer must also pay attention to: (1) ordering a temporal sequence of discrete human tasks/ subtasks; (2) allocating human temporal attention among different tasks, which themselves may or may not be changing with time; and (3) continuous manipulation of a dynamic process. Of course, our current issue would not be complete without the response from Dr. Hancock, in which he agrees with Dr. Sheridan, arguing for more research on designing in the experiential mode of time. In the past year, many senior and associate board members have either retired or graciously stepped aside to allow new members to participate on the editorial team. I want to thank them for their generous service, and at the same time, I am looking forward to working with the new editorial members. More important, I am urging our academic readers to submit their students’ papers this year so that their design work can be selected for an annual student award sponsored by Dr. Brian Peacock. Please see hfes.org/news/ peacock for more information.","PeriodicalId":357563,"journal":{"name":"Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications","volume":"2007 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comment From the Editor-in-Chief\",\"authors\":\"R. Maikala\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1064804620905855\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The April edition of Ergonomics in Design examines the integration of visual, tactile, and/or auditory inputs to optimize designs for human use. Historically, more researchers have published on vision compared with other sensory modalities. This is unsurprising given that in the study of human factors, as in our daily lived experience, the visual modality tends to dominate spatial perception. The first article, by Lukman et al., examines this important modality vis-à-vis accessibility design standards for the visually impaired in the built environment. In this article, the authors considered whether the level of luminance contrast suggested in the Australian design standards was adequate for the participants, who were classified as either low vision or blind, when accessing public spaces. Using tactile ground surface indicators, especially the discrete type, on a variety of colored floor panels, the authors examined the level of contrast required to allow adequate warning of any upcoming danger in participants’ traveling path. The authors found that the minimum luminance contrast value (i.e., 30%) suggested within the current Australian accessibility standards is adequate for a majority of participants in detecting the discrete indicators from relatively safe distances on the travel path. However, participants preferred a contrast reserve, expressed as a ratio, that they could detect comfortably without having to realize the presence of tactile ground surface indicators at the limits of their contrast sensitivity. The authors further reported that higher the luminance contrast, greater the distance from which the participants could detect warning elements visually. Although the authors only reported the influence of discrete indicators and compared their findings with other published studies, their experimental findings are useful for human factors and ergonomics designers and architectural engineers in designing safe, optimal access to public spaces for the visually impaired. Furthermore, according to the design guidelines for the visual environment from the National Institute of Building Sciences (2015), “Illuminance is today’s standard design method, while luminance is tomorrow’s” (p. 14). Although modeling luminance-based design is complex due to factors such as viewer location, viewing angles, and floor surface characteristics, the authors were able to provide valuable insights into the “luminance” factor for the visually impaired in a laboratory “built environment” setting. In a similar vein, Katzman and Oron-Gilad’s article evaluates the integration of a tactile system with auditory communications in military environments. The authors took an off-the-shelf tactile display system and integrated it with the communication system in armored fighting vehicles to test its effectiveness for communication during an infantry training course. Team communication is critical for operating such vehicles because of the driver’s limited visual field and the need to manage vehicle stability in different terrain conditions and under extreme situations. Maintaining smooth communication with the vehicle commander throughout the task is paramount to personnel safety and success of the mission. This two-phase experiment was conducted on soldiers, including drivers, vehicle commanders, and driving instructors. First, experimenters conducted a feasibility study while operating the armored fighting vehicle in an open terrain. The study incorporated different driving scenarios, including auditory-only, auditory–tactile, and tactile-only conditions. Second, researchers designed a dismounted simulation to study the usability of the integrated system consisting of auditory and tactile communications. This study utilized a subjective questionnaire incorporating a system usability scale and Likert-type scales. Results showed that irrespective of the extreme vehicle vibrations that drivers experience while operating the armored fighting vehicles, participants successfully perceived the tactile cues from the off-the-shelf display system. The study provides evidence in support of applying ergonomics and usability principles in combat operations. Factors such as proper placement of the tactile display can lead to more efficient tactile alerts, thereby lessening the mental workload experienced by drivers of armored vehicles, especially in extreme environments. As noted by the authors, tactile interfaces for communications in the military setting are still in their infancy. However, this article shows the promise of incorporating tactile communication in such specialized environments. Both articles in this issue highlight the role of human factors and ergonomics professionals in better understanding and incorporating different sensory modalities for more efficient user–product interactions. Similarly, the classic, thought-provoking article titled “On the Design of Time” (Hancock, 2018) invites us to extend design opportunities beyond space and into the realm of time. In the current issue, Dr. Tom Sheridan, from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has observed that more human factors and ergonomics professionals approach “design” “with respect to space” than “with respect to time.” While commending Dr. Hancock’s views, Sheridan emphasizes three kinds of temporal relationships that a designer must also pay attention to: (1) ordering a temporal sequence of discrete human tasks/ subtasks; (2) allocating human temporal attention among different tasks, which themselves may or may not be changing with time; and (3) continuous manipulation of a dynamic process. Of course, our current issue would not be complete without the response from Dr. Hancock, in which he agrees with Dr. Sheridan, arguing for more research on designing in the experiential mode of time. In the past year, many senior and associate board members have either retired or graciously stepped aside to allow new members to participate on the editorial team. I want to thank them for their generous service, and at the same time, I am looking forward to working with the new editorial members. More important, I am urging our academic readers to submit their students’ papers this year so that their design work can be selected for an annual student award sponsored by Dr. Brian Peacock. Please see hfes.org/news/ peacock for more information.\",\"PeriodicalId\":357563,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications\",\"volume\":\"2007 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-02-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1064804620905855\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ergonomics in Design: The Quarterly of Human Factors Applications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1064804620905855","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

四月版的《设计中的人体工程学》探讨了视觉、触觉和/或听觉输入的整合,以优化人类使用的设计。从历史上看,与其他感官模式相比,更多的研究人员发表了关于视觉的文章。这并不奇怪,因为在人类因素的研究中,就像在我们的日常生活经验中一样,视觉形态往往主导着空间感知。Lukman等人的第一篇文章通过-à-vis为建筑环境中的视障人士提供无障碍设计标准来研究这一重要的模式。在这篇文章中,作者考虑了澳大利亚设计标准中建议的亮度对比水平是否适合被归类为低视力或失明的参与者在进入公共空间时。作者在各种彩色地板上使用触觉地面指示器,特别是离散类型的指示器,检查了在参与者的旅行路径上对任何即将到来的危险进行足够警告所需的对比度水平。作者发现,目前澳大利亚无障碍标准中建议的最小亮度对比值(即30%)足以让大多数参与者从相对安全的距离检测旅行路径上的离散指标。然而,参与者更喜欢对比度储备,用比率表示,他们可以舒适地检测,而不必意识到在他们的对比度灵敏度极限下触觉地面指标的存在。作者进一步报告说,亮度对比越高,参与者从视觉上发现警告元素的距离就越大。虽然作者只报告了离散指标的影响,并将他们的研究结果与其他已发表的研究进行了比较,但他们的实验结果对人为因素、人体工程学设计师和建筑工程师在为视障人士设计安全、最佳的公共空间通道方面很有帮助。此外,根据国家建筑科学研究所(2015)的视觉环境设计指南,“照度是今天的标准设计方法,而亮度是明天的”(第14页)。尽管建模基于亮度的设计是复杂的,由于观察者的位置、视角和地板表面特征等因素,作者能够在实验室“建筑环境”设置中为视障人士的“亮度”因素提供有价值的见解。同样,卡兹曼和奥伦-吉拉德的文章评估了军事环境中触觉系统与听觉通信的整合。作者采用了一种现成的触觉显示系统,并将其与装甲战车的通信系统集成,以测试其在步兵训练课程中的通信有效性。由于驾驶员的视野有限,并且需要在不同地形条件和极端情况下保持车辆的稳定性,因此团队沟通对于驾驶此类车辆至关重要。在整个任务过程中与车辆指挥官保持顺畅的沟通对人员安全和任务的成功至关重要。这个两阶段的实验是在士兵身上进行的,包括司机、车辆指挥官和驾驶教练。首先,实验人员在开阔地形上操作装甲战车时进行了可行性研究。该研究纳入了不同的驾驶场景,包括纯听觉、纯听觉触觉和纯触觉条件。其次,研究人员设计了一个下车仿真来研究听觉和触觉通信集成系统的可用性。本研究采用主观调查问卷,结合系统可用性量表和李克特型量表。结果表明,无论驾驶员在操作装甲战车时经历的极端车辆振动如何,参与者都能成功地感知到来自现成显示系统的触觉线索。该研究为支持在作战行动中应用人体工程学和可用性原则提供了证据。诸如触觉显示器的适当放置等因素可以导致更有效的触觉警报,从而减少装甲车辆驾驶员的精神工作量,特别是在极端环境中。正如作者所指出的那样,军事环境中用于通信的触觉界面仍处于起步阶段。然而,这篇文章显示了在这种特殊环境中结合触觉交流的希望。本期的两篇文章都强调了人为因素和人体工程学专业人员在更好地理解和整合不同的感官模式以实现更有效的用户-产品交互方面的作用。 同样,经典的、发人深省的文章《关于时间的设计》(汉考克,2018)邀请我们将设计机会延伸到空间之外,进入时间的领域。在本期杂志中,来自麻省理工学院的汤姆·谢里丹博士观察到,更多的人为因素和人体工程学专业人士“考虑空间”而不是“考虑时间”来进行“设计”。在赞扬Hancock博士观点的同时,Sheridan强调了设计者必须注意的三种时间关系:(1)对离散的人工任务/子任务的时间序列进行排序;(2)将人的时间注意力分配到不同的任务上,这些任务本身可能随时间而变化,也可能不随时间而变化;(3)动态过程的连续操纵。当然,如果没有汉考克博士的回应,我们当前的问题就不完整,他同意谢里丹博士的观点,认为应该对时间的经验模式进行更多的设计研究。在过去的一年里,许多资深和准董事会成员要么退休,要么慷慨地让位,让新成员加入编辑团队。我要感谢他们的慷慨服务,同时,我期待着与新的编辑成员一起工作。更重要的是,我敦促我们的学术读者今年提交他们的学生论文,这样他们的设计作品就可以被选为由Brian Peacock博士赞助的年度学生奖。更多信息请访问hfes.org/news/ peacock。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comment From the Editor-in-Chief
The April edition of Ergonomics in Design examines the integration of visual, tactile, and/or auditory inputs to optimize designs for human use. Historically, more researchers have published on vision compared with other sensory modalities. This is unsurprising given that in the study of human factors, as in our daily lived experience, the visual modality tends to dominate spatial perception. The first article, by Lukman et al., examines this important modality vis-à-vis accessibility design standards for the visually impaired in the built environment. In this article, the authors considered whether the level of luminance contrast suggested in the Australian design standards was adequate for the participants, who were classified as either low vision or blind, when accessing public spaces. Using tactile ground surface indicators, especially the discrete type, on a variety of colored floor panels, the authors examined the level of contrast required to allow adequate warning of any upcoming danger in participants’ traveling path. The authors found that the minimum luminance contrast value (i.e., 30%) suggested within the current Australian accessibility standards is adequate for a majority of participants in detecting the discrete indicators from relatively safe distances on the travel path. However, participants preferred a contrast reserve, expressed as a ratio, that they could detect comfortably without having to realize the presence of tactile ground surface indicators at the limits of their contrast sensitivity. The authors further reported that higher the luminance contrast, greater the distance from which the participants could detect warning elements visually. Although the authors only reported the influence of discrete indicators and compared their findings with other published studies, their experimental findings are useful for human factors and ergonomics designers and architectural engineers in designing safe, optimal access to public spaces for the visually impaired. Furthermore, according to the design guidelines for the visual environment from the National Institute of Building Sciences (2015), “Illuminance is today’s standard design method, while luminance is tomorrow’s” (p. 14). Although modeling luminance-based design is complex due to factors such as viewer location, viewing angles, and floor surface characteristics, the authors were able to provide valuable insights into the “luminance” factor for the visually impaired in a laboratory “built environment” setting. In a similar vein, Katzman and Oron-Gilad’s article evaluates the integration of a tactile system with auditory communications in military environments. The authors took an off-the-shelf tactile display system and integrated it with the communication system in armored fighting vehicles to test its effectiveness for communication during an infantry training course. Team communication is critical for operating such vehicles because of the driver’s limited visual field and the need to manage vehicle stability in different terrain conditions and under extreme situations. Maintaining smooth communication with the vehicle commander throughout the task is paramount to personnel safety and success of the mission. This two-phase experiment was conducted on soldiers, including drivers, vehicle commanders, and driving instructors. First, experimenters conducted a feasibility study while operating the armored fighting vehicle in an open terrain. The study incorporated different driving scenarios, including auditory-only, auditory–tactile, and tactile-only conditions. Second, researchers designed a dismounted simulation to study the usability of the integrated system consisting of auditory and tactile communications. This study utilized a subjective questionnaire incorporating a system usability scale and Likert-type scales. Results showed that irrespective of the extreme vehicle vibrations that drivers experience while operating the armored fighting vehicles, participants successfully perceived the tactile cues from the off-the-shelf display system. The study provides evidence in support of applying ergonomics and usability principles in combat operations. Factors such as proper placement of the tactile display can lead to more efficient tactile alerts, thereby lessening the mental workload experienced by drivers of armored vehicles, especially in extreme environments. As noted by the authors, tactile interfaces for communications in the military setting are still in their infancy. However, this article shows the promise of incorporating tactile communication in such specialized environments. Both articles in this issue highlight the role of human factors and ergonomics professionals in better understanding and incorporating different sensory modalities for more efficient user–product interactions. Similarly, the classic, thought-provoking article titled “On the Design of Time” (Hancock, 2018) invites us to extend design opportunities beyond space and into the realm of time. In the current issue, Dr. Tom Sheridan, from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has observed that more human factors and ergonomics professionals approach “design” “with respect to space” than “with respect to time.” While commending Dr. Hancock’s views, Sheridan emphasizes three kinds of temporal relationships that a designer must also pay attention to: (1) ordering a temporal sequence of discrete human tasks/ subtasks; (2) allocating human temporal attention among different tasks, which themselves may or may not be changing with time; and (3) continuous manipulation of a dynamic process. Of course, our current issue would not be complete without the response from Dr. Hancock, in which he agrees with Dr. Sheridan, arguing for more research on designing in the experiential mode of time. In the past year, many senior and associate board members have either retired or graciously stepped aside to allow new members to participate on the editorial team. I want to thank them for their generous service, and at the same time, I am looking forward to working with the new editorial members. More important, I am urging our academic readers to submit their students’ papers this year so that their design work can be selected for an annual student award sponsored by Dr. Brian Peacock. Please see hfes.org/news/ peacock for more information.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信