For each issue of Behaviour and Information Technology, I usually try to select papers that together form some kind of theme. I guess this is sometimes more successful than at other times. However, I am reluctant to slow down the publication of specific papers just because they do not fit too well with the others I wish to include in a specific issue. All of which is a slightly longwinded way of saying that this issue contains a number of interesting papers but I am not going to attempt to link them into a common theme. Instead, I have grouped them by method. The first section contains three papers, which report empirical studies ranging from the use of textual displays for supervisory tasks through on-line consumer behaviour to the effects of different styles of feedback on older adults. The second section contains two review papers, one on the issues involved in vehicle navigation systems and one on cognitive task analysis methods. Enjoy!
Empirical studies
Boring though it may seem in this graphical interface world, there are many tasks where human operators have to monitor textual log type data. I remember being involved in the design of the operator's console for what was then the ICL New Range of mainframe computers in the early 1970s. One of the revolutionary features of this design was that, instead of the operator's console being a teletype, ICL decided to use a cathode ray tube (CRT) monitor. One advantage of this new design was that operator messages could be displayed in priority order. However, this was not straightforward. Whereas on a teletype, the operator could search back as long as required to find a message, the screen was limited to twenty four lines or so. Further, when a new line was being added, the previous lines were temporarily unreadable. It was therefore decided that the top few lines of the display should be frozen to prevent them from scrolling just as the operator was trying to read them. The consequence of these apparently sensible decisions was that at any point in time, the most important message for the operator was probably on the seventh line of the display. I'm not sure if this design survived but it does demonstrate how important it is to understand the operator's task when designing such detailed displays.
In the first paper in this issue, Avi Parush from the Department of Psychology at Carleton University in Ottowa reports a series of experiments on various textual display configurations and their suitability for supervisory tasks. One of the most interesting findings was that the participants were able to prioritize their responses and react to the most important events more accurately and more quickly. The author discusses a number of the implications of the findings for textual display design.
Glenn Browne, John Durrett and James Wetherbe from the Rawls College of Business Administration at Texas Tech University report an empirical comparison of consumer reactions toward online vs. traditional shopping. Their findings should be of interest to all those involved in retailing – whether traditional or on-line. One finding, which I found particularly telling, was that the idea that traditional and on-line were simple alternatives was completely misleading. Many of the consumers they studied used both media for example by conducting best buy comparisons on-line, before making their purchase in a traditional ‘bricks and mortar’ store. As is often the case, real human behaviour defies simplistic explanation.
The last paper in this section explores the effects of multimodal feedback on older adults' task performance given varying levels of computer experience. The extensive project team included Julie Jacko, Kathlene Emery, Paula Edwards, Mahima Ashok, Leon Barnard, Thitima Kongnakorn, Kevin Moloney and Francois Sainfort from the School of Industrial and Systems Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, and Ingrid Scott from Bascom Palmer Eye Institute, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami. The researchers compared the effects of various combinations of feedback (auditory, haptic, and/or visual) on the performance of older adults completing a drag-and-drop task on a computer. They found that experienced users responded well to all multimodal feedback but that users without experience found the haptic-visual bimodal feedback less effective. They discuss their results specifically in relation to older adults.
Reviews
The first paper in this section reviews the arguments (and supporting evidence) both for and against allowing drivers to enter a destination with a vehicle navigation system while active in the primary driving task (‘on-the-move’). G. E. Burnett from the School of Computer Science and Information Technology, University of Nottingham and S. J. Summerskill and J. M. Porter from the Department of Design and Technology, Loughborough University (both in the UK) conclude that the task demands are considerable and distracting. However, they also argue that simply trying to prevent such behaviour through legislation will not work. They argue that innovative user interfaces supported by good human factors research evidence represent the most hopeful solution for this difficult challenge.
The last paper in this issue is an extensive and thorough review of cognitive task analysis methods for job and task design. As I have said before, as a consultant, I tend to use bits of several methods and always keep them far simpler than their originators intended. I therefore find it very helpful when colleagues like June Wei from the Department of Management/MIS in the College of Business at the University of West Florida and Gavriel Salvendy from the School of Industrial Engineering at Purdue University (and also the Department of Industrial Engineering at Tsinghua University in Beijing) produce such an extensive review. It is not a light read but then neither is cognitive task analysis.