Usability Analysis of Touch Screen for Ground Operators

DOI: 10.4236/jcc.2015.311021   PDF   HTML   XML   2,050 Downloads   2,425 Views   Citations

Abstract

The importance of the aircraft is increasing gradually; among them it may be called Ground Control Station (GCS) receiving the highest expectations. In aspect of operation, operator’s workload and working speed are one of the most important factors. Thus, we need to compare Touch mode and Non Touch mode in order to improve workload and working speed. In this paper, we analyzed the differences of Touch mode and Non Touch mode about workload, working speed in operation of aircraft. Through NASA-TLX and Measured working time, quantified data were collected and an analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed. According to experimental result, working speed and workload according to input mode showed significant difference. In ground operation, Touch mode is better than Non Touch mode about working speed and workload. In the Touch mode, the optimal value of lower display angle was selected as 60angle.

Share and Cite:

Hong, J. , Baek, S. , Jung, H. , Kim, S. and Kwon, Y. (2015) Usability Analysis of Touch Screen for Ground Operators. Journal of Computer and Communications, 3, 133-139. doi: 10.4236/jcc.2015.311021.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1] Hart, S.G. and Staveland, L.E. (1988) Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of Empirical and Theoretical Research. In: Hancock, P.A. and Meshkati, N., Eds., Human Mental Workload, Elsevier Science Publisher B. V., North-Holland, 139-183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0166-4115(08)62386-9
[2] Campbell, D.J. and Gingrich, K.F. (1986) The Interactive Effects of Task Complexity and Participation on Task Performance: A Field Experiment. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 38, 162-180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(86)90014-2
[3] Woods, D.D. (1990) On Taking Human Performance Seriously in Risk Analysis: Comments on Dougherty. Reliability Engineering and System Safety, 29, 375-381. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(90)90022-F
[4] Miyake, S. (2001) Multivariate Workload Evaluation Combining Physiological and Subjective Measures. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 40, 233-238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0167-8760(00)00191-4
[5] Hill, S.G., Iavecchia, H.P., Byers, J.C., Bittner, Jr., A.C., Zak-lad, A.L. and Christ, R.E. (1992) Comparison of Four Subjective Workload Rating Scale. Human Factors, 24, 429-439.
[6] Hall, A., Cunningham, J., Roache, R. and Cox, J. (1988) Factors Affecting Performance Using Tou-chentry Systems: Tactal Recognition Fields and System Accuracy. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 711-720. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.73.4.711
[7] Ostroff, D. and Shneiderman, B. (1988) Selection Devices for User of an Electronic Encyclopedia: An Empirical Comparison of Four Possibilities. Information Processing & Management, 24, 665-680. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0306-4573(88)90004-0
[8] Ahlstrom, B. and Lenman, S. (1987) Touch Screen, Cursor Keys, and Mouse Interaction. Work with Display Units, Elsevier, North-Holland, 831-837.
[9] Karat, J., McDonald, J. and Anderson, M. (1986) A Comparison of Selection Techniques: Touch Panel, Mouse, Keyboard. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 1, 73-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7373(86)80034-7

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2020 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.