Circular displays with thumbwheels: Hong Kong Chinese preferences

Human Factors and Ergonomics In Manufacturing

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2000, Pages 453-463

  Chan, Alan H S ^a   Courtney, Alan J ^b   So, Karen W Y ^a  

^a CITY UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER CONTROL SYSTEMS; MAN MACHINE SYSTEMS; USER INTERFACES;

CIRCULAR DISPLAYS; THUMBWHEELS;

INSTRUMENT DISPLAYS;

EID: 0034271685     PISSN: 10908471     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/1520-6564(200023)10:4<453::AID-HFM6>3.0.CO;2-1     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Brebner, J., & Sandow, B. (1976). The effect of scale side on population stereotype. Ergonomics, 19, 571-580.
2. Carter, L.F., & Murray, N.L. (1947). A study of the most effective relationships between selected control and indicator movements. In P.M. Fitts (Ed.), Psychological Research on Equipment Design. Washington, DC: U.S. Govt. Printing Office.
3. Connel, S.C., & Grether, W.F. (1948). Psychological factors in check reading similar instruments. (USAF AMC Memo. Rep. No. MCREXD-694-174A).
4. Courtney, A.J. (1988). Chinese response preferences for display-control relationships. Human Factors, 30, 367-372.
5. Courtney, A.J. (1992). Control-display stereotypes for multicultural user systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 22, 681-687.
6. Courtney, A.J. (1994a). The effect of scale-side, indicator type, and control plane on direction-of-turn stereotypes for Hong Kong Chinese subjects. Ergonomics, 37, 865-877.
7. Courtney, A.J. (1994b). Hong Kong Chinese direction-of-motion stereotypes. Ergonomics, 37, 417-426.
8. Fitts, P.M. (1951). Engineering psychology and equipment design. In S.S. Stevens (Ed.), Handbook of Experimental Psychology (pp. 1287-1340). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
9. Fitts, P.M., & Jones, R.E. (1947). Analysis of factors contributing to 460 "pilot-error" experiences in operating aircraft controls. (USAF AMC Memo. Rep. No. TSEAA-694-12).
10. Fitts, P.M., & Seeger, C.M. (1953). S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 199-210.
11. Fitts, P.M., & Simon, C.W. (1952). Some relations between stimulus patterns and performance in a continuous dual pursuit task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43, 428-438.
12. Gardner, J.F. (1950). Direction of pointer motion in relation to movement of flight controls: Cross pointer type instrument. USAF AMC Tech. Rep. No. 6016: 1954, Speed and accuracy of response to five different altitude indicators. USAF WADC Tech. Rep. No. 54-236; 1957. The effect of motion relationship and rate of pointer movement on tracking performance USAF-WADC Tech. Rep. No. 57-533.
13. Gardner, J.F. (1950). Direction of pointer motion in relation to movement of flight controls: Cross pointer type instrument. USAF AMC Tech. Rep. No. 6016: 1954, Speed and accuracy of response to five different altitude indicators. USAF WADC Tech. Rep. No. 54-236; 1957. The effect of motion relationship and rate of pointer movement on tracking performance USAF-WADC Tech. Rep. No. 57-533.
14. Gardner, J.F. (1950). Direction of pointer motion in relation to movement of flight controls: Cross pointer type instrument. USAF AMC Tech. Rep. No. 6016: 1954, Speed and accuracy of response to five different altitude indicators. USAF WADC Tech. Rep. No. 54-236; 1957. The effect of motion relationship and rate of pointer movement on tracking performance USAF-WADC Tech. Rep. No. 57-533.
15. Gibbs, C.B. (1951). Transfer of training and skill assumptions in tracking tasks. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 99-110.
16. Graham, N.E. (1952). Manual tracking on a horizontal sale and in the four quadrants of a circular scale. British Journal of Psychology, 43, 70-77.
17. Hoffman, E.R. (1990a). Strength of component principles determining direction of turn stereotypes for horizontally moving displays. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, 34th Annual Meeting (pp. 457-461).
18. Hoffman, E.R. (1990b). Strength of component principles determining direction of turn stereotypes of three-dimensional display/control arrangements. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, 34th Annual Meeting (pp. 462-466).
19. Hoffman, E.R. (1997). Strength of component principles determining direction of turn stereotypes -linear displays with rotary controls. Ergonomics, 40, 199-222.
20. Hoffman, E.R, Mannering, S., & Schoner, S. (1992). Response time as a measure of compatibility of for linear displays with rotary controls. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, 36th Annual Meeting (pp. 1483-1487).
21. Holding, D.H. (1957). Direction-of-motion relationships between controls and displays moving in different planes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 41, 93-97.
22. Kroemer, K.H.E., Kroemer, H.B., & Kroemer-Elbert, K.E. (1994). Designing to fit body posture. In Ergonomics: How to Design for Ease and Efficiency (pp. 350-428). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prenctice Hall, Inc.
23. Loucks, R.B. (1949). An experimental study of the effectiveness with which novices can interpret a localiser-glidepath approach indicator. (USAF AMC Tech. Rep. No. 5959).
24. Loveless, N.E. (1959). The effect of the relative position of control and display upon their direction-of-motion relationship. Ergonomics, 2, 381-383
25. Loveless, N.E. (1962). Direction-of-motion stereotypes: A review. Ergonomics, 5, 357-383.
26. Morley, N.J., & Suffield, N.G. (1951). The effect of pointer position on the speed and accuracy of check reading groups of dials. (NMSU Rep. No. 46).
27. Murrell, K.F.M. (1965). Ergonomics: Man and his working environment. London: Chapman & Hall.
28. Norris, E.B., & Spragg, S.D.S. (1953). Performance on a following tracking task (modified SAM two-hand coordination test) as a function of the relations between direction of rotation of controls and direction of movement of display. Journal of Psychology, 35, 119-129.
29. Petropoulos, H., & Brebner, J. (1981). Stereotypes for direction-of-movement of rotary controls associated with linear displays: The effects of scale presence and position, of pointer direction, and distances between the control and the display. Ergonomics, 24, 143-151.
30. Pulat, B.M. (1992). Fundamentals of industrial ergonomics. In Selection and Design of Displays and Controls (pp. 235-277). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
31. Ross, S., Shepp, B.E., & Andrews, T.G. (1955). Response preferences in display-control relationships. Journal of Applied Psychology, 39, 425-428.
32. Small, A.M. (1955, April). Compatibility as a principle in multi-sensory displays. Paper presented at the Ergonomics Research Society Meeting.
33. Taylor, F.V., & Garvey, W.D. (1959). The limitations of a "Procrustean" approach to the optimization of man-machine systems. Ergonomics, 2, 187-194.
34. Thylen, J.O. (1966). The effect of initial pointer position relative to the control on directional relationships in the presence of two conflicting stereotypes. Ergonomics, 9, 469-474.
35. Vince, M.A. (1945). Direction of movement of machine controls. (F.P.R.C. Rep. No. 637; 1950, Learning and retention of an "unexpected" control-display relationship. MRC APU Rep. No. 125).
36. Vince, M.A. (1945). Direction of movement of machine controls. (F.P.R.C. Rep. No. 637; 1950, Learning and retention of an "unexpected" control-display relationship. MRC APU Rep. No. 125).
37. Vince, M.A., & Mitchell, M.J. H. (1946). Direction of movement of machine controls. (II. Min. of Supply Rep. No. SM 2861[S]).
38. Warrick, M.J. (1947). Direction of movement in the use of control knobs to position visual indicators. (USAF AMC Rep. No. 694-4C; 1948, Direction of motion stereotypes in positioning a visual indicator by use of a control knob. II. Results from a printed test. USAF AMC Rep. No. MCREXD-694-19A; 1949, Effects of motion relationships on speed of positioning visual indicators by rotary control knobs. USAF AMC Tech. Rep. No. 5812).
39. Warrick, M.J. (1947). Direction of movement in the use of control knobs to position visual indicators. (USAF AMC Rep. No. 694-4C; 1948, Direction of motion stereotypes in positioning a visual indicator by use of a control knob. II. Results from a printed test. USAF AMC Rep. No. MCREXD-694-19A; 1949, Effects of motion relationships on speed of positioning visual indicators by rotary control knobs. USAF AMC Tech. Rep. No. 5812).
40. Warrick, M.J. (1947). Direction of movement in the use of control knobs to position visual indicators. (USAF AMC Rep. No. 694-4C; 1948, Direction of motion stereotypes in positioning a visual indicator by use of a control knob. II. Results from a printed test. USAF AMC Rep. No. MCREXD-694-19A; 1949, Effects of motion relationships on speed of positioning visual indicators by rotary control knobs. USAF AMC Tech. Rep. No. 5812).
41. Warrick, M.J., & Grether, W.F. (1948). The effect of pointer alignment on the check reading of engineer instrument panels. (USAF AMC Memo. Rep. No. MCREXD-694-172).
42. White, W.J. (1951). The effect of pointer design and pointer alignment position on the speed and accuracy of reading groups of simulated engine instruments. (USAF WADC Tech. Rep. No. 6014).