An empirical evaluation of textual display configurations for supervisory tasks

Behaviour and Information Technology

Volumn 23, Issue 4, 2004, Pages 225-235

  Parush, Avi ^a  

^a CARLETON UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONTEXT SENSITIVE LANGUAGES; INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY; REAL TIME SYSTEMS;

CONTEXT-SENSITIVITY; EVENT-BASED SUPERVISORY TASKS; PERFORMANCE INDICES; SUPERVISORY TASKS;

GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACES;

EID: 3042565852     PISSN: 0144929X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/01449290410001682234     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. BRANN, M. D., THURMAN, D. A. and MITCHELL, C. M. 1996, Human interaction with Lights-out automation: A field study. Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Symposium on Human Interaction with Complex Systems. Dayton, OH, 276-283.
2. BURNS, M. J., WARREN, D. L. and RUDISILL, M. 1986, Formatting space-related displays to optimize expert and non-expert user performance. Proceedings of CHI'86 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM, NY.
3. CALLAN, J. R., CURRAN, L. E. and LANE, J. L. 1977, Visual search times for navy tactical information displays (Rep. No. NPRDC-TR-77-32). San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center (NTIS No. AD A040543).
4. COMBER, T. and MALTBY, J. R. 1997, Layout complexity: Does it measure usability? Proceedings of Interact '97 Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 623-626.
5. COURY, B. G. and BOULETTE, M. D. 1992, Time stress and the processing of visual displays. Human Factors, 34(6), 707-725.
6. DODSON, D. W. and SHEILDS, N. L. Jr. 1978, Development of user guidelines for ECAS display design (Vol. 1) (Report No. NASA-CR-150877). (Huntsville, AL: Essex Corp.).
7. DUCHNICKY, R. L. and KOLERS, P. A. 1983, Readability of text scrolled on visual display terminals as a function of window size. Human Factors, 25, 683-692.
8. DUNKLER, O., MITCHELL, C. M., GOVINDARAJ, T. and AMMONS, J. C. 1988, The effectiveness of supervisory control strategies in scheduling flexible manufacturing systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-18, 223-237.
9. GALITZ, W. O. 1997, The essential guide to user interface design (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc).
10. HAAS, M. W. and REPPERGER, D. W. 1998, Automated adaptive control of display characteristics within future air force crew stations. Proceedings of the American Control Conference, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, June, pp. 450-452.
11. HESS, S. M., RAY, W. J. and GOLDBERG, J. H. in press, Driving system adaptation: Disambiguating non-invasive physiological measures with cognitive task analysis. In L. Hettinger and M. Haas (eds) Psychological Issues in the Design and Use of Adaptive Virtual Interfaces (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).
12. KERR, B. 1973, Processing demands during mental operations. Memory and Cognition, 1, 401-412.
13. MITCHELL, C. M. and SAISI, D. L. 1987, Use of model-based qualitative icons and adaptive windows in workstations for supervisory control systems. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 27, 573-643.
14. MILLS, C. B. and WELDON, L. J. 1987, Reading text from computer screens. ACM Computing Surveys, 19(4), 329-358.
15. MORAY, N., LEE, J. and VINCENTE, K. J. 1994, A direct perception interface for nuclear power plants. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 36th Annual Meeting, USA, 1464-1468.
16. NORMAN, K. L., WELDON, L. J. and SHNEIDERMAN, B. 1986, Cognitive layouts of windows and multiple screens for user interfaces. International Journal of Man Machine Studies, 25(2), 229-248.
17. PARUSH, A., NADIR, R. and SHTUB, A. 1998, Evaluating the layout of graphical user interface screens: Validation of a numerical, computerized model. International Journal of human Computer Interaction, 10(4), 343-360.
18. STAGGERS, N. 1993, Impact of screen density on clinical nurses' computer task performance and subjective screen satisfaction. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 39, 775-792.
19. STEVELER, D. J. and WASSERMAN, A. I. 1984, Quantitative measures of the spatial properties of screen designs. Proceedings of INTERACT '84 Conference on Human Computer Interaction, London, England.
20. THRONESBERY, C. and MALIN, J. 1998, Field guide for designing interaction with intelligent systems. NASA Technical Memorandum, NASA TM-1998-208470.
21. THRONESBERY, C. and SCHRECKENGHOST, D. L. 1998, Human interaction challenges for intelligent environmental control software. Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Environmental Systems. Danvers, MA.
22. THRONESBERY, C., CHRISTOFFERSEN, K. and MALIN, J. 1999, Situation-oriented displays of space shuttle data. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 43rd Annual Meeting, USA, 284-288.
23. TREISMAN, A. 1982, Perceptual grouping and attention in visual search for features and for objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 194-214.
24. TULLIS, T. S. 1981, An evaluation of alphanumeric, graphic and color information displays. Human Factors, 23, 541-550.
25. TULLIS, T. 1988, A system for evaluating screen formats: Research and application. In H. R. Hratson and D. Hix (eds) Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, Volume 2, (Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing).
26. TULLIS, T. S. 1997, Screen design. In M. Helander, T. K. Landauer and P. Prabhu (eds) Handbook of Human Computer Interaction, 2nd edn, (Amsterdam: Elsevier).