NASA NTRS1998
This grant funded research on human-computer interaction design and analysis techniques, using future ATC environments as a testbed. The basic approach was to model the nominal behavior of both the automated and human procedures and then to apply safety analysis techniques to these models. Our previous modeling language, RSML, had been used to specify the system requirements for TCAS II for the FAA. Using the lessons learned from this experience, we designed a new modeling language that (among other things) incorporates features to assist in designing less error-prone human-computer interactions and interfaces and in detecting potential HCI problems, such as mode confusion. The new language, SpecTRM-RL, uses "intent" abstractions, based on Rasmussen's abstraction hierarchy, and includes both informal (English and graphical) specifications and formal, executable models for specifying various aspects of the system. One of the goals for our language was to highlight the system modes and mode changes to assist in identifying the potential for mode confusion. Three published papers resulted from this research. The first builds on the work of Degani on mode confusion to identify aspects of the system design that could lead to potential hazards. We defined and modeled modes differently than Degani and also defined design criteria for SpecTRM-RL models. Our design criteria include the Degani criteria but extend them to include more potential problems. In a second paper, Leveson and Palmer showed how the criteria for indirect mode transitions could be applied to a mode confusion problem found in several ASRS reports for the MD-88. In addition, we defined a visual task modeling language that can be used by system designers to model human-computer interaction. The visual models can be translated into SpecTRM-RL models, and then the SpecTRM-RL suite of analysis tools can be used to perform formal and informal safety analyses on the task model in isolation or integrated with the rest of the modeled system. We had hoped to be able to apply these modeling languages and analysis tools to a TAP air/ground trajectory negotiation scenario, but the development of the tools took more time than we anticipated.