Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Human interface design”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2020

Introduction to ISS Crew Displays

The International Space Station (ISS) began payload operations in earnest in 2000 with the arrival of the Expedition 1. To date, ISS has offered Principal Investigators (PIs) a reliable platform for microgravity research, having hosted thousands of onboard science experiments. Most of this research is supported by experiment hardware and software and many include a crew‐operated Graphical User Interface (GUI). The purpose of this article is to share information with PIs and Payload Developer (PD) teams about the processes, standards, and guidelines applicable to crew GUI design that must be complied with when planning payload software. The goal is not to enumerate all of the ISS display standards, but rather to highlight design guidelines and the ISS Program milestones for verification and approval of onboard crew displays.

Graphical User Interface↗
NASA NTRS1988

An intelligent interface for satellite operations: Your Orbit Determination Assistant (YODA)

An intelligent interface is often characterized by the ability to adapt evaluation criteria as the environment and user goals change. Some factors that impact these adaptations are redefinition of task goals and, hence, user requirements; time criticality; and system status. To implement adaptations affected by these factors, a new set of capabilities must be incorporated into the human-computer interface design. These capabilities include: (1) dynamic update and removal of control states based on user inputs, (2) generation and removal of logical dependencies as change occurs, (3) uniform and smooth interfacing to numerous processes, databases, and expert systems, and (4) unobtrusive on-line assistance to users of concepts were applied and incorporated into a human-computer interface using artificial intelligence techniques to create a prototype expert system, Your Orbit Determination Assistant (YODA). YODA is a smart interface that supports, in real teime, orbit analysts who must determine the location of a satellite during the station acquisition phase of a mission. Also described is the integration of four knowledge sources required to support the orbit determination assistant: orbital mechanics, spacecraft specifications, characteristics of the mission support software, and orbit analyst experience. This initial effort is continuing with expansion of YODA's capabilities, including evaluation of results of the orbit determination task.

Schur, Anne↗
NASA NTRS1991

Human factors issues in the design of user interfaces for planning and scheduling

The purpose is to provide and overview of human factors issues that impact the effectiveness of user interfaces to automated scheduling tools. The following methods are employed: (1) a survey of planning and scheduling tools; (2) the identification and analysis of human factors issues; (3) the development of design guidelines based on human factors literature; and (4) the generation of display concepts to illustrate guidelines.

Murphy, Elizabeth D.↗
NASA NTRS1992

A process for prototyping onboard payload displays for Space Station Freedom

Significant advances have been made in the area of Human-Computer Interface design. However, there is no well-defined process for going from user interface requirements to user interface design. Developing and designing a clear and consistent user interface for medium to large scale systems is a very challenging and complex task. The task becomes increasingly difficult when there is very little guidance and procedures on how the development process should flow from one stage to the next. Without a specific sequence of development steps each design becomes difficult to repeat, to evaluate, to improve, and to articulate to others. This research contributes a process which identifies the phases of development and products produced as a result of each phase for a rapid prototyping process to be used to develop requirements for the onboard payload displays for Space Station Freedom. The functional components of a dynamic prototyping environment in which this process can be carried out is also discussed. Some of the central questions which are answered here include: How does one go from specifications to an actual prototype? How is a prototype evaluated? How is usability defined and thus measured? How do we use the information from evaluation in redesign of an interface? and Are there techniques which allow for convergence on a design?

Moore, Loretta A.↗
NASA NTRS1993

Process and representation in graphical displays

Our initial model of graphic comprehension has focused on statistical graphs. Like other models of human-computer interaction, models of graphical comprehension can be used by human-computer interface designers and developers to create interfaces that present information in an efficient and usable manner. Our investigation of graph comprehension addresses two primary questions: how do people represent the information contained in a data graph?; and how do they process information from the graph? The topics of focus for graphic representation concern the features into which people decompose a graph and the representations of the graph in memory. The issue of processing can be further analyzed as two questions: what overall processing strategies do people use?; and what are the specific processing skills required?

Gillan, Douglas J.↗
NASA NTRS1993

Hand controller commonality evaluation process

Hand controller selection for NASA's Orbiter and Space Station Freedom is an important area of human-telerobot interface design and evaluation. These input devices will control remotely operated systems that include large crane-like manipulators (e.g., Remote Manipulator System or RMS), smaller, more dexterous manipulators (e.g., Flight Telerobotic Servicer or FTS), and free flyers (e.g., Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle or OMV). Candidate hand controller configurations for these systems vary in many ways: shape, size, number of degrees-of-freedom (DOF), operating modes, provision of force reflection, range of movement, and 'naturalness' of use. Unresolved design implementation issues remain, including such topics as how the current Orbiter RMS rotational and translational rate hand controllers compare with the proposed Space Station Freedom hand controllers, the advantages that position hand controllers offer for these applications, and whether separate hand controller configurations are required for each application. Since previous studies contain little empirical hand controller task performance data, a controlled study is needed that tests Space Station Freedom candidate hand controllers during representative tasks. This study also needs to include anthropometric and biomechanical considerations.

Stuart, Mark A.↗
NASA NTRS2014

The X-15 3-65 Accident: An Aircraft Systems and Flight Control Perspective

Despite the NASA X-15 program's outstanding success in developing and operating the first manned hypersonic research platform, the program suffered a fatal accident on November 15, 1967, when X-15-3, the only aircraft outfitted with advanced pilot displays and an adaptive flight control system, was lost after entering uncontrolled flight at an altitude of 230,000 feet and a velocity near Mach 5. The pilot, Major Michael J. Adams, was incapacitated by the aircraft accelerations and was killed either during the ensuing breakup or upon ground impact. In light of mitigating risk to current and emerging manned aerospace vehicles, a comprehensive systems level analysis of the accident is presented with a focus on the electrical power, flight control, and instrumentation failures that affected not only the vehicle dynamics but substantially impacted the pilot decisions that led to an inevitable loss of control. Insights based on reconstructed flight data as well as analysis and simulation of the X-15's unique adaptive control system, yield new conclusions about the reasons for the control systems anomalous behavior and the system-level interactions and human-machine interface design oversights that led to the accident.

Accident Investigation↗
NASA NTRS2013

Glove-Enabled Computer Operations (GECO): Design and Testing of an Extravehicular Activity Glove Adapted for Human-Computer Interface

The Glove-Enabled Computer Operations (GECO) system enables an extravehicular activity (EVA) glove to be dual-purposed as a human-computer interface device. This paper describes the design and human participant testing of a right-handed GECO glove in a pressurized glove box. As part of an investigation into the usability of the GECO system for EVA data entry, twenty participants were asked to complete activities including (1) a Simon Says Games in which they attempted to duplicate random sequences of targeted finger strikes and (2) a Text Entry activity in which they used the GECO glove to enter target phrases in two different virtual keyboard modes. In a within-subjects design, both activities were performed both with and without vibrotactile feedback. Participants mean accuracies in correctly generating finger strikes with the pressurized glove were surprisingly high, both with and without the benefit of tactile feedback. Five of the subjects achieved mean accuracies exceeding 99 in both conditions. In Text Entry, tactile feedback provided a statistically significant performance benefit, quantified by characters entered per minute, as well as reduction in error rate. Secondary analyses of responses to a NASA Task Loader Index (TLX) subjective workload assessments reveal a benefit for tactile feedback in GECO glove use for data entry. This first-ever investigation of employment of a pressurized EVA glove for human-computer interface opens up a wide range of future applications, including text chat communications, manipulation of procedureschecklists, cataloguingannotating images, scientific note taking, human-robot interaction, and control of suit andor other EVA systems.

Adams, Richard J.↗
NASA NTRS2013

Glove-Enabled Computer Operations (GECO): Design and Testing of an Extravehicular Activity Glove Adapted for Human-Computer Interface

The Glove-Enabled Computer Operations (GECO) system enables an extravehicular activity (EVA) glove to be dual-purposed as a human-computer interface device. This paper describes the design and human participant testing of a right-handed GECO glove in a pressurized glove box. As part of an investigation into the usability of the GECO system for EVA data entry, twenty participants were asked to complete activities including (1) a Simon Says Games in which they attempted to duplicate random sequences of targeted finger strikes and (2) a Text Entry activity in which they used the GECO glove to enter target phrases in two different virtual keyboard modes. In a within-subjects design, both activities were performed both with and without vibrotactile feedback. Participants' mean accuracies in correctly generating finger strikes with the pressurized glove were surprisingly high, both with and without the benefit of tactile feedback. Five of the subjects achieved mean accuracies exceeding 99% in both conditions. In Text Entry, tactile feedback provided a statistically significant performance benefit, quantified by characters entered per minute, as well as reduction in error rate. Secondary analyses of responses to a NASA Task Loader Index (TLX) subjective workload assessments reveal a benefit for tactile feedback in GECO glove use for data entry. This first-ever investigation of employment of a pressurized EVA glove for human-computer interface opens up a wide range of future applications, including text "chat" communications, manipulation of procedures/checklists, cataloguing/annotating images, scientific note taking, human-robot interaction, and control of suit and/or other EVA systems.

Adams, Richard J.↗
NASA NTRS2010

Excavator Design Validation

The Excavator Design Validation tool verifies excavator designs by automatically generating control systems and modeling their performance in an accurate simulation of their expected environment. Part of this software design includes interfacing with human operations that can be included in simulation-based studies and validation. This is essential for assessing productivity, versatility, and reliability. This software combines automatic control system generation from CAD (computer-aided design) models, rapid validation of complex mechanism designs, and detailed models of the environment including soil, dust, temperature, remote supervision, and communication latency to create a system of high value. Unique algorithms have been created for controlling and simulating complex robotic mechanisms automatically from just a CAD description. These algorithms are implemented as a commercial cross-platform C++ software toolkit that is configurable using the Extensible Markup Language (XML). The algorithms work with virtually any mobile robotic mechanisms using module descriptions that adhere to the XML standard. In addition, high-fidelity, real-time physics-based simulation algorithms have also been developed that include models of internal forces and the forces produced when a mechanism interacts with the outside world. This capability is combined with an innovative organization for simulation algorithms, new regolith simulation methods, and a unique control and study architecture to make powerful tools with the potential to transform the way NASA verifies and compares excavator designs. Energid's Actin software has been leveraged for this design validation. The architecture includes parametric and Monte Carlo studies tailored for validation of excavator designs and their control by remote human operators. It also includes the ability to interface with third-party software and human-input devices. Two types of simulation models have been adapted: high-fidelity discrete element models and fast analytical models. By using the first to establish parameters for the second, a system has been created that can be executed in real time, or faster than real time, on a desktop PC. This allows Monte Carlo simulations to be performed on a computer platform available to all researchers, and it allows human interaction to be included in a real-time simulation process. Metrics on excavator performance are established that work with the simulation architecture. Both static and dynamic metrics are included.

Pholsiri, Chalongrath↗
NASA NTRS1999

Human Engineering Operations and Habitability Assessment: A Process for Advanced Life Support Ground Facility Testbeds

Design and Human Engineering (HE) processes strive to ensure that the human-machine interface is designed for optimal performance throughout the system life cycle. Each component can be tested and assessed independently to assure optimal performance, but it is not until full integration that the system and the inherent interactions between the system components can be assessed as a whole. HE processes (which are defining/app lying requirements for human interaction with missions/systems) are included in space flight activities, but also need to be included in ground activities and specifically, ground facility testbeds such as Bio-Plex. A unique aspect of the Bio-Plex Facility is the integral issue of Habitability which includes qualities of the environment that allow humans to work and live. HE is a process by which Habitability and system performance can be assessed.

Connolly, Janis H.↗
NASA NTRS2017

ATM Technology Demonstration-1 Phase II Boeing Configurable Graphical Display (CGD) Software Design Description

This Software Description Document (SDD) captures the design for developing the Flight Interval Management (FIM) system Configurable Graphics Display (CGD) software. Specifically this SDD describes aspects of the Boeing CGD software and the surrounding context and interfaces. It does not describe the Honeywell components of the CGD system. The SDD provides the system overview, architectural design, and detailed design with all the necessary information to implement the Boeing components of the CGD software and integrate them into the CGD subsystem within the larger FIM system. Overall system and CGD system-level requirements are derived from the CGD SRS (in turn derived from the Boeing System Requirements Design Document (SRDD)). Display and look-and-feel requirements are derived from Human Machine Interface (HMI) design documents and working group recommendations. This Boeing CGD SDD is required to support the upcoming Critical Design Review (CDR).

Wilber, George F.↗
NASA NTRS1988

The design of an intelligent human-computer interface for the test, control and monitor system

The graphical intelligence and assistance capabilities of a human-computer interface for the Test, Control, and Monitor System at Kennedy Space Center are explored. The report focuses on how a particular commercial off-the-shelf graphical software package, Data Views, can be used to produce tools that build widgets such as menus, text panels, graphs, icons, windows, and ultimately complete interfaces for monitoring data from an application; controlling an application by providing input data to it; and testing an application by both monitoring and controlling it. A complete set of tools for building interfaces is described in a manual for the TCMS toolkit. Simple tools create primitive widgets such as lines, rectangles and text strings. Intermediate level tools create pictographs from primitive widgets, and connect processes to either text strings or pictographs. Other tools create input objects; Data Views supports output objects directly, thus output objects are not considered. Finally, a set of utilities for executing, monitoring use, editing, and displaying the content of interfaces is included in the toolkit.

Shoaff, William D.↗
NASA NTRS2017

Human Reliability Assessments: Using the Past (Shuttle) to Predict the Future (ORION)

NASA uses two HRA assessment methodologies. The first is a simplified method which is based on how much time is available to complete the action, with consideration included for environmental and personal factors that could influence the human's reliability. This method is expected to provide a conservative value or placeholder as a preliminary estimate. This preliminary estimate is used to determine which placeholder needs a more detailed assessment. The second methodology is used to develop a more detailed human reliability assessment on the performance of critical human actions. This assessment needs to consider more than the time available, this would include factors such as: the importance of the action, the context, environmental factors, potential human stresses, previous experience, training, physical design interfaces, available procedures/checklists and internal human stresses. The more detailed assessment is still expected to be more realistic than that based primarily on time available. When performing an HRA on a system or process that has an operational history, we have information specific to the task based on this history and experience. In the case of a PRA model that is based on a new design and has no operational history, providing a "reasonable" assessment of potential crew actions becomes more problematic. In order to determine what is expected of future operational parameters, the experience from individuals who had relevant experience and were familiar with the system and process previously implemented by NASA was used to provide the "best" available data. Personnel from Flight Operations, Flight Directors, Launch Test Directors, Control Room Console Operators and Astronauts were all interviewed to provide a comprehensive picture of previous NASA operations. Verification of the assumptions and expectations expressed in the assessments will be needed when the procedures, flight rules and operational requirements are developed and then finalized.

DeMott, Diana L.↗
NASA NTRS2016

Human Reliability Assessments: Using the Past (Shuttle) to Predict the Future (Orion)

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) Johnson Space Center (JSC) Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) uses two human reliability analysis (HRA) methodologies. The first is a simplified method which is based on how much time is available to complete the action, with consideration included for environmental and personal factors that could influence the human's reliability. This method is expected to provide a conservative value or placeholder as a preliminary estimate. This preliminary estimate or screening value is used to determine which placeholder needs a more detailed assessment. The second methodology is used to develop a more detailed human reliability assessment on the performance of critical human actions. This assessment needs to consider more than the time available, this would include factors such as: the importance of the action, the context, environmental factors, potential human stresses, previous experience, training, physical design interfaces, available procedures/checklists and internal human stresses. The more detailed assessment is expected to be more realistic than that based primarily on time available. When performing an HRA on a system or process that has an operational history, we have information specific to the task based on this history and experience. In the case of a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) that is based on a new design and has no operational history, providing a "reasonable" assessment of potential crew actions becomes more challenging. In order to determine what is expected of future operational parameters, the experience from individuals who had relevant experience and were familiar with the system and process previously implemented by NASA was used to provide the "best" available data. Personnel from Flight Operations, Flight Directors, Launch Test Directors, Control Room Console Operators and Astronauts were all interviewed to provide a comprehensive picture of previous NASA operations. Verification of the assumptions and expectations expressed in the assessments will be needed when the procedures, flight rules and operational requirements are developed and then finalized.

DeMott, Diana↗
NASA NTRS2017

Human Reliability Assessments: Using the Past (Shuttle) to Predict the Future (Orion)

NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) Johnson Space Center (JSC) Safety and Mission Assurance (S&MA) uses two human reliability analysis (HRA) methodologies. The first is a simplified method which is based on how much time is available to complete the action, with consideration included for environmental and personal factors that could influence the human's reliability. This method is expected to provide a conservative value or placeholder as a preliminary estimate. This preliminary estimate or screening value is used to determine which placeholder needs a more detailed assessment. The second methodology is used to develop a more detailed human reliability assessment on the performance of critical human actions. This assessment needs to consider more than the time available, this would include factors such as: the importance of the action, the context, environmental factors, potential human stresses, previous experience, training, physical design interfaces, available procedures/checklists and internal human stresses. The more detailed assessment is expected to be more realistic than that based primarily on time available. When performing an HRA on a system or process that has an operational history, we have information specific to the task based on this history and experience. In the case of a Probabilistic Risk Assessment (PRA) that is based on a new design and has no operational history, providing a "reasonable" assessment of potential crew actions becomes more challenging. To determine what is expected of future operational parameters, the experience from individuals who had relevant experience and were familiar with the system and process previously implemented by NASA was used to provide the "best" available data. Personnel from Flight Operations, Flight Directors, Launch Test Directors, Control Room Console Operators, and Astronauts were all interviewed to provide a comprehensive picture of previous NASA operations. Verification of the assumptions and expectations expressed in the assessments will be needed when the procedures, flight rules, and operational requirements are developed and then finalized.

DeMott, Diana L.↗
NASA NTRS1998

A Distributed Simulation Facility to Support Human Factors Research in Advanced Air Transportation Technology

A distributed real-time simulation of the civil air traffic environment developed to support human factors research in advanced air transportation technology is presented. The distributed environment is based on a custom simulation architecture designed for simplicity and flexibility in human experiments. Standard Internet protocols are used to create the distributed environment, linking all advanced cockpit simulator, all Air Traffic Control simulator, and a pseudo-aircraft control and simulation management station. The pseudo-aircraft control station also functions as a scenario design tool for coordinating human factors experiments. This station incorporates a pseudo-pilot interface designed to reduce workload for human operators piloting multiple aircraft simultaneously in real time. The application of this distributed simulation facility to support a study of the effect of shared information (via air-ground datalink) on pilot/controller shared situation awareness and re-route negotiation is also presented.

Amonlirdviman, Keith↗
NASA NTRS1994

NASA's Man-Systems Integration Standards: A Human Factors Engineering Standard for Everyone in the Nineties

During the second half of the 1980s, a document was created by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to aid in the application of good human factors engineering and human interface practices to the design and development of hardware and systems for use in all United States manned space flight programs. This comprehensive document, known as NASA-STD-3000, the Man-Systems Integration Standards (MSIS), attempts to address, from a human factors engineering/human interface standpoint, all of the various types of equipment with which manned space flight crew members must deal. Basically, all of the human interface situations addressed in the MSIS are present in terrestrially based systems also. The premise of this paper is that, starting with this already created standard, comprehensive documents addressing human factors engineering and human interface concerns could be developed to aid in the design of almost any type of equipment or system which humans interface with in any terrestrial environment. Utilizing the systems and processes currently in place in the MSIS Development Facility at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, TX, any number of MSIS volumes addressing the human factors / human interface needs of any terrestrially based (or, for that matter, airborne) system could be created.

Cletis R. Booher↗