Informing Design of a Command and Control Decision Support Interface through an Abstraction Hierarchy

Abstract

The abstraction hierarchy can be used as a work domain analysis tool that provides a structured representation of a physical system under human supervisory control, and it aids in understanding complex human-machine interactions. The means-end relationships represented in the abstraction hierarchy provides a framework for highlighting areas that require knowledge-based reasoning through mapping processes and functions. These same abstract mappings can provide tangible insight into interface design relationships. We provide an example of using the abstraction hierarchy for this purpose in the development of a decision support tool for a military command and control interface. Allowing the abstraction hierarchy to inform interface design provides both an abstract and physical representation of system functional properties, which is especially critical in conceptualizing and designing an interface for a complex, time-pressured command and control domain.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bisantz

A. M.

Vicente

K. J.

(1994). Making the abstraction hierarchy concrete. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40, 83–117.

Chalmers

B. A.

Easter

J. R.

Potter

S. S.

(2000). Decision-Centred Visualisations for Tactical Decision Support on a Modern Frigate. Paper presented at the Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium, Monterey, CA.

Chin

Sanderson

Watson

(1999). Cognitive Work Analysis of the Command and Control Work Domain. Paper presented at the Command and Control Research and Technology Symposium.

Cummings

M. L.

(2003). Designing Decision Support Systems for Revolutionary Command and Control Domains. Unpublished dissertation. University of Virginia, Charlottesville.

Cummings

M. L.

Guerlain

(2004). Using a Chat Interface as an Embedded Secondary Tasking Tool. Paper presented at the Human Performance, Situation Awareness and Automation Technology II Conference, Daytona Beach, FL.

Lintern

Waite

Talleur

D. A.

(1999). Functional Interface Design for the Modern Aircraft Cockpit. International Journal of Aviation Psychology, 9(3), 225–240.

Naikar

Lintern

Sanderson

(2002). Cognitive Work Analysis for Air Defense Applications in Australia. In McNeese

Vidulich

M. A.

(Eds.), Cognitive Systems Engineering in Military Aviation Environments: Avoiding Cogminutia Fragmentosa!: A report produced under the auspices of The Technical Cooperation Programme Technical Panel HUM TP-7 Human Factors in Aircraft Environments (HSIAC-SAOR-2002-01) (pp. 169–200). Wright Patterson Air Force Base: Human Systems Information Analysis Center.

Rasmussen

(1983). Skills, rules, and knowledge; signals, signs, and symbols, and other distinctions in human performance models. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-13, 257–266.

Rasmussen

(1986). Information Processing and Human-Machine Interaction. New York: North-Holland.

10.

Rasmussen

(1998). Ecological Interface Design For Complex Systems: An Example: SEAD UAV Systems. Wright-Patterson AFB: United States Air Force Research Laboratory.

11.

Rasmussen

Pejtersen

A. M.

Goodstein

L. P.

(1994). Cognitive Systems Engineering. New York: J. Wiley.

12.

Sheridan

T. B.

(1992). Telerobotics, automation, and human supervisory control. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

13.

Shneiderman

(1998). Designing the User-Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction (3rd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley Longman.

14.

Vicente

Rasmussen

(1992). Ecological interface design: Theoretical foundations. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, 22, 589–606.

15.

Wickens

C. D.

Carswell

C. M.

(1995). The Proximity Compatibility Principle: Its Psychological Foundation and Relevance to Display Design. Human Factors, 37(3), 473–494.