Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Languages: English
Types: Unknown
Many interactional issues with Flight Management Systems (FMS) in modern flight decks have been reported. Avionics designers are seeking for ways to reduce cognitive load of pilots with the aim to reduce the potential for human error. Academic research showed that touch screen interfaces reduce cognitive effort and provide an intuitive way of interaction. A new way of interaction to manipulate radio frequencies of avionics systems is presented in this paper. A usability experiment simulating departures and approaches to airports was used to evaluate the interface and compare it with the current system (FMS). In addition, interviews with pilots were conducted to find out their personal impressions and to reveal problem areas of the interface. Analyses of task completion time and error rates showed that the touch interface is significantly faster and less prone to user input errors than the conventional input method (via physical or virtual keypad). Potential problem areas were identified and an improved interface is suggested.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • [1] J. C. Knight, “Safety critical systems: challenges and directions,” Proc. 24th Int. Conf. Softw. Eng. (ICSE, 2002), pp. 547-550, 2002.
    • [2] Civil Aviation Authority, “CAP 780 - Aviation safety review,” 2008.
    • [3] P.-A. Albinsson and S. Zhai, “High precision touch screen interaction,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '03, 2003, p. 105.
    • [4] D. Jones, “Three input concepts crew interaction presented electronic for flight with information on a large-screen cockpit display,” 1990.
    • [5] N. A. Stanton, C. Harvey, K. L. Plant, and L. Bolton, “To twist, roll, stroke or poke? A study of input devices for menu navigation in the cockpit.,” Ergonomics, vol. 56, no. 4, pp. 590-611, 2013.
    • [6] J. M. Noyes and A. F. Starr, “A comparison of speech input and touch screen for executing checklists in an avionics application,” Int. J. Aviat. Psychol., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 299-315, Jun. 2007.
    • [7] A. Sears, “Improving touchscreen keyboards: design issues and a comparison with other devices,” Interact. Comput., vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 253-269, Dec. 1991.
    • [8] M. Schedlbauer, “Effects of key size and spacing on the completion time and accuracy of input tasks on soft keypads using trackball and touch input,” Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet., vol. 51, no. 5, pp. 429-433, Oct. 2007.
    • [9] S. Lee and S. Zhai, “The performance of touch screen soft buttons,” in Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI 09, 2009, p. 309.
    • [10] D. Natapov, S. J. Castellucci, and I. S. MacKenzie, ISO 9241-9 evaluation of video game controllers. Canadian Information Processing Society, 2009.
    • [11] International Standard Organisation, “ISO 9241-9 Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals,” 2007.
    • [12] L. Findlater, J. E. Froehlich, K. Fattal, J. O. Wobbrock, and T. Dastyar, “Age-related differences in performance with touchscreens compared to traditional mouse input,” in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '13, 2013, pp. 343-347.
    • [13] T. Baldus and P. Patterson, “Usability of pointing devices for office applications in a moving off-road environment,” Applied Ergonomics, vol. 39, no. 6. pp. 671-677, 2008.
    • [14] T. C. Hong, N. A. Kuan, T. K. Kiang, and S. K. T. John, “Evaluation of Input Devices for Pointing, Dragging and Text Entry Tasks On A Tracked Vehicle,” Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Annu. Meet., vol. 55, no. 1, pp. 2078-2082, Sep. 2011.
    • [15] H. Avsar, J. Fischer, and T. Rodden, “Mixed method approach in designing flight decks with touchscreens: A framework,” in 2016 IEEE/AIAA 35th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), 2016.
    • [16] H. Avsar, J. Fischer, and T. Rodden, “Target size guidelines for interactive displays on the flight deck,” in 2015 IEEE/AIAA 34th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), 2015, pp. 3C4-1-3C4-15.
    • [17] H. Avsar, J. Fischer, and T. Rodden, “Designing touch-enabled electronic flight bags in sar helicopter operations,” in International Conference on Human Computer Interaction in Aerospace: HCI-Aero, 2016.
    • [18] H. Avsar, J. Fischer, and T. Rodden, “Physical and environmental considerations for touchscreen integration on the flight deck,” Unpublished, 2016.
    • [19] H. De Ree and G. Blok, “Font to use in cockpit documentation,” in 7th International symposium --- 1993 Apr: Columbus; OH, 1993, vol. 7, pp. 115-118.
    • [20] A. Degani, “On the typography of flight-deck documentation,” p. 40, 1992.
    • [21] D. Harris, Human factors for civil flight deck design. Gower Publishing, Ltd., 2004.
    • [22] Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), “AC 25-11B - Electronic flight displays,” 2014.
    • [23] S. Wiedenbeck, “The use of icons and labels in an end user application program: An empirical study of learning and retention,” Behav. Inf. Technol., vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 68-82, Jan. 1999.
    • [24] R. N. Shepard, “Recognition memory for words, sentences, and pictures,” J. Verbal Learning Verbal Behav., vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 156-163, 1967.
    • [25] W. Horton, “The icon book: visual symbols for computer systems and documentation,” New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1994. .
    • [26] M. E. Familant and M. C. Detweiler, “Iconic reference: evolving perspectives and an organizing framework,” Int. J. Man. Mach. Stud., vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 705-728, Nov. 1993.
    • [27] D. Norman, The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books, 1988.
    • [28] J. Nielsen and T. K. Landauer, A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. IOS Press, 1993.
    • [29] Hamblin C, “Electronic Flight Bags (EFBs) with small screens significantly increase information retrieval times,” in Proceedings of 12th International Symposium on Aviation Psychology, 2003, pp. 463- 468.
    • [30] I. S. MacKenzie, A. Sellen, and W. a S. Buxton, “A comparison of input devices in element pointing and dragging tasks,” Proc. SIGCHI Conf. Hum. factors Comput. Syst. Reach. through Technol., no. 1978, pp. 161- 166, 1991.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Cite this article