1,721,865 research outputs found
Is utility in the mind of the beholder? A review of ergonomics methods
No full textThis paper reviews the use of ergonomics methods in the context of usability of consumer products. A review of the literature indicated that there is upward of 60 methods available to the ergonomist. The results of the survey indicated that questionnaires, interviews and observation are the most frequently reported methods used. Ease of use of the methods was dependent upon type of method used, presence of software support and type of training received. Strong links were found between questionnaires and interviews as a combined approach, as well as with HTA and observation. However, a questionnaire survey of professional ergonomists found that none of the respondents had any documented evidence of the reliability and validity of the methods they were using. A study of training people to use ergonomics' methods indicated the different requirements of the approaches, in terms of training time, application time and subjective preferences. An important goal for future research is to establish the reliability and validity of ergonomics methods
Seventh International Rail Human Factors Conference, 23-25 June 2021.
No full textThe Seventh International Rail Human Factors conference is taking place 23-25 June 2021. The aim of this conference is to bring together scientists, consultants, regulators, operators, infrastructure managers, manufacturers and suppliers to share rail human factors knowledge. The conference will focus on the discussion of topical issues such as in-cab signalling, traffic management, non-technical skills, the platform-train interface and safety culture. The last event in 2017 saw 220 delegates from over 25 countries come together to share state of the art Human Factors research.The conference is organised by UKRRIN founding members RSSB, Network Rail and the University of Nottingham, and in association with; European Rail Agency (ERA), International Union of Railways (UIC), Chartered Institute of Ergonomics and Human Factors (IEHF), Rail Accident Investigation Branch (RAIB) and East Japan Railway Company (JR East).Immerse yourself in three days of state-of-the-art human factors conference, bringing together researchers, regulators, operators, infrastructure managers, consultants, manufacturers and suppliers from across the globe
Driving blind: the effects of vision on driving safety and performance
No full textEyesight requirements for driver licensing in the UK need to be reviewed, suggests new research from Brunel University, sponsored by RSA. The number plate test, which only measures static visual acuity, does not correspond well to minimum requirements in EU legislation. More to the point, acuity itself is not necessarily a factor in driving performance. Other aspects of visual ability, such as field-of-view, should be taken into account, says the report.The study of 19 drivers in a driving simulator found that on the whole, steering andspeed control did not get worse when drivers were wearing specially constructed glasses to blur their vision. But drivers did stray off the road more often, and missed more road signs, even at the legal minimum levels of visual acuity. Drivers also found it more demanding when wearing the blurring glasses. Surprisingly, only just over two-thirds of the participants passed the number plate test at the legal minimum standard.These findings suggest on the one hand that the current requirements are not stringent enough, with some elements of driving risk increasing even though these drivers would meet the standard. But on the other hand, the report argues that other tests of eyesight might be more appropriate for driver licensing. The study adds to a considerable body of existing knowledge calling for more evidence-based visual screening tests for driver licensing.The reason for the confusion is that acuity is only one aspect of visual ability. In particular, field-of-view stands out as being especially related to driving performance. So the question may be asked as to why driver licensing regimes persist with tests of acuity to screen their drivers. In fact, moves are afoot to include tests of visual field as well as acuity in the driving test, and the current study supports such moves. Ultimately, though, the number plate test is popular because it is easy to administer – any alternative needs to be equally practical and reliable in screening the right drivers, while not disqualifying those who are capable.Meanwhile, the report also recommends that a review of other standards for road sign design should be considered. If drivers are meeting the legal requirements for visual acuity, but still cannot read road signs, it suggests that the legibility of these signs is inadequate. Other researchers have suggested that road signs are designed for higher levels of visual acuity than the legislative standard for driving. The current report calls for these standards to be harmonised, so that drivers passing the visual screening test can also read road signs
Young Mark Johnson
No full textPhotograph used for a story in the Daily Oklahoman newspaper. Caption: "YOUNG MARK JOHNSON of Henryetta goes to the two-handed system for a return during Wednesday's action in the Missouri Valley Junior tennis tournament.
Development of a railway safety research simulator
No full textIt is generally perceived that the rail industry, when compared to other transport domains, has lagged behind somewhat in its consideration of human factors. Since its inception, Railway Safety has allocated a significant portion of its research budget towards redressing this balance. As a result, there is now a growing portfolio of research into human factors, covering issues such as communications, train protection and control, risk assessment and reducing the frequency of signals passed at danger (SPADs)
The role of the human in future systems – considerations and concerns
No full textTechnological progress is an inexorable tide – the rise of ubiquitous computing purports to make our lives safer and more efficient. From automatic protection systems in aircraft to artificial intelligence in our washing machines, the aims of such developments are very much in line with those of ergonomics – to improve safety, efficiency, and satisfaction. Nevertheless, the ergonomics literature on automation holds a much more conservative view, and we have known for some time now that to simply try to automate the human out of the loop does not provide the solutions that engineers crave. In the best-selling book ‘Jurassic Park’ (Crichton, 1980), the mathematician character Ian Malcolm criticises scientists for focusing too much on whether they can do something without stopping to consider whether they should. The same criticism has been levelled at designers of automation by some of the most influential ergonomists working in this field (e.g., Parasuraman, 1987; Wiener and Curry, 1980). Whilst the principle of avoiding technology merely for its own sake remains valid, it is fair to say that the current view in ergonomics is somewhat more mature in trying to understand how humans and automation can work together safely and effectively. It would be foolish to think we could stem technological progress – nor would we want to, lest Ian Malcolm accuse us of the kind of narrow-minded thinking he refers to as ‘thintelligence’. Humans and technology can and indeed should work together, and technological progress should be exploited – but in the right way. This paper considers the future for the ‘ghost in the machine’, arguing for a philosophical approach to the design of automated systems which allows humans and technology to coexist in a truly dualist system
Smart driving aids and their effects on driving performance and driver distraction
Full text linkIn-vehicle information systems have been shown to increase driver workload and cause distraction; both of which are causal factors for accidents. This simulator study evaluates the impact that two designs for a smart driving aid, and scenario complexity have on workload, distraction and driving performance. Results showed that real-time delivery of smart driving information did not increase driver workload or adversely effect driver distraction, while having the effect of decreasing mean driving speed in both the simple and complex driving scenarios. Subjective workload was shown to increase with task difficulty, as well as revealing important differences between the two interface designs
- …
