Human–Machine Interaction: Usability and User Needs of the System

Introduction

Recognition of the importance of designing equipment and systems with the user in mind can be traced back many centuries (Marmaras, Poulakakis & Papakostopoulos, 1999). Indeed, common measuring terms such as the ‘foot’ or the ‘hand’ confirm the view that those who designed and created new environments and facilities in the past also realised that they were doing so for the benefit of people who were to use them. Furthermore, even the most cursory glance at relatively ancient weaponry, buildings and so on, illustrates that the designers took cognisance of the anthropometric and biomechanic characteristics of their potential users (albeit probably through a process of ‘creeping evolution’ rather than ‘tailored design’).

Oborne (1995) has traced the development of more modern person-machine interaction philosophies back to the early days of the last century (and perhaps even earlier), when modern warfare required people (fighting personnel and workers in support industries) to operate at cognitive, emotional, and physical levels that had not previously been needed. New physical environments, in the air, under water, in dark and/or noisy conditions, leading to outcomes such as fear, fatigue, and even physical/emotional breakdown, necessitated careful analyses of the physical environment to ensure that the system did not require more than the operator was able to ‘give’.

The philosophies supporting such understanding have changed considerably over the years, as the nature of the systems to be accommodated by users [Page 337]has also changed. During and just after the First World War the primary concern dealt with fatigue and the relationship between the physical environment and the worker, and its impact on the worker's ability actually to perform novel physical tasks (many of which were allied to fighting tasks). Concerns about fatigue and health led, in 1915, to the establishment of the Health of Munitions Workers' Committee that comprised a multidisciplinary team (including physiologists and psychologists) to evaluate the impact of the (poor) physical environment on health and efficiency. Following the conclusion of the war, this Committee was reconstituted as the Industrial Fatigue Research Board (IFRB) to carry out research into fatigue problems in industry. Finally, in 1929 it was renamed the Industrial Health Research Board (IHRB) and its scope broadened to investigate general conditions of industrial employment and the concept of ‘industrial efficiency’ was included in its remit.

...