Designing documents for train operators

123Designing documents for train operatorsInformation Design Journal + Document Design 11(2 /3), 123–137

© 2002/2003 John Benjamins Publishing Company

Silvia Torsi, Antonio Rizzo, Simone Pozzi and Luca Save

Designing documents for train operators

A contribution to graphic design from cultural psychology

Keywords: user-centered design, cultural-historical

psychology, document design heuristics

This paper addresses the issue of redesigning a train list.

The train list is a paper document of few pages that

provides train operators of the Italian railway company

with basic information about the features of the railway

line they are moving along, the means of traction and

engine characteristics.

Methodologies borrowed from the ªelds of document

design and human–computer interaction were applied to

the analysis, redesign, and evaluation of a new train list

following a ªrst prototype developed by the railway

company.

In all phases (analysis, redesign, evaluation) the study

was guided by the theoretical framework of cultural-

historical psychology, according to which artifacts histori-

cally shaped by human practice always mediate human

cognition. The results of the evaluation provide empirical

evidence to support the added value of combining docu-

ment design techniques with the heuristic role of the

historical analysis of an artifact, especially in a safety-

critical context, so as to properly improve tools and

instruments used in human activity and thus reduce the

risk of breakdowns.

Introduction

The train list is a paper document of few pages that provides

the train operators of the Italian railway company with

basic information about the features of the railway line that

they are moving along, the means of traction and engine

characteristics. Using the train list, the train operator can

plan and carry out driving activities while considering the

physical characteristics of the train, safety-related inform-

ation, the kind of signaling that will be encountered along

the line and a detailed timetable containing the arrival time

at each station. The train list is often used under adverse

legibility conditions due to time/space constraints, and

therefore easy access and high levels of comprehensibility

of information are crucially important.

The analysis and evaluation of the train list was begun

by applying the principles and heuristics of document

design (Schriver, 1997; Tufte, 1997) to the prototype of a

new version of the train list proposed by the railway com-

pany. Subsequently, the actual use of the current train list

was investigated by two focus groups consisting of ªnal

users. A scenario-based approach was adopted to explore

diŸerent modalities of the use of the train list and its

contextual strengths and weaknesses (Carroll, 1995;

Bannon and Bødker, 1991). Then during focus group

sessions, users were asked to suggest possible improve-

ments to the train list. The analysis of the use of the train

list provided signiªcant data for the subsequent phase,

124 Silvia Torsi, Antonio Rizzo, Simone Pozzi and Luca Save

redesigning the train list. It is important to state that while

the users proposed a number of contentive modiªcations,

our assignment from the railway company was only to

improve the graphic aspects of the new prototype, which

already contained more information than the existing

train list. Our contribution was therefore restricted to the

organization of the information contained in the train list.

The data collected during the ªrst two phases were

used to produce a number of redesign options. As the

ªnal stage in the process, the prototypes were tested by 47

users who were asked to select them iteratively using a

‘tournament’ system (see the section on Testing ).

All phases of this study combined document design

with a user-centered design methodology. Moreover, a

cognitive science perspective based on cultural-historical

psychology provided us with the theoretical framework

that guided the planning of the research and the interpre-

tation of the results.

In what follows, we ªrst sketch the theoretical cul-

tural-historical framework, after which we present: 1. the

train list prototype proposed by the railway company, 2.

the analysis of the train list conducted according to

Schriver’s heuristics of document design, 3. the results of

the focus group meetings with the train operators, and 4.

the design of the new prototypes and their testing. In our

conclusion we discuss the potential implications of this

study for the ªeld of document design.

Theoretical framework

Recent developments within Cognitive Science (Hutchins,

1995; Zhang and Norman, 1994; Norman, 1993) have

provided empirical support to the long-standing thesis

that human cognition is mediated by artifacts (rules, tools,

models, representations) both internal and external to the

mind (Cole, 1996). The concept of the mediating role of

artifacts was originally put forward in the cultural-histori-

cal approach developed by Vygotsky at the beginning of the

last century (Vygotsky, 1978). One of the central tenets of

Vygotsky’s approach, named the law of cultural develop-

ment, is that higher mental processes can be understood

only if we understand the tools that mediate them. On the

one hand, artifacts mediate the modiªcation of higher

psychological processes: ontogenetic psychological devel-

opment is not only due to biological maturation and

interaction with the ‘natural’ world, but also occurs

through interaction with external informational structures

embodied in the material tools and symbolic systems

developed within a given culture (e.g., language, math,

mental schemata). On the other hand, the production,

modiªcation, and evolution of tools and symbolic struc-

tures are continuous processes that shape the environment

where ontogenetic psychological development occurs.

An important class of tools, named secondary artifacts

by Wartofsky (1973), are representations. Wartofsky

proposed a distinction between primary and secondary

artifacts ‘(...) what constitutes a distinctively human form

of action is the creation and use of artifacts, as tools, in the

production of the means of existence and in the reproduc-

tion of the species. Primary artifacts are those directly used

in this production; secondary artifacts are those used in the

preservation and transmission of the acquired skills or

modes of action or praxis by which this production is

carried out. Secondary artifacts are therefore representa-

tions of such modes of action, and in this sense are mi-

metic, not simply of the objects of an environment which

are of interest or use in this production, but of these objects

as they are acted upon, or of the mode of operation or

action involving such objects.’ (Wartofsky, 1979, p. 202.)

Unlike primary artifacts, secondary artifacts do not

mediate the interaction between humans and the physi-

cal world. Instead, they mediate the interaction of

humans with primary artifacts. Secondary artifacts

(notational systems, algorithms, rules, norms, proce-

dures) are representations of modes of interaction with

primary artifacts. A procedure, such as a checklist or a

recipe, is a representation of a sequence of actions one

should apply to reach a particular goal using a set of

primary artifacts. An important aspect of the relationship

125Designing documents for train operators

between primary and secondary artifacts is that the more a

representation evolves historically the more it becomes

mimetic to the privileged modality of use of the secondary

artifact and less to the use of primary artifacts, let alone the

objects we want to modify (consider, for example, writing

systems or numbers). Once embodied in external repre-

sentations secondary artifacts become objects in them-

selves, which populate the world where we live and

produce. Thus, an artifact does not characterize itself as a

primary or secondary artifact in absolute terms but accord-

ing to the activity carried out by the user (Rizzo, 2000).

In activity of driving a train, the train list is a second-

ary artifact in that it mediates the interaction with pri-

mary artifacts (the driving system, the whole train, the

security devices in the train and on the line , the signaling

system, etc.), and with the external world (the line, the

railway stations), allowing the acquisition of crucial

knowledge for an orderly and safe trip.

Presentation of the artifact

Figures 1 and 2 summarize the train list prototype pro-

posed by the railway company. It consists of a heading,

which contains general information related to the train

(Figure 1), and the columns, containing diŸerent types of

Figure 1. The original heading.

Figure 2. The original columns.


information (e.g., speed, time) that are mapped on to the

stations that the train operator will encounter along the

way (Figure 2).

Looking at it in more detail, the heading contains the

following ªelds:

– The tra¹c lines ªle, relating to the journey and to the

scheduled time intervals (Figure 3).

– The type and the weight of the train and speciªcations

of any towed stock (Figure 4).

– The code number of the train along with signaling

speciªcations, whether a guard is scheduled to be

present, and the ªnal destination as shown on the last

page of the train list (Figure 5).

– The number of pages in the train list and the stretch of

railway line covered in the list (Figure 6).

– The composition initials (that give concise indications

on the main technical features of the train), the means

of traction and the initials indicating the kind of tech-

nical devices for signal detection mounted on the en-

gine (Figure 7).

As for the columns on the train list , it is useful to divide

the information into four main chunks:

– The ªrst concerns speed. A railway line is normally

composed of two sets of tracks. In standard driving

conditions a train must travel along the left-hand

track (called the ‘legal track’), but in exceptional cases

it can travel on the right track, normally used for travel

in the opposite direction (this track is also called the

‘illegal track’). The two ªelds shown in Figure 8, part A

give the speed limits and the recommended speed

limit for the left-hand, legal track (left side of the

ªgure) and for the right-hand, illegal track (right side

of the ªgure).

– The second type of information concerns the stations

along the route and contains information as to dis-

tances, line structure (single, double, or set-direction

double track) with the stations and the data points

along the line (Figure 8, Part B).

Figure 4.

Figure 3.

Figure 5. Figure 6. Figure 7.


– The third type of information concerns timetables,

indicating the arrival, layover and departure times at

the stations along the rail line (Figure 8, part C).

– The fourth type of information concerns the railway

line and its techn ical features. It includes some indica-

tions about the presence/absence of the safety system

along the right and left tracks and some supplemen-

tary information expressed in the form of symbols

(Figure 8, part D).

Analysis of the train list

The train list is made up of textual and graphical elements

that were analyzed using a set of visual codes deªned on

well-established document design principles (Schriver,

1997 , pp. 249 - 350).

In the prototype described above we identiªed four

main visual codes by which information was organized:

– the layout (the placement within the available space

and the alignment of classes of information and data;

i.e. wireframing);

– the fonts;

– the font sizes;

– the texture (the use of backgrounds, shading, and

boxes and frames).

Each of these visual codes aŸects the reading of the train

list, by segmenting the information within the space and

setting a reading priority. They thus constitute the main

parameters under scrutiny on the train list, in conjunc-

tion with other critical elements such as the particular

kind of activity that the train list is intended to support

and the main aspects of the human cognitive system in-

volved in the perception of a paper artifact. The inform-

ation structure of the train list was categorized, taking

into account the constituents of the train operation

activity to which the information refers. This generated

Figure 8. The columns divided into chunks.


four clusters of information. The ªrst cluster refers to

the train (e.g., the weight of the train), and the second

one refers to the train list itself (e.g., the number of

sheets in the document). Both clusters are arranged in

the heading. The third cluster has to do with the railway

line (e.g., the kind of track) and the fourth cluster has to

do with the interaction between the train and the line

(e.g., the speed). These last two clusters of information

are contained in the columns.

It was our intention to use these clusters as anchoring

points for the redesign. The general idea was to manipu-

late the graphical aspects of the information, clustering

the diŸerent types of information physically in one place

in order to keep the graphical representation of each type

of information constant.

Evaluation of the train list

The Document Design Guidelines related to the four

codes mentioned above were applied to evaluate the origi-

nal prototype of the train list. The following is a list of the

main violations of some of the most best-established prin-

ciples of document design (Schriver, 1997, pp. 506–517).

– Font: The use of 5 -point fonts. Using fonts of less than

6 points is severely discouraged for the production of

any document, regardless of the modalities of use.

This is even more so when users might need reading

glasses or when they must operate in scarce lighting

conditions.

– Font: The use of the same font type and size for the

title of a ªeld and the data (see Figure 4, particular

composition). It was decided to modify these param-

eters to better distinguish the content from the title of

the ªelds.

– Font: We found other inconsistencies in font use; for

example, in the columns the maximum speeds were

shown in capital letters for the left track, and in italics

for the right track.

– Texture: The evaluation of the texture showed an

excessive use of borders and frames for segmenting

the diŸerent classes of information in the heading

(Figures 3, 4, 5, and 7). The heuristics of document

design suggest avoiding borders as long as it is possible

to segment the visual space by means of alignment and

spacing of the diŸerent clusters of elements.

– Layout: We observed some inconsistencies in the clus-

tering of the information; for example, the informa-

tion related to the train list is merged into the same

boxes as the information related to the train.

The results of this evaluation were used together with the

results of the train operator focus groups to guide the

redesign of the prototype.

Focus groups

After the heuristic analysis and evaluation of the original

prototype, two focus group sessions were conducted, each

with 10 train operators. The aim of each focus group was

to gather information on the needs of the train operator in

well-deªned contexts of use. The focus group sessions

were segmented into a general introduction and three

operational phases.

The ªrst operational phase explored the relationship

between the train list and the train operator’s activities, by

collecting individual stories summarized on a whiteboard

and shared and discussed among all participants. The

modalities of use of the current train list were investigated

by eliciting scenarios of use in both routine and critical

circumstances.

In the second phase the participants were asked to

indicate what in their perception was the order of impor-

tance of the contents of the train list relative to the two

phases of the activity: before departure and while operat-

ing the train. The priority list was established using

colored Post-It stickers containing both the class of data

and the data (e.g.: Weight: 400X; Timetable arrival:


08:17), by positioning the items on an ordinal scale. The

ªnal list was created by computing the Mode for each

position on the scale.

In the third phase, the train operators were asked to

cluster the content according to their preferred modality of

use and to comment on the coding used for representing

the information. The clustering was carried out by having

each participant create an individual layout using Post-It

stickers and then negotiating a convergence of proposals.

Focus group results

The distinction between the Heading and the Columns

turned out to be sensible and well grounded in practice

since the Heading is normally read before departure

while the train is stationary, while, during travel, they

glance at the Columns when needed (reading in mo-

tion). Another major ªnding was that the train operators

perceive and use the information in the train list consist-

ently with the content categories identiªed in the analy-

sis of the train list (see above). This result prompted us

to use the information clusters (train list info and Train

info for the heading, Line info and Train/Line inter-

action info for the columns) as guidelines in the subse-

quent redesign phase. We also asked train operators to

identify the most relevant information based on their

operational experience. For instance, the most relevant

information item for the train list info cluster turned out

to be the Validity of the train list, while Locality was

named as most important in the Line info cluster.

During the discussion, we also realized that these in-

formation items worked as anchoring points to guide the

search for and use of other data.

There were no well-deªned or consistent comments

on the coding, apart from a criticism on the use of the 5-

point font size.

Finally, in the second phase of the focus group ses-

sions the train operators pointed out the need to have

further information on the train and on the train-line

interaction. As mentioned above, we recorded this need

but did not use it in the redesign of the prototype since it

was not consistent with the premises of the study and with

our original research objectives.

The redesign phase

The redesign phase incorporated the results obtained in

the two preceding phases. It consisted of the application

of the four visual codes previously deªned. For the sake of

simplicity, in what follows we consider the type and size of

the font as a single category, since this was also the way in

which the data were treated in the statistical analysis. We

started by modifying the Layout, then we applied changes

to the Font and ªnally to the Texture. In this way we

obtained a number of Header and Column prototypes

having a diŸerent representation of the information, but

as we mentioned above, we stuck with the same kind of

data as contained in the Original prototype.

As far as layout is concerned, we decided to design

three variants for the Header and two for the Columns.

The basic principles used for organizing the Header were

alignment and contiguity of the content in the two clus-

ters of information (train list Info and Train Info). Thus,

we cadme up with three diŸerent settings: one maintain-

ing, with some diŸerences, the existing organization of

information (these prototypes had an ‘original heading

macrostructure’, Figure 1); a second one that placed the

information on the Train list at the top and information

on the train at the bottom (these prototypes had a ‘hori-

zontal heading macrostructure’, Figure 9); and a third one

that placed the information on the train list on the left and

information on the train on the right (‘vertical heading

macrostructure’, Figure10).

Progressive modiªcations were made to the layout

heading prototypes by modifying the shape and size of the

fonts (Figure 11) and by adding diŸerent types of back-

grounds to the texture (Figure 12).


Figure 9. Horizontal macrostructure modiªed in the layout.

Figure 10. Vertical macrostructure in the layout.

Figure 11. Vertical macrostructure modiªed in the layout and in the fonts.


Then, in the same way, progressive modiªcations of

the same visual codes were made to the columns, follow-

ing suggestions that had emerged from the focus groups.

In particular, as regards layout, the placement of the

information on the safety systems of each track (in the

original version, Figure 2, placed at the right extremity of

the columns and marked as ‘XOD’) was perceived as being

too decontextualized and distant from other information

on the railway line (the localities, the speed limits for the

left and right tracks). Therefore two main layout proto-

types were proposed: one maintaining, with minor modi-

ªcations, the original placement of the diŸerent types of

information (‘original columns macrostructure’), and an-

other one with information on where speed limit signs are

placed for the left and right tracks (‘modiªed columns

macrostructure’).

For the columns as well, progressive modiªcations

were made to the font and texture coding in both the

original and the modiªed structures (Figure 13).

Figure 12. Vertical macrostructure modiªed in the layout, the fonts, and the texture.

Figure 13. The Columns prototype Charlie.


Out of this matrix emerged 30 prototypes for the

headings and 6 for the columns of the train list. Each one

of them was named using letters from the phonetic alpha-

bet in use in the aviation community. ‘Alpha’, ‘Bravo’,

‘Charlie’, etc., except for the original prototype, which we

named ‘Original’ both for the header and for the columns.

Testing

After the redesign phase, the prototypes were tested with

47 train operators. The train operators were selected in

order to establish two further independent variables: train

operator certiªcation and experience with the train list.

These two further independent variables were introduced

in order to select a sample that covered potential sources

of variation within the train operator population (i.e.,

selection of a representative sample).

The train operator variable had three levels: (1) re-

gional line train operators (regional, N = 12), (2) freight

train operators (freight, N = 20), and (3) long-distance

passenger train operators (long-distance, N = 15). This

variable was introduced because it had emerged in the

focus groups that the needs of the three categories of

operators were somewhat diŸerent. For example, the in-

formation on the recommended speed is very important

for the ‘long-distance’ and the ‘regional’ train operators

(because they have to strictly follow the timetable) and

during the focus group sessions several users from these

two categories denounced the bad design of this section

of the train list. On the other hand the ‘freight’ operators

don’t consider these data to be crucially relevant to

their activity, since they don’t have to hold to a precise

timetable.

The train list experience variable had two levels: (1)

extensive experience with the train list ( more then 10

months of use of the prototype, N = 28), (2) no experience

with the train list (e.g., service on lines where the train list

was not in use, N = 19). This independent variable was

introduced in order to control the potential eŸect of habit

on the preference for a train list format. Within each level

the train operators were distributed among the three

diŸerent types of train service (Regional, Freight, Long-

Distance).

The testing phase of the new prototypes was carried

out in two stages: in the ªrst session, 30 Heading and 6

Column prototypes were presented to the group while in

the second session the 18 most favored headings were

presented (six for each macrostructure), along with all 6

column prototypes (three for each macrostructure).

In both stages the train operators were asked to choose

two prototypes for each kind of Heading macrostructure

(original, horizontal, vertical), and then to rank the se-

lected prototypes from best to worst. This gave a classiª-

cation of the 6 chosen headings for each user. All 6

column prototypes were also ranked from best to worst.

During the data analysis, 10 points were assigned to

the best prototype for each user, 6 to the second, 4 to the

third, 3 to the fourth, 2 to the ªfth and 1 to the sixth. All

the other prototypes (12 for the Header, none for the

Columns) received a score of zero.

The data coming from the ªrst session were used only

to select the most favored prototypes and to eliminate the

prototypes having only minimal diŸerences in the visual

coding. The data of second stage were analyzed with a

four mixed-factor ANOVA, two within-subjects factors:

– Macrostructure (3 levels for the Header: Original,

Horizontal, Vertical; 2 Levels for the Columns: Origi-

nal, Modiªed);

– Level of Modiªcation (3 levels: Layout only, Layout+

Font, Layout+Font+Texture);

and two between-subjects factors:

– Type of service (3 levels: Freight, Regional, Long-Dis-

tance);

– Experience (2 levels: Experience, No-Experience).

We made the following hypothesis for Main eŸects:


Header

– Macrostructure: A preference for the horizontal or the

vertical macrostructures. Rationale: a sharp distinc-

tion among clusters;

– Level of Modiªcation: A preference for the header

prototypes that received modiªcations in layout, font

and texture. Rationale: text alignment, correction of

font code violations, no use of borders around the

data elements, use of texture for segmenting and

building continuity among related items;

– Experience: A preference of the experienced train

operators for the Original Header Macrostructure.

Rationale: Extensive familiarity with a well-estab-

lished clustering of data (structure);

– Type of service: No diŸerence between the three serv-

ices. Rationale: Service characteristics do not aŸect the

use of information contained in the header. This factor

is to be considered more a control variable to be used to

explore potential diŸerences in the population.

Column

– Macrostructure: A preference for Modiªed Columns.

Rationale: A better clustering of data;

– Level of Modiªcation: A preference for the prototypes

that received modiªcations in layout, font and texture.

Rationale: text alignment, correction of font code

violations; correct use of texture for segmenting and

building continuity among linked contents in space;

– Experience: A preference by the experienced train

operators for the Original Column Macrostructure.

Rationale: Extensive familiarity with a well-established

layout;

– Type of service: A possible diŸerence between Freight

and the other two services. Rationale: Less concern for

maintaining the recommended speed. Again, this vari-

able is to be considered more a control variable to be

used to explore potential diŸerences in the population.

Table 2. The nine best headers with the corresponding

Macrostructure, Level of Modiªcation and Score.

Macrostructure Level of Header Score

Modiªcation prototype

Original Layout-Font-Texture Hotel 6.7

Layout-Font-Texture India 6.1

Layout-Font Juliet 1.7

Horizontal Layout-Font-Texture Victor 2.3

Layout-Font-Texture Uniform 1.5

Layout-Font Siera 1.1

Vertical Layout-Font-Texture Perugia 1.4

Layout-Font-Texture Lazio 1.3

Layout-Font Roma 1.3

Results

In the following, the results are presented separately, ªrst

for the Header and then for the Columns.

Header

The Macrostructure eŸect turned out to be signiªcant

(F (2,558)=26.2, p<.001) due to a higher score for the

Original Macrostructure compared to the other two.

Table 1 reports the means for the three macrostructures

and the related post-hoc level of signiªcance (Fisher’s

PLSD 5% test).

A further post-hoc analysis carried out between the

three best Headers prototypes for each Macrostructure

(see Table 2) showed that the signiªcant diŸerence was

mainly due to two speciªc headers both belonging to the

Table 1. The average score of the three Header Macrostructures.

Average score Post-Hoc

(Fisher’s PLSD)

Original2.8

vs. Horizontal <0.001

vs. Vertical <0.001

Horizontal 1.1

Vertical 0.9


Original Macrostructure: India and Hotel. These proto-

types have the original macrostructure with modiªcations

in layout, fonts and texture (see Figure 14 for the Hotel

prototype). The third prototype, ‘Juliet’, has the original

structure with modiªcation only in layout and font; how-

ever, there is no signiªcant diŸerence between this and

the other best six best prototypes belonging to the Hori-

zontal and Vertical Macrostructures. It is worth stressing

that the average score was computed on a scale of 0–10

and that for each assessment made by a subject, only

6 prototypes out of 18 received a score higher than 0.

This makes the average scores for India and Hotel rather

impressive as well as unexpected.

The second main Factor, Level of Modiªcation, also

showed a signiªcant diŸerence (F(2,558) = 38.7, p<.001)

and the post-hoc analysis (Fisher’s PLSD test) revealed

that all the diŸerences were signiªcant. More speciªcally,

the score increased proportionally with the increase in

modiªcations (see Table 3).

Table 3. The average score of the Headers that received

increasing Levels of Modiªcation.

Level of Modiªcation Average Score Post-Hoc

(Fisher’s PLSD)

Layout 0.3

Layout-Font 0.7

Layout-Font-Texture 3.2 vs. Layout p<0.001

vs. Layout-Font p<0.001

In contrast with the within-subjects factors, neither of the

between-subjects factors ( Type of service and Experience

in service) showed any signiªcant diŸerence, and neither

turned out to have any ªrst- order interaction among the

main eŸects.

Columns

The Columns analysis showed a similar pattern of results:

signiªcant diŸerences for the within-subject factors

Macrostructure and Level of Modiªcations, and no

diŸerences for the between-subject factors, Type of Serv-

ice and Experience. There was, however, one important

diŸerence : the direction of the Macrostructure eŸect was

in the opposite direction. More speciªcally, the ANOVA

revealed a signiªcant diŸerence (F (1,135) = 26,3,

p<.001) between the Original and the Modiªed mac-

rostructure with a higher score for the latter (see Table 4).

The Level of Modiªcation main eŸect, on the other hand,

turned out to be signiªcant (F (2,178) = 11.0, p<.001)

and with a trend similar to the one showed for the Head-

ers, that is, an increase in the score as modiªcations in

fonts and texture were added (even though, the Fisher’s

PLSD post-hoc test revealed only a signiªcant diŸerence

between Layout – score 2.5 – and Layout+Font+Texture

– score 3.4 ) . Figure 13 shows it was the Columns proto-

type Charlie that ended up with the highest score.

Figure 14. The favorite heading, called “Hotel” during the test.


Table 4. The 6 Column prototypes with their corresponding

Macrostructure, Level of modiªcation, and Score.

Macrostructure Level of Columns Score

Modiªcation prototype

Original Layout-Font-Texture Bravo 3.8

Layout-Font Alfa 3.1

Layout Original 2.8

Modiªed Layout-Font-Texture Charlie 7.2

Layout-Font Delta 4.8

Layout Echo 4.2

Discussion

Considering the overall pattern of results we could state

that, independently from the experience of the Train

Operators with the train list and from their type of Train

service, the Macrostructure and the Level of Modiªcation

turned out to be important factors to establish the pre-

ferred visual display of the train list data. However consid-

ering the direction of the eŸects there is an important

diŸerence between the two sets of data in the train list, the

Headers and the Columns. For the Columns the direction

of the eŸects was as expected, that is, with a higher score

for the Modiªed Macrostructure, and with an increasing

score as modiªcations were added to the layout, font, and

texture; whereas for the Headers the direction of the

eŸects were partially in the opposite direction (better

results with the addition of modiªcations in layout, font,

and texture, but a higher score for the Original

Macrostructure). We expected that an organization of

the Header with a clear distinction between the two main

clusters of information would help the accessibility and

use of the content. But the average score of the 6 proto-

types with the original Macrostructure turned out to be

higher than the average scores of the other two sets of

prototypes, Horizontal and Vertical. However, looking at

this result in detail we can observe (see Table 2) that the

Headers that received by far the best score were Hotel and

India, while Juliet, which is characterized by the same

layout and font as Hotel but without the modiªcations in

texture, did not score better than any of the best three of

the Vertical or Horizontal Macrostructure.

These data suggest that the coding for clustering is

critically important because when texture is used to help

this coding the Original Macrostructure is far and away

the winner. It seems that the Original Macrostructure,

even if not the best at clustering data, has some advan-

tages. These advantages are counterbalanced by a better

display of data in the Vertical or Horizontal Macrostruc-

ture, but texture improvements more clearly delineate the

clustering in the Original Macrostructure. But why

should the Original macrostructure have an advantage for

the Header and not for the Columns?

These results could be interpreted as showing that the

improvements in the Columns were judged by the train

operators to be clear and substantial compared to the

original train list, while those to the Header were consid-

ered less clear and less important. Thus the role of habit

and the comparison with the original version were deter-

minative in the operators’ judgment. But this is not con-

sistent with the lack of diŸerence between the train

operators with experience and the ones without experi-

ence using the train list. So we went back to the train

operators to look for a potential reason for this preference

for the Original Macrostructure. We brie¶y presented the

analytical results to them and asked for their thoughts and

comments. Through these qualitative interviews we dis-

covered that all train operators were used to ªnding the

same kind of information as in the train list in another

publication, called the Train Booklet, with a layout very

similar to the format of the Original prototype. In fact, we

discovered that this publication had inspired the design of

the original train list. Hence the habit linked to the Train

Booklet was common to all train operators, regardless of

the experience with the train list. As a consequence, all

operators were used to a particular reading order, and

that was no longer present in our alternative design pro-

posals (i.e., the ones with modiªcations in the Horizontal


and Vertical Macrostructure), whereas the reading order

was preserved in the Original Macrostructure. Further-

more, if we look at the Original Header prototype and to

the Hotel prototype (Figure 14), it is easy to see how the

modiªcations in font and texture help the clustering and

segmentation of the content and better supports reading

for information.

Conclusions

The integration of document design principles with the

experimental methods of the interaction design approach

seems to produce sound and interesting results that rest

both on theoretical and empirical grounds. The contri-

bution of the document design heuristics was evident

and important and led to sound results that allowed us to

enhance the train list prototype, and even to manage the

level of improvement. But in this e¹cient collaboration

an intriguing heuristic role was also played by the

cultural-historical approach to human cognition, which

prompted us to consider the context of use and the his-

tory of the artifact involved in the design process. This

was of special help in the organization of the testing and

in the interpretation of the results. It is our opinion that,

particularly in safety-critical domains where breakdowns

in the interactions due to the introduction of new

technology is a well documented hazard, the cultural-

historical approach could help in designing tools that are

within the zone of proximal development, that is, tools

which are not too advanced for the learning capabilities

of the intended users, while still augmenting the capabili-

ties of man–artifact systems.

Acknowledgment

This research was carried out with the ªnancial support of the

Italian Railways and we would like to thank all the FS personnel

for their support and their passion for their work. We would also

like to thank two anonymous reviewers for their apposite and

stimulating comments, suggestions, and critiques.

References

Bannon, L. J., & Bødker S. (1991). Beyond the interface:

Encountering artifacts in use. In J.M. Carroll (Ed.),

Designing interaction: Psychology at the human-computer

interface (pp. 227–253). Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Carroll, J.M. (1995). Scenario-Based Design, Envisioning Work

and Technology in System Development. New York: Wiley.

Cole, M. (1996). Cultural Psychology : A once and future

discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA:

MIT Press.

Norman, D. A. (1993). Things that make us smart: Defending

human attributes in the age of the machine. Reading, MA:

Addison-Wesley.

Rizzo, A. (2000). La natura degli artefatti e la loro

progettazione [The ontology and design of artefacts].

Sistemi Intelligenti, 12, 437–452.

Schriver, K.A. (1997). Dynamics in document design: Creating

text for readers. New York: Wiley.

Tufte, E.R. (1997). Visual explanations: Images and quantities,

evidence and narrative. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of

higher psychological processes (J. Cole, V. John-Steiner,

S. Scribner, & E. Souberman, Trans.). Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

Wartofsky, M. (1973). Models: Representation and the scientiªc

understanding. Dordrecht: Reidel.

Zhang, J., & Norman, D. A. (1994). Representations in

distributed cognitive tasks. Cognitive Science, 18, 87–122.


about the authors

Silvia Torsi is a PhD candidate in the Department of Commu-

nication Science at the University of Siena. Her chief area of

theoretical interest, Cognitive Ergonomics, is the main

landmark for her Interaction Design and Information Design

research activities. She is also interested in the Psychology of

Perception and Visual Design.

Antonio Rizzo is a full Professor in Psychology and leads the

Interaction Design Unit at the Department of Communication

Science at the University of Siena. He has extensive experience

managing projects concerning both human factors and

interaction design issues. He is currently lecturing on Multi-

media Design and is particularly interested in the application

of new learning methods, related to the use of new digital

technologies.

Contact: [email protected]

Simone Pozzi is a PhD candidate in the Department of

Communication Science at the University of Siena. He is

currently involved in research projects in the Air Tra¹c

Control domain where he works in the areas of validation,

safety, and risk assessment. He has a full University degree

in Human-Computer Interaction.

Luca Save is a PhD candidate in the Department of Communi-

cation Science at the University of Siena. He has three years’

experience lecturing on Human-Machine Interaction and he

has been involved in several research projects concerning the

evaluation and redesign of safety-critical systems. His main

interests are in Cognitive Ergonomics, Human Computer

Interaction and Interaction Design techniques.

Documents

Designing documents for train operators