*esercbReport 1320

DESIGN GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA FOR

let USER/OPERATOR TRANSACTIONS WITHC3 BATTLEFIELD AUTOMATED SYSTEMS

VOLUME 1:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Robert N. Parrish, Jesse L. Gates, and Sarah J. MungerSYNECTICS CORPORATION

HUMAN FACTORS TECHNICAL AREA

L.. .iU. S. Army

Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences

I' February 1981

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

50

U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE

FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES

A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the

Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel

L. NEALE COSBY

JOSEPH ZEIDNER Colonel, IN

Technical Director Commander

Research accomplished under contract

to the Department of the Army

Synectics Corporation

NOTICES

DISTRIBUTION: Primary distribution of this report has been made by ARI.

Please address correspondence concerning distribution of reports to: U.S.

Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, ATTN:

PERI-TST, 5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333.

FINAL DISPOSITION: This report may be destroyed when it Is no longer

needed. Please do not return it to the U.S. Army Research Institute for

the Behavioral and Social Sciences.

NOTE: The findings In this report are not to be construed as an official

Department of the Army position, unless so designated by ottler authorized

documents.

Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Dete En.tered)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE BEFORE COMPLETING FORMA. REPORT NUMBER L2. GOVT ACCESSION No. 3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

Research Report 1320 2 44. TITLE (and Subtitle) S TYPE OF REPORT & PERIOD COVERED

Design Guidelines and Criteria for User/ Interim: Oct 1979-Feb 1981Operator Transactions with Battlefield AutomatedSystems Volume I: Executive Summary 6. PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

7. AUTHOR(e) 8. CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(e)

Robert N. ParrishJesse L. Gates MDA903-80-C-0094

Sara J. Munger9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASK

Synectics Corporation AREA & WORK UNIT NUMBERS

10400 Eaton Place 2Q263744A793Fairfax, VA 22030

I1. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATEU.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral February 1981

and Social Sciences i3. NUMBER OF PAGES5001 Eisenhower Ave., Alexandria, VA 22333 14

14. MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(If different from Controlling Office) 15. SECURITY CLASS. (of chis report)

Unclassified

15a. DECL ASSI FICATION/DOWN GRADINGSCHEDULE

16. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited

17. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the ebetract entered in Block 20, It different from Report)

18. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Dr. Raymond C. Sidorsky, of the Human Factors Technical Area, ARI, is theContracting Officer's Representative (COR) for this project.

19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse aide It neceeary ad Identify by block number)

Battlefield automated systems Human-computer interactionDesign criteria System analysisDesign guidelines Transaction Feature AnalysisFunctional Standardization User/operator transaction

2. ASTRACr(Con6e am revere. afd fnooeer ad Identify by block number)

-.This document is one of a series in the Final Report of Phase I in a pro-ject to develop design guidelines and criteria for user/operator transactionswith battlefield automated systems. The report is organized in five volumesas follows:

DD o 1473 rorno* o,r s S ODSOLtTEDt S 4 "3 Unclassified

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Dote Entered)

i

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(When Dae. Knfted)

Item 20 (Cont'd)

It';, Executive Summary,(this report)I. Technical Report (TR 536)

III. In-Depth Analyses of Individual Systems!_..A. Tactical Fire Direction -Systems (TACFIRE) (RP 81-26)B. Tactical Computer Terminal, (TCT) (RP 81-27)

- .Admin/Log Automated_§Systems (P8-28)

b-.' . Intelligence Information Subsystem (IISS) (RP 81-29)IV.-Provisional Guidelines and Criteria)(TR 537)

~ 'Bacg'oundLiterature, (TR 538)

-,Volume I presents a succinct review of activities and products of theproject's first phase. Volume 11 contains a technical discussion of theproject's objectives, a hodologies, results, conclusions, amd implicationsfor the design of user/op ator transactions with battlefield automatedsystems. Volume Ill documen~ts analyses of four unique battlefield automatedsystems selected to represent different stages of system development anddifferent Army functional areas. Volume IV presents provisional guidelinesand criteria for the design of transactions. Volume V provides a briefreview of selected literature related to guidelines and criteria.

I,1 GRAHl1 ITAB

OTC~ u-%nnouneed 0

copy I,ftspEcTED

2Distribution/

Av~ilabilitY CodemAvail and/or

Dist special

UnclassifiedSECURtITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAOEfAW Dola Enterod)

Researci Report 1320

DESIGN GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA FOR

USER/OPERATOR TRANSACTIONS WITH

BATTLEFIELD AUTOMATED SYSTEMS

VOLUME I:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Robert N. Parrish, Jesse L. Gates, and Sarah J. Munger

SYNECTICS CORPORATION

Submitted by:Stanley M. Halpin, Chief

HUMAN FACTORS TECHNICAL AREA

Approved by:Edgar M. Johnson, Director

SYSTEMS RESEARCH LABORATORY

U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333

Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for PersonnelDepartment of the Army

February 1981

Army Project Number Human Performance Effectiveness

20263744A793 and Simulation

Approved for public releem.; distribution unlimited.

. . .lll Il II I I I I I i ll lll

ARI Research Reports and Technical Reports are intended for sponsors ofR&D tasks and for other research and military agencies. Any findings readyfor implementation at the time of publication are presented in the last partof the Brief. Upon completion of a major phase of the task, formal recom-mendations for official action normally are conveyed to appropriate militaryagencies by briefing or Disposition Form.

iv

FOREWORD

The Human Factors Technical Area of the Army Research Institute(ARI) is concerned with helping users and operators cope with the everincreasing complexity of the battlefield automated systems by which theyacquire, transmit, process, disseminate, and utilize information. In-

creased system complexity increases demands imposed on the human inter-acting with the machine. ARI's efforts in this area focus on human perfor-mance problems related to interactions with command and control centers,and on issues of system design and development. Research is addressed tosuch areas as user-oriented systems, software development, informationmanagement, staff operations and procedures, decision support, and systemsintegration and utilization.

An area of special concern in user-oriented systems is the improvementof the user-machine interface. Lacking consistent design principles,current practice results in a fragmented and unsystematic approach tosystem design, especially where the user/operator-system interaction isconcerned. Despite numerous design efforts and the development of exten-sive system user information over several decades, this information remainswidely scattered and relatively undocumented except as it exists within andreflects a particular system. The current effort is dedicated to thedevelopment of a comprehensive set of Human Factors guidelines and eval-uation criteria for the design of user/operator transactions with battle-field automated systems. These guidelines and criteria are intended to

assist proponents and managers of battlefield automated systems at eachphase of system development to select the design features and operatingprocedures of the human-computer interface which best match the require-ments and capabilities of anticipated users/operators.

Research in the area of user-oriented systems is conducted as anin-house effort augmented through contracts with uniquely qualifiedorganizations. The present effort was conducted in collaboration withpersonnel from Synectics Corporation under contract MDA903-80-C-0094.The effort is responsive to requirements of Army Project 2Q263744A793,Human Performance Effectiveness and Simulation, and to special requirementsof the U.S. Army Combined Arms Combat Developments Activity (CACDA), FortLeavenworth, Kansas.

JEPH Z ID RTe hnical 4 rector

v

DESIGN GUIDELINES AND CRITERIA FOR USER/OPERATOR TRANSACTIONS WITH BATTLE-

FIELD AUTOMATED SYSTEMS VOLUME I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Requirement:

To develop a comprehensive set of human factors guidelines and criteriafor the design of user/operator transactions in battlefield automatedsystems for use by human factors specialists and system proponents,managers, and developers.

Procedure:

To meet the requirement stated above, a three phase research programwas initiated. Phase I is devoted to defining human factors requirementsfor battlefield automated systems and developing preliminary guidelines andcriteria. In Phase II, the technical data base will be developed furtherand a prototype handbook of guidelines and criteria will be prepared.phase III will test, evaluate, and refine the handbook, and complete any

remaining R&D items.

This document is one of a series reporting activities and productsof Phase I. A preliminary analysis was conducted of a broad range ofbattlefield automated systems to provide an initial baseline of humanfactors requirements. This baseline data base was then validated andexpanded through intensive analyses of four systems selected to representdifferent Army functional areas and different stages of the system lifecycle. The resulting data base served as the foundation for the develop-ment of preliminary guidelines and criteria.

Findings:

Data obtained for the data base of human factors requirements amplydemonstrated the need for guidelines an criteria. Few design differencesappeared so serious individually as to threaten mission effectiveness.Nonetheless, various combinations of such deficiencies could significantlydegrade system performance if the user/operator confronted them simulta-neously or in rapid succession. Opinions offered by members of the devel-opment community who have reviewed the preliminary guidelines and criteriasuggest they will be useful in the design and evaluation of the human-

computer interface in battlefield automated systems.

vii

PAZC1NG PAIE DLAMK-NOT Fl

Utilization of Findings:

Findings from the analysis of individual systems may be useful to

proponents in specifying user/operator requirements for future system

evolution. In this project, the findings were incorporated in a data base

on human factors requirements which provided the "real world" foundation

for development of the provisional guidelines and criteria presented in

volume IV of this report. The provisional guidelines and criteria will be

utilized as the basis for development of the prototype handbook.

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .................. ................................ 1

PROBLEM ................. .................................. 2

PURPOSE .................. .................................. 3

ACCOMPLISHMENTS ................. .............................. 3

RESULTS ................... .................................. 6

CONCLUSION ................ ................................. 12

ix

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Figure 1 Army Battlefield Automated Systems, Categorized by Statusin the System Life Cycle and be Battlefield FunctionalArea, as of 14 May 1980 ........ ...................... 1

Figure 2 Is There a Point Where We May Have More Systems in theAcquisition Cycle Than we have People Available to Staffand Maintain Them? ............ ....................... 2

Table 1 Overview of the Transaction Feature Analysis Technique .. ..... 4

Table 2 Overview of the Transaction Compatibility Analysis ... ....... 5

Table 3 Systems Surveyed with Transaction Feature AnalysisTechnique ........... ............................. 6

Figure 3 Differences Among General Design Features of SelectedBattlefield Automated Systems ...... ................... 7

Figure 4 The Standard Office Keyboard Configuration andVariations Found in Selected Battlefield Atuomated Systems . . 8

Figure 5 Two Keyboard Configurations Used in TACFIRE ..... ........... 8

Figure 6 Menu Display Configurations in Three Army BattlefieldAutomated Systems ......... ......................... 9

Figure 7 TACFIRE SPA Message Format Selection Matrices for Divisionand Battalion Computers .......... ..................... 10

Figure 8 Redesign of TACFIRE Division and Battalion Message FormatMatrix Structures ......... ........................ . 11

Table 4 Design Guideline Format ........ ..................... . 12

Table 5 Example of a Matrix Summarizing Guidelines for Use ofHighlighting According to the Highlighting Applciation ..... .. 13

x

[ XEC(IJT I V-E Hy

I TROP 'CT ION

~&IU;C(,nlUoi5dtv enI tho

.havL a1\wa':- .' -F*; !-,)I lttI. e '111d %at xI-; to (' Itl, -I

~~ tllii' 1n'1l "it!- a1 Wile u of a1-et

Met, 1~s 1rS !1 1 t2 1 1, l In ei t o Flyna Sa7t t h(' I- :It I

,I 1" to 1F r.'t t ;e( da t t o euialo inIformat i rian( iF ! ~o iI

0'r~ t1F 1011- S 0 T~t X Frn '~ 1 F~

t he Ar m, ia t t I,-- I ioua 1 I~OF

ARMY BATTLEFIELD AUTOMATED SYSTEM CATEGORIZATION

I~'ADMi LOGF TRIMt W FA ADA SAG COM MWR k

CATEGORY I I AWIS ASAS AASS ADMIW PALCT MIT CATLO 1DISPS TEP ITS FOTS SHOSRAD C. RADIO1 ATSS

COCEPT AGTILISDEFINITIONI TASTES JIMIT

TSS CONTROL..CS3 REPLACEMENT iTS II-

CATEORY If 111 SOTAS 050(10 FIX APYI TITTIS DARS IT I MSSAAS I TACIES TACJAPA PATRIOT CSS TYC 39 PL IT

IATMOA, Splis CAS [CM s( [PC .39 OPTTTVSTTTPMEPT TICA 1(5Ic

CATEGORY NI SIUS MAGIIC am5 ISO 73(53 OAS IAILOI 3 TPlT 16 RX.PCP

APPROWOST TAM A&AZIRS STP 31 TTP"DJCTIOAk SAILS GADRAI 1 PADSIIIITAILATNM1 raGS SLAP TACIWS

0119115 OSIJUGSU MIS

IJSMC D.pUSAF eecp n14o aip. LOA .,.m

Ilur . A rmy Battle fIild AL t ama t( e Syet ems , Catecjor i, ee " t atu.,; IF thctS%,s tem I i Ye IeI and bv Ba t t I ( iI I i teneut ionlalI Area , as of 14 May 1980.

PROBLEM

ThQ proliferation of battlefield automated systems, however, carries wit)-

it : otential problems. As it turns out, battlefield automation, rather than

red'.icinq the human skills required for computer technology, as originally ex-

T, cted, actually imposes demands for even greater skill levels. With the

A:r'ps pool of skilled manpower decreasing, we can anticipate a time when

":2;fficient lersonnel will be available to staff the increasing numbers of

-om lox battlefield automated systems being introduced (Figure 2). In additior.,

iI

0LU

z -PEOPLE

-J

0

(n

0. .. -PEOPLE NEEDS AS

L. o A FUNCTION OF

o. 'SYSTEM NUMBER

u" AN CMPLEXITY

z

1979 19??

Fxau~e 2. Is There a Point Where we may have More Systems in the Acquisition

Cycle Than we have People Available to Staff and Maintain Them?

these systems are not designed with sufficient consideration for the user/

orerator. Therefore, while a system might be well desiane( technically, from

the user's/operator's perspective it may be less than optimal. Further, existing

and projected systems have been develoned without coordination among proponents

and developers. As a result, each battlefielC auto-ate. s',sten presents a new

learning experience for the user/operator, with little knowledge gained from

one system carried over to the next. This skill/demand mismatch imposes

unnecessary burdens on personnel and necessitates extra training that could be

2

avo-)ide.d by I'roper sys t em dus s q I I A s w t Ih it:', wt- I I Isos ii.t.:.I

Counterpar t in physical and electr ical compolluiht ai'eav 1I i I I :t a '2 I .

address- comp'atibil]ity issues. tIser1s/operator. i; fIrr;n '." .1 JT

dnO thetr during( their C,1aerS. More importantly, usraof ()- :. i t' ia.

Must interact with u.'ers of other s;ystems. Behaviorailiteo a i

cernied with dIesignls for sy.stekms; that Iwpemit usr/jrrr;Iatroia; 5:

f rom one, syst em t o anlothlerI, and tha t perm it usecr/ote rators i ti .

to interact convenientl..

That successftul ;vs;t em funct ion i nq der ends' Oil full anld f air : raI

of us;er/operator chiarLcter is ti Cs dulring~ dIeve lopm;M(I has; 1011(e; ; a

Neverthe less, virtually noti nq has b~een done to deve lo01 a !)uManl faCt ra c;

noloqy., to aid efforts to take those characteri-stics into accounit.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this project is to fill thle need for human factors tech-

nology by developing a comprehensive set of ituidelines and criteria for us-er'

operator transactions with battlefield automated systems. These efforts %-;1l

provide to the system design team the tools necessary to capitalize on humai;

capabilities and to compensate for human limitations, thereby einhancinue jiurl''

performance and facilitating coordination among proponents and developers.

The intent of this first phase in the three-p-hase project was to analyi-e

battlefield automated systems, qatherinq information to provide a bas--eline of

human factors requirements for user/operator transact ions. Another purj ose;,

equally important, was to develop a preliminary set of quidelines9 a;Id criteria

based upon the basel ine of information obtained from the analyses of systems.

ACCOMPL I SMfENTS

in order to fulfill these purposes, an initial survey of all b~attlefieldl

automated systems was undertaken. The survey beqan with a review oif the

13attlef ield Automated 'lanagement Plan (DAMP) and the Army Bat t leiel Inter

face Concept (ABId) Since neither program provided suitable data on)t human1/

computer interaction, it became necessary to devise special dat-i collectri

3

IIS t.1m1t1t S tr conduCt ill(; ..t Lm -vtoy ;

'Tho l'ransact iton lkectA ro Analysi -; ('lab I , 1) a nd t , ' 'iti ri;at t i), ov'i it I-

bility Aria lyl is; (Table 2) tecli qut'; wOer dhvelc', to m.','t t,i ; s l ,'.d. T'II(

t o rill r t echtnique fac ii I t at es t i (p olls an1) d .'t (ma'lt I Cx tmat i"1 o)f iT!A vi .i I

dos i qnI feat ures wit hi i a system t hat affet (,('t s!;( '(; 'Iat o)I t rar oai t i .. '1

littt er 'rcodute h 0 1p to comp are dosi fi teat W r ')I not 'I'.'no , or at

componets such as workstaotions, withi it a ytm The t i 1.1tto

b)ecaie tht, first products of this pro ieCt , wet tl t., t to ,ximirune 1,,,t , no rV.o

sy t em; at1I relevaUlt Systems from other sotryij-o (al. .

Table I

Overviow of the Transact io Ft ature 'i AIi; 'll,]'',

TRANSACTION FEATURE TRANSACTIONAL IMPLICATIONSIDENTIFICATION IMPACT ON SYSTEM

FUNCTIONSDESCRIPTION Ouality of Function Performance

AMPLIF ICATION Timeline of Function PerformanceAttribuo of Dedgn FeatureType of Transecton Affected CONSEQUENCES

BEHAVIORAL IMPLICATIONS: IMPACT ON SYSTEM MISSION

IMPACT ON USER Quality of System ProductsEfficiency of Production

Burdens

User Do's And Don'ts RECOMMENDED RESOLUTIONError Probability IMPROVEMENTS IN DESIGN

Change Design Features

Eliminate Design Features

Add Design Features

4

Table 2.

Overview of the Transaction Compatibility Analysis

SPECIFY TRANSACTION TYPE: R ECTI FY DATA:Interaction of Interest Facilitate Comparisons Between Items

wvInput U"Lstse Interface 'Matrices

ve Networke Pr.eev, Derivitlve IDENTIFY DIFFERENCES

t- ~~ Prdut etween FeaturesSWi~in Fetures

IDENTIFY DESIGN FEATURES: CmiainRelevant Attributes of System Elements

e control Methods DEVELOP RECOMMENDATIONS.e Presentation Fortsfv Data Entry and Handling Poceures v Commnon Design Featureswe Messag Composition Methods re Standard Task Modules,, Data Retrieval Proceduresve GoaI -aError Handling Techniques

Table 3.

Systems Surveyed with TransactionFeature Analysis Technique

TACFIRE I 1552

TOS BC S

TCT MAGIS (USMc)

DS4 AUTO RUN BOOK SDA (USMc)

DLDED ISIS (RAND)

PHOENIX AUTO RUN BOOK DAS3

BETA

5

In order to acquire creater detail in the human factors analysis of the.

user-computer interface, four specific battlefield automated systems were

selected for in-depth examination: TACFIR, TCS, IISS, and I)LDED. For oac,

of the systems investigated, a separate report has been prepared for readere

whose particular interest may focus on one system or another. Documentat i,,:.

has also been prepared on relevant ARI research literature dealing wit! r

factors guidelines and criteiia.

RESULTS

The results of both the survey and the detailed analyses clearly iindicated

that battlefield automated systems exhibit a wide range of differences relatud

to user/operator transactions. While these systems share many common design

features which perform the same functions, those features vary widely from on

system to the next. Figure 3 illustrates some of the inconsistencies in

general design features that were observed in various systems. As an example,

maay systems employ the same keyboard; however, as Figure 4 indicates, differeu:t

systems incorporate different keyboard configurations. Lack of uniformity shows

up even within a given system. Figure 5 illustrates different keyboard config-

urations used on two TACFIRE terminals. On one, the alphanumeric keys are

arranged in alphabetical order with non-alphabetic keys on the bottom row; and

the other terminal employs a modified office typewriter keyboard. In addition,

those terminals exhibit radical discrepancies in their numeric keypads, with one

keypad designed as a "desk top calculator" and the other arranged in the touch

telephone format.

System differences are by no means confined to hardware considerations.

Figure 6 shows that variations in menu display confiqurations are as qreat as

those in hardware configuration. In addition, menu selection methods differ

greatly among Army systems, as well as menu formats and the ways in which

menus are utilized.

Inconsistencies among systems became even more apparent when examininq

specific transaction features in greater detail. Different transaction methods

are used by different systems to accomplish the same function. For instance,

in using control methods to instruct the computer what functions to perform and

in what order, combinations of methods frequently are incorporated. The most

6

GENiERAL ESIGN SYSTEMSFEATURES TuIN IE II Us Is

o aVnare 0o Mnus o MenusCeomeNO TYPE o Pref Pnefernuatted 0 ornd language a Co.nan0 language 0 Cowmnd language

Yes sege o

mrtted o

" a HOfl'eHrdwe 0

C o Fn ctEon keyE o eytoard 0 Light Pon o Function kej

CoND ENTRY METHOD a Message entries c Function keys 0 Fution keys eodKeyborda Yessaqe *ntrfee a Ktybo d0 o

0 HEL.P f1W~ SIMAVAILABILITY OF HELPS/ N 2 leyels of support YMYo Tutorial amessges

USER AIDS a None O ' We ol haltO Ste'4 AlsDIeJs Nive;ategrBl HELPS

SHOWBOX FILES o NO a Staff wrking file$ 0 ts0 Yes a Yes

TYPE OF SYSTEM ARY C' C, Intel Intel File Yanaling

APPLICATION Dlisian & below Case Theter 010ssonENVIRONMENT

nlgner-level C R; CCR. GA COR, G2.INTENDED USERS artillery soeciellsts G2 t. G3 staff Intel lnalists Intel analystS

L o-er-leu ei 2 GO 5t ' +INTENOED OYERA+CRS et~lley SYr t~l~ e ti E*1oted 2 en.o.nel Ittel anelysts ntel analyst% 0 Sone

o epot fo"rtI

USER-DEFINED COS4RANDS A one b ue SIt n Gla-1l o None 0 Soe0 Macro language

o Report fon-ats

USER-OEFINED INPUT o one A 'one uilt " GIM1..

CODES 0 N.ro language 0 None

Figure 3. Differences Among General Design Features of SelectedBattlefield Automated Systems.

7

Figure 4. The Standard office Keyboard Configuration and vari-ations Found in Selected Battlefield Automiated Systems.

AC Ke~boa~d

Figure 5.Two Keyboard Configurations U~sed irt) rL

TAtF IRE PRErORMAT[ED MESSAGE IN I UIIIIN;, IiT. i I PIN lll TI 11,1W

A l I11 Al II /OP TIAINING; UNI "

l~1 'W ,1 • '1 % I I 7' II i

1dM M1tNUl IIATA ENTRY FORMIAl Ml Nil S F LE lION

All IIAIA A,1 ANALYSIS: INPUTII IANI JA;F [lINT IS TONI T , 1111II I 2 . I IANN [ IN IIIAL IiATr IO N

tII I1I. W AUIT f l- FAIir 0-I1 3. II AL UikEN INITIAII1AIIONIl 110111W A11W Kr Vt A(Wl (If AC 11fIt)T l'E INF PPTGT I'I SNF 5TGT 4. INY INITIAL IIA I1N

Ml 4 1 I I AN[0 ' . I if RWy I Ii W Y SIIII R II R IN ITIA .I A IIONNEXT A(TIVITY INSTF INSIFEl IACI PILOT VATA 6. (IIMIUNIEAIION ERROR THRESHOLDS

ANAlYSIS. INPII AND MISCEILANOUS COLUMNS FOR USE . AUTHORIZATION

WIIII ACO D)ATABASE ONLY! 8. ANTI-IAM MATRIX

S[E.ECT ()

I2S2 GIM MENU TCS SYSTEM INITIALIZATION MENU

Figure 6. Meru Display Configurations in Three Army Battlefield AutomatedSystems.

unique hybrid method observed was the format selection matrix on the TACFIRE

ACC SPA (Figure 7). The two matrices, as they stand alone are satisfactory;

they are organized by message type and logically constructed. However, of the

47 codes common to both, 28 are presented in different locations on the two

matrices. Any user who becomes familiar with one menu could easily become

confused when assigned. to use the other.

Errors in selectfng message formats could be significant, perhaps unac-

ceptably high, particularly when the user/operator is under stress. Inherent

problems in the SPA message format matrices can be resolved, however, with

redesiln of the message format selection matrices by placing all codes common

to division and battalion in the same location (Figure 8).

9

DIVISION BATTALION-- © ©- - - - -1- -515 SAFS AAllSF 1 SYS AFN" AFt MP All FM

FCM [T P A C TRY AITlP CD INT1

AT) AT SYA TjPDJ 1 IS] AM FI APll W ~ D) LDJ MS MD P AT AZA T U AA

SPRY AF ( MIFF ATlJ AllT]1 SS AS SPAT 1F All FN F"PGEION 3 ASFU SPLl TR M R S S FUSEL Of

___ \A ' FTJ SIA S4, SAT AD 'NS AWS FF 145 WA CLUIM! SAID

f515I [AT] IM (~ {~7> M AF AllPA ST AA SSYS SYS MET SPAT AFU MSIS Sys AFIpU SPAT lP Al FT M

~SS UA NET M E 11F l J155 S1 ANl FPT *F 4T P

LASI DIA CFL CO . I9 cAl A AITTACK

SY F IIE SPAT AF U MiFF AllF FMN1 S A FT)I SPRY1 MiFF All SET PNA

UDUA RDIA DIN DIA DIA ALD~ADM AL I L i Di ALA AI

Figure 7. TACFIRE SPA Message Format Selection P:atrices for Division andBattalion Computers.

10

FMC sm, V& ,f rA

topal

IV IN -r w silly

r if

- - --FM

SYS FMt~

Pigure Reclesicnn of TACPIRE Division and Battalion M-.s.ioe Format -latrixStructures.

p .- . . . . . . . . I, _ _

CONCLUSION

Differences such as those described above are pervasive in Arm: .':"t ;

in general, battlefield automated systems are characterized by tranva-tion

design features that are incompatible with human capabilities and limit it i(,.

While individual design deficiencies, considered individually, may not i*t.

paralyzing to the user/operator, the effects of such inconsistencies ar

cumulative. When the user is faced with multiple design deficiencies, oftcr.

occurring simultaneously, human performance is impaired. When users/op!i-atrc ;

cannot function optimally, neither can the system.

Results from the analyses of battlefield automated systems provided the

foundation for the development of guidelines and criteria. The format for

these detailed guidelines is shown in Table 4. Recommendations for imple-

mentation of desirable design features are presented in summary matrices such

as that illustrated in Table 5.

Table 4.

Design Guideline Format

G. CROSS INDEXING

2.1 FIXED ALPHANUMERIC DISPLAYS2.2 VARIABLE-LENGTH ALPHANUMERIC DISPLAYS2.3 GRAPHIC DISPLAYS3.0 DATA ENTRY ASSISTANCE3.4 EDITORS7.4 ERROR CORRECTION TECHNIQUES7.7 ERROR DETECTION TECHNIQUES

12

Table 5.

Example of a Matrix Summarizinq Guidelines for Use

of Highlighting According to the Highli-htinu, Application '

HIGHLIGHTING APPLICATION

KEY:

I = Best

2 n Second Choice

3 = Not Recommended

HIGHLIGHTING METHOD

BRIGHTNESS CONTROL 1* 1* 1 1* 2 1* 1* 1* 1.

CHARACTER SIZE CONTROL I 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 2

ALL UPPER CASE 2 2 3 2 3 2 2 3REVERSE DISPLAY 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 1

UND RLIN G 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 3DIFFERENT FONT 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3

COLOR CONTROL 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1

BLINKING, PULSATING 3 3 3 2 1 3 3 3 2

,BOXING 3 3 3 1 3 1 2 1 2

ARROW ING 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 2

SYMBOLIC TAGGING 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2

ALPHANUMERIC TAGGING 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

POSITION DISPLACEMENT 2 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 2• Recomended as Ist choice for standardization purposes

The design guidelines will support system proponents and developers in

selecting design features which best match the recuire!.ents and capabilities

of anticipated users/operators. Thus, the skill-6c/ao(l mismatch that currently

imposes excessive performance requirements on users/operators will be reduced,

thereby reducing the training burden that accompanies so many contemporary

systems. An additional benefit of this user-oriented design will be an in-

crease in behavioral interoperability, as that concenit was described earlier.

It is not the purpose of this project to triviali.e user-system inter-

action in battlefield automated systems, but one fact nust be recognized. The

users of these systems are supposed to work in a functional area; they are not

supposed to be computer operators. The design of the system should allow the

user to focus on developing greater skills in their c"7eer fields, rather than

13

peripheral system operation skills. Furthermore, that design should allow the

user to concentrate on the generation of system products, not on how to make

the system work.

We need to stop talking about user requirements, as though they were some-

how different from system requirements. Users are components of systems. A

tank doesn't fight without a crew; neither does a Cobra. And battlefield auto-

mated systems don't function without users and operators. User requirements

are system requirements. If we don't build systems to feet all their require-

ments--human as well as hardware, software and product-- then those systems

will fail. And if they do fail, then we will have naid the greatest of all

system life cycle costs: the cost of building battlefield automated system

that cannot do the job.

14

DISTRIBUTION

I US AmMY WESTERN CDMMANU ATTNI AP

I DEPANTMENT OF THE NAVY THAININb ANALYIS AND EVALUATION GROUPI HUiJA ATTN: DAA,-EDI HU. iCATA ATIN: AICAT-UP-WI US AHMY MATEWHILL SYSTEMS ANALYSIS ACTIVITY ARMY PROCUREMENT RESEANCH OFFICE? HUuA RESEARCH AND STUUItS OFCI MILIiARY OCCUPATIDNAL DEVELOPMENT DIV OAPC-MSP-O, RM 852C HOFFMAN BLDG I4 OASO (MRA AND L)

I MARIpiE CORPS DLVELUPMENT ANU EuUCATIU4 COMMAND ATTN: CODE E041I HUIA ATTN: UAMO-4URI HU TLATA TECHNICAL LIbRANYI HUOA ODCSPEHI USRAuCOt STCI HQOA ATTN: DAMI-ISII USA t.ORADCOM ATTN: AMSEL-PA-RHI USA .WRADCOM ATIN: ATFE-LU-ACI HEAOuUARTLRS, US MARINE CUHPS ATTN: CUOE MPI-aO2 US ANMY EUROPE AN) SLVENTH ARMYI IST INFANTRY OiVISION ANO FT. PLEY ATTNt AFZN-DPT-TI USA INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY COMMAND ATTNt IAOPSATNG-T? HQ TMADOC TECHNICAL LlHRARYI NAVAL TRAINING EUJIPMENT LEN ATTN: TECHNICAL LIBRARYI MILIIARY UCCUPATINAL DLVELOPMENI DIRECTORATL ATTN: ATZI-NCR-MS-Mo RM 3N33 HOFFMAN BLDG III DATA ANALYSIS DIVISION ATTN: ATLI-NC4-Mo. HOFFMAN BLOG ITI USA MILPLHCEN ATTN: DAPC-POO-TI USAFACFA CHIEF. )RGANIZATIONAL kFFECTIVENESS MRANCHI RTH INFANTRY DIVISIONI HU0OA ARMY FORCE 4ODERNIZATION CUORDIATION OFFICEI NAVAl AIR SYSTEM COMMAND /I DCSOwS (DIST 4) ATTN: UAMU-RUII 123D USARCOM RESERVE CENrtRI US ANMY SOLDIER SJPPORT CENTER /I DIRELTORATE OF ARMOR AVIATION AITN: AIZK-AAD) USAAHMC * FT. KNOX AVIATION ulVISIONI USA fORCES COMMAND AFIN - DEPUTY C OF S FOR INTELLIGFNCEI USA PORCES COMMANJ AFUP - DEPuTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR OPERATIONSI US AMMY AIR DEFENSE SCHOOL ATTN; ATSA-OTOI OIRELTORATE OF TRAININb ATTNI ATZQ-TI DIRELTORATE OF CUBAT DEVELOPMENTS ATTN: ATZOODI HUDAHCOM MARINE CORPS LIAISON UFCI OEPAkTMENI OF THE ARMY US ARMY INTELLIGENCE * SECURITY COMMANDI ARMY TRAINING SUPPORT CENTLR /

I US AkMY SAFETY CENTER ATTN: LIbRARIA4# BLDG 4905I USA MISSILE COMMA4D ATTN; DRSMI-NTNI CECOPI ATTN: DHSEL-ILS)I USA iORCES COMMANDI PM TKAUE /I US MILITARY DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON UFC OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITYI ARMY TRAINING SUiPPORT CENTER ATTN: ATIC-SMO

22 ART LIAISON OFFICE1 7TH ARMY TRAININL COMMAND1 HU UaAREUR ATITj: DCSOPSI HQOA. OCS STUDY 3FFICEI U.S. NAVY TRAINING ANALYSIS LVALUATION GROUPI uSACuEC ATTN: ArEC-EX-E HUMAN FACTORSI USAFaGOS/TAC SENIOR ARMY ADVISORI USA tLECTRONIC PRDVING GRUuNU ATTN: STEEP-MT-ESI OASA (RUA) DEPUTY FUR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGYI OFC uF NAVAL RESEARCH /I AFHRL/LRT

I AFHRL/LRLb 15

AIR rOkCE HUMAN HESOURCtS LAB AITN: AHRL/TSkI AFAMNL/HBI AFAMNL/HEI NAVAL PERSONNEL H AND U CLNTLR LOMMANU AND SUPPORT SYSTEMSI NAVY PERSONNEL W AND u CENTER /I NAVY PERSUNNEL R ANU U CENIER UIRECTIH OF PROORAMS

I NAVY PERSONNEL k AND U CLNTER /I US AHMY AVN ENUINEERINb FLIGHT ACTIVITY ATTNI DAVTE-TD

e OFC uF NAVAL RESEARCH PEHSONNEL AND TRAINING RESEARCH PROGRAMSI NAVAt PERSONNEL R * U CENTER /I OFC uF NAVAL RLSLARCH PRUJECT OFFICER, ENVIRONMENIAL PHYSIOLOGY

I NAVAI AEROSPACE MEDICAL RSCH LAM AERJSPACE PSYCHOLOGY DEPARTMENTI USA iRAUOC SYSILMS ANALYSIS ACTIVITY ATlt4: ATAA-TCAI HEADwUARTERS, COAST GUARD CHItF# PSYCHOLOGICAL RSCH 8p

I ISA ,ESEARCH ANt) TECHNULOGY LAM /

I USA eNGINEER TUPU3RAPHIC LABS ATTN: ETL-GSLI USA tNGINEER TUPO3RAPHIC LABS AITN: STINFO CENTERI ijSA -NGINEFR TUPUSRAPHIC LABS AITN: ETL-TD-S

I 11SA mOBILITY EUUIPMENT R AND U LUMU ATTN: DRDME-TO (SCHOOL)

I NIjHI VISION LAR ATTN: DRSEL-NV-SUD) ATrN: ATTG-ATB-TA

I USA HUMAN ENGINEERING LABI USAIS4tL LIAISON RED, USAAVNL /I USA m.ATERIEL SYSIEMS ANALYSIS ACTIVITY ATTN: URXSY-C

1 USa mESEARCH OFC /

I NAFEL HUMAN EN61NEEHINU bRANCHI USA mHCTIC TEST CEN ATTN: AMSTL-PL-TSI UjSA tOLD REGIONS TEST CEN ATTN: STECR-OPI U)SA k.ONCEPTS ANALYSIS AGCY ATTN: CSCA-RupI USA .ONCEPTS ANALYSIS AGCY ATTN; CSCA-JFI UStC.CDA ATTN: ATLL-CAC-ICI IISACmCDA ATTN: ATZL-CAC-IMI USACAC ATTN: ATZL-CAC-IA

I USAC"CDA ATTN: ATZL-CAC-AI l(iA iLECTRONIC wARFARE LAB CHILF, INTLLLIGENCE MATER DEVEL * SUPP OFF

I 1S1 vSCH UEVEL + STANUARUIZA GP, U.K.I USA mESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT LAbS CHIEF, BEHAV SCIENCES DIV9 FOOD SCI LAB1 TRAJmNA ATTN: SAJS-ORI NAVAL AIR SYSTEMS COMMAND ATTN: AIR-53131 ECUM ATIN: AMSEL-CT-OI USACwEC TECHNICAL INFORMATION CLNTERI USAAHL LIBRARYI lJSA IRADOC SYSILMS ANALYSIS ACTIVITY ATTN: ATAA-SL (TECH LIBRARY)I UNIFuHMEU SERVICES UNIT OF THE HEALTH SCI DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRYI USA LOMPUTER SYSTEMS COMMAND AITN: CDMMAND TECHNICAL LIBRARY H-9I EUSTiS UIRECTORATE, USAAMHUL TLCHNICAL LIBRARYI CENTtR FOR NAVAL ANALYSISI NAVAL HEALTH RSCH CEN LIdkAkYI NAVAL ELECTRONICS LAB ATIN: RESLARCH LIBRARYI NAVAL PERSONNEL H AND U CEN LIBRARY ATTN: CODE P106I HONEywELL INC. SYSTEMS ANU RESEARCH CENTERI AIR tORCE HUMAN RESOURCES LAB ATTN: AFHkL/OTSI HQ. IT. HUACHULA ATTN: TECH REF OIVI USA MCAL)EMY OF HEALTH 5CILNCES STIMSON LIBRARY (DOCUMENTS)I SCHOuL OF SYSTLMS AND LOISTICS /I USAMtHDC TECHNICAL LIbRARYI DEPA.TMENT OF THE NAVY TRAINING ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION GPI 0ISMA DEPT OF dEHAVIORAL SCI AND LEADERSHIPI USA LOMMAND ANU GENLRAL STAFF COLLEGE ATTN: LfBRARYI USA IHANSPORTATION SCHOOL USA TRANSP TECH INFO ANO RSCH CEN

I 1lS 4UMINCEN TFC-NICAL RESEARCH BRANCH LIBRARY? HQ,)A USA MEu HSC.. AND DEVEL COMMAND

16

1 USA r1ELU ARTY HUI INSTITUTE FOR ULFENSE ANALYSESI USA IRAININ6 SUPP3RT CLNJEN ATIN: ATIC-LiST-PAI AFriRi TECHNOLOUy DFC (Hi)I USA rnOtsILiTY EU0UIMENT R AND 0 LUMMAN) ATTN: 1RUmE-ZGI Hw, uSA ML~w AIIN: ANPE-OLI 0IA U-- ARMY RETHA1\d1NO tL)L kSEACM * EVALUATION DIVISIONI USAF SCHOOL OF ALRUSPALE t4LVICINt AEROMEDICAL LIBRARY ITSK-4)I US MILITARY ACAI)E4Y DEPT. OF IHiSTURYv BLDG 601I USA iNTELLIGENCE- CEN AND SLH ATIN: SCHOOL LIbRARYIUSA ANTELLi1GEL CEN AND SLH ATTN: ATSI-uPI MA!41,,L CORPS INSTITUTEI NAVAt SAFETY CENqTwR /I USAAvNC ANDl FT. HJCKLR ATTN: A1ZU-ESI US AKMY AVN TNGo LIBRARY ATTN; CHIEF LIBRARIANI USAAvNC ATTN: ATZU-DI lIS MILITARY ACADL'4Y DIRECTOR OF INSTITUTIONAL RhCHI USA AIR DEFENSE SCHOOL AIIN: AI$A-CD-MS1 USAAuS-LIbRAkYUjUCUMENTSI USA 4114 DLFENSL 82JARU ATrN: FILLS REPOSITORYI USA INFANTRY BOAR) ATTN: ATL8-IB-AEI USA iNTELLIGELF CLtN AND SCH ATTN: ATSl-DT-SFLI USA tuRONANCE CLN AND SCm ATTN: ATbL-TU-TACI USA ARMOR SCHOOL ATTN: AILK-TIII LISA ARMOR CENTLW DIRECTORATE O COMBAT DEVELOPMENTS

1NAVAi POSTGRADUATE SCH AITN: u)UULEY 0N% LBAR CD 1424)

1 USA IRANSPORTATIuN SCHOOL ULPOsTY ASSI. COMMANIDANT EDUCA. TECHNOLOGYI USL% zIGNAL SCHOOL AND FT. t3ORuDON ATTNd: ATZH-ET1 USA ARMOR CENTLw + FT. KNUX UFFiCL OF ARMOR FORCE MGT + STANDARDIZATIONI CH-IEP OF NAVAL tUJCATIUN AND TNt., /1 USA SIGNAL SCHOOL * FT. GORDON LUUCATIUNAL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION

H U AlC/XPTI) TRAINI1NG SYSTEMS LLVELOP4ILNTSUSA iNTELLIGENCE CLN AND SCH ATTN! ATSI-ERM1 iJS AHMY ARMOR CENTER ATTN: A17K-TU-P~iUI USA wOARTLRMASTER SCHOOL DIHLClORATE OF TRAINING DEVELOPMENTS1 US CuAST GUARD ACADEMY /I USA IHANSPOR1ATiOJ SCHOOL DiHFCTOHATE OF TRAINING + DOCTRINEIJUSA INFANTRY SCHOOL LIBRARY /

1 USA INFANTRY SCHOOL ATTN: ATSH-i-VI US Am~MY INFANTRY SCHOOL ATTN: ATStt-C)1 USA INFANTRY SCstiUOL ATTN. ATSH-UOT-LRL)I USA INFANTRY SCHOOL ATTN: AISH-LVI USA mP + LHEM SCH/INu CLEN + FT. MCCLELLAN ATTN: ATLN-PTS1 US.A iP * CHEM SCH/ING CEN * FT. MCLLE6.LAN UIR. COM8AT DEVELOPMENT1 USA AP + CHEM SCHIING LEN + FT. MCCLELLAN UIRi TRAINING DEVELOPMENT1 USA mP + CHEM SCH/TNG CEN + FT. MCCLELLAN ATTN: ATZN-mP-ACEI LiSA INSTITUTE OF ADMINISTHATION AT'TN: HESIUENT TRAINING MANAGEMENT1 USA g'IELD AWTILLLRY SCHOOL MORRIS SwETr LI8RARY1 USA iNSTITL'1E OF ADMINISTRATION ACADEMIC LIBRARYI USA *AR COLLEGL ATTN: LIbRARY1 USA eNGINt.FR SCHOOL LIt4RARY AND LLAR41NG RESOURCES CENTER1 USA4 ARMOR SCHOOL (OSARMS) ATTN: LIBRARYI ORGA,YIZATIONAL EFPECTIVENESS CEN * SCH ATTN: LI8RARIAN1 US A,.MY INTELLILNCE CENTER + SLHOOL ATTN: ATSI-TPI US A..(MY INTELLIGE'ICE CLNTLR + SCHOOL ATTN: ATSI-RM-MI US A,.iMY INTELL16LNCE CENTER # SCHOOL ATTN: ATSI-TO-Pm1 UIS AoqMY INTELL1GL'YCE CENTER # sLHOOL ATTN: ATSI-CU-CsI US AHMY INTELLIGE'4CE CENTER * SCHOOL ATTN: ATSI-ESI UEPAKIMENT OF THlE AIR Ot. AIR UNIVERSITY LIORARy (ATC)I HU TmADOC TWAI'JbJG DEVELUPMLNT INSTITUTE? HRITISH EMHASSY 4AITISti ULFENCE STAFF?CAiNAuIAN JOINT STAFF 1

I CL)LS (w) LIB5NAkyI FREN..H ARM4Y AITACiL1 AUSTmIAN EMHASSY 0E.FENSto MILITARY ANUd~ AIR ATTACHE

I CANALDIAN L)EFENC. JAISUN t)1AH ATTN: LOUuSELLORs UEFENCL P ANt) U1 ROYAL NETIHFkLANi'S LMdASSY MiLlIlUY ATIACHE1 CA4AI[AN FORCEb tI4St CUN~WiLLIS ATTN: PFPSUNNEL SELECTIONel CANAuLAN FORCES P--RSUNNLL APPL ISCH UNIT1 ARAY PEHSUNNEL tStAHCH LSTAbLil)HMLN4T1 NEII-$RLANUS EMt3AS5Y OFI-1tL OF 1HE A14 ATTACHEI I PSiCHOLOGICAL H7ESEARCHj UNIT ATTN: CP4-6-13 (LTC M. J. ELLY)e6 LIriRAWY OF CON'Jf4LSS LAC11ANGL~ ANL) (1FT 0TVI I)EFEoASE TLCHNILAiL INFUHMAlIUN t.LN ATTN: 0TlC-00A-2

141) LP(NRY OF CON(,NLSS UNI4T UOCUMLNTS EXPEOITIN6i PROJECTI oS buIVERNMEN7 PRIN11N4b OH.. LhitiARY, PUt3LIC UOCUMENrS DEPARTMENT

I US GuJVERNMENT PRINT~ING OH.. LPHHRY Alt) STATUTO)RY, LIR DIV (SLL)I TH m&NMY LIBRAKY AT1N: AHMY STULJILS SL.C3 / /

NUMHEN uF ADDRESSLES 202

TOTAL NijMHEH OF CUPIES 386

18