To twist, roll, stroke or poke? A study of input devices for menu navigation in the cockpit

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd">
  <record>
    <leader>00000cab a2200000   4500</leader>
    <controlfield tag="001">MAP20130022437</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="003">MAP</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="005">20130724153318.0</controlfield>
    <controlfield tag="008">130724e20130401esp|||p      |0|||b|spa d</controlfield>
    <datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">MAP</subfield>
      <subfield code="b">spa</subfield>
      <subfield code="d">MAP</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">875</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20130009711</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Stantona, Neville A.</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0">
      <subfield code="a">To twist, roll, stroke or poke? A study of input devices for menu navigation in the cockpit</subfield>
      <subfield code="c">Neville A. Stantona, Catherine Harveya, Katherine L. Planta</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="a">Modern interfaces within the aircraft cockpit integrate many flight management system (FMS) functions into a single system. The success of a user's interaction with an interface depends upon the optimisation between the input device, tasks and environment within which the system is used. In this study, four input devices were evaluated using a range of Human Factors methods, in order to assess aspects of usability including task interaction times, error rates, workload, subjective usability and physical discomfort. The performance of the four input devices was compared using a holistic approach and the findings showed that no single input device produced consistently high performance scores across all of the variables evaluated. The touch screen produced the highest number of best¿ scores; however, discomfort ratings for this device were high, suggesting that it is not an ideal solution as both physical and cognitive aspects of performance must be accounted for in design.</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20130009728</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Harveya, Catherine</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="0">MAPA20130009735</subfield>
      <subfield code="a">Planta, Katherine L.</subfield>
    </datafield>
    <datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2=" ">
      <subfield code="w">MAP20100019818</subfield>
      <subfield code="t">Ergonomics : the international journal of research and practice in human factors and ergonomics</subfield>
      <subfield code="d">Oxon [United Kingdom] : Taylor & Francis, 2010-</subfield>
      <subfield code="x">0014-0139</subfield>
      <subfield code="g">01/04/2013 Volumen 56 Número 4 - abril 2013 , p. 590-611</subfield>
    </datafield>
  </record>
</collection>