1 / 15

Of programming GUIs, robots and aircraft pilots

Of programming GUIs, robots and aircraft pilots. Stéphane Chatty. Yannick Jestin. Who are our End Users ?. En Route Air traffic controllers GUI development team programmers interaction designers graphic designers Human Factors specialists. From programmers’ activity.

thane-mccullough
Download Presentation

Of programming GUIs, robots and aircraft pilots

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Of programming GUIs,robots andaircraft pilots Stéphane Chatty Yannick Jestin

  2. Who are our End Users ? • En Route Air traffic controllers • GUI development team • programmers • interaction designers • graphic designers • Human Factors specialists

  3. From programmers’ activity • Software Engineering • Existing tools to support GUI design and programming • CVS • Debug • Iterative design • Documentation • etc • Lessons learnt building tools ( Whizz’ed, Zinc, Ivy, IntuiKit ) Et si nous analysions enfin la tâche des programmeurs ? (What about analyzing programmers’activity?) Accot, Chatty, Jestin, Sire, IHM’98

  4. … to ‘programming’ per se • How to describe the behaviour of interactive objects ? • How to share this description ?

  5. Programming an aircraft • Flight Management System = series of waypoints + speed modes + fuel consumption + can sometimes be overriden by user • Flying = programming the FMS • Worse than programming an Emacs mode! • Searching for a « natural FMS » • Same holds for driving ATC training simulators • Less critical • More demanding (1 pseudo-pilot = 15 aircraft)

  6. Clearances, phraseology, data-link • Clearance = program that the pilot should follow « Air France 001, maintain level 350 then after PIXEL take direct to JSY » • Phraseology = predefined language constructions • Avoids lexical and syntactic ambiguity • And also avoids semantic ambiguity • Limited set of action patterns • Data-link : towards a computer-based phraseology • Aspiration to richer language: ‘complex clearances’ • What language? Sequential like voice, graphical? From phraseology toward programming

  7. Common understanding of a sequence • « Can you pass the Air France behind the Alitalia? » • « I will give a heading of 180° to the Air France » • « Er… OK...» • « Can I send the Lufthansa across level 290? » • « OK, just wait that the Speedbird and the KLM are separated »

  8. ‘Solution’-based communication • relies on recognition of action patterns • but sometimes recognition fails • and sometimes there is no known pattern! • need of shared information on solutions: • Set of named procedures? • Formalised language (phraseology)? • Visual language?

  9. Experiment: programming a robot • French TV, robot contest among universities • 1999 rule: pick more balls than the other

  10. Goal: help the ENAC team to win • Reprogram the robot between matches • The team: electronicians, aerospace students • Visual programming of robot behaviour

  11. The method: participatory design • Scenarios, workshops, etc • First workshop: « give us a sample program » • Users in front of a white board • No constraint in expression • Result: unable to express a program! • « it first turns, then goes this way towards the bridge • except that if there ’s an adversary pod, then… • Oh, and if it spots an angle for shooting, then… » No programming tool, no program !

  12. Programming is not so natural... • Ability to cope with facets of a program: • Sequence • Conditions • Reactions • Constraints • But no global vision when there are several facets • Current tools and languages support one facet • So what do we do? • Research a theory of action? • Merge existing models in a tool? Do What I Mean! but what do I mean?

  13. Conclusion • Programming ≠ task of programmers • ‘Programming’ is pervasive in ATC for instance: • Programing FMS or simulated aircraft • Sending ‘clearances’ • Sharing ‘solutions’ • Cognitive limits • Sequence, conditions, reactions? • We need better ‘tools’ for thinking about action • Logic-like languages? • Visual representations?

  14. Epilogue: the ENAC robot... • Was finally programmed with a hybrid ad-hoc tool • 2D trajectories • ‘mini-programs’ associated to points on the trajectory • Was 16th in 2000 • Wheels were skidding and positionning was imprecise • Was 2nd in 2001!

More Related