See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/4122593

Integration of air traffic control user interfaces

Conference Paper · November 2004

DOI: 10.1109/DASC.2004.1391262 · Source: IEEE Xplore

CITATIONS READS

5 250

2 authors, including:

Ebba Thora Hvannberg

University of Iceland
79 PUBLICATIONS   903 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ebba Thora Hvannberg on 11 December 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 INTEGRATION OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL USER INTERFACES
Hhnur Jdhannsson and Ebba W r a Hvannberg, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland
Abstract
Communication and surveillance capabilities
in oceanic air traffic control are improving and the
amount of air traffic will increase significantly over
the next decades. This requires new systems and
procedures to be incorporated into the oceanic air
traffic controller workstation. The Icelandic Civil
Aviation Administration (ICAA) is looking at ways
to integrate the current set of user interfaces used at
Reykjavik Oceanic Center in an effort to increase
controller performance. The workstation consists
of three different user interfaces, the Flight Data
Processing Systems (FDPS), which presents
electronic flight strips to the controller, the Radar
Display, which displays radar data and the Situation
Display, which is a backup system for the FDPS
system. Three approaches for integration are
presented and claims analysis used to select
between them. The result of the claims analysis and
controllers’ preference was a spatial display where
the FDPS system is integrated into the Radar
Display. A paper prototype was created and
presented to qualified air traffic controllers in order
to get feedback on the prototype design as well as
the transition from a temporal display to spatial
display. This paper discusses the prototype design
and the results from two user-testing sessions at
ICAA.
Introduction
Air traffic over the ocean will increase
significantly in the next decades and technologies
and procedures used to control air traffic today will
not be able to handle the increased traffic [ 1,2,3].
Even today the air traffic system is nearing capacity
meaning that passengers are not getting the service
they need and expect [2]. Increased traffic and
emphasis on safety will demand reduced separation
minima and more efficient routing for aircraft
traveling over the ocean. With emerging
technology like Automatic Dependant Surveillance
-Broadcast (ADS-B) and Controller Pilot Data
Link Communication (CPDLC), system
development needs to adapt to changing technology
in the air traffic control domain.
0 2004 IEEE
0-7803-8539-X/04/$20.00
2.B.1-1
Designers have been researching ways to
incorporate changing technology into ATC
workstations and move tools to the digital world.
Some of the work has been focused on designing
digital strips in place of paper strips [4]. Besides
characterizing the working environment and
practices of air traffic controllers in an ethnographic
study, MacKay, et. al, have suggested several ideas
for the ATC workstation and reportedly one of the
most successful one is to allow controllers to touch
the flight strip with a pen and then highlight the
plane on the radar display [5]. Augmenting flight
strips by making them physical objects and making
them the interface to a computer is an altemative to
either keeping the paper strips or replacing them
with digital counterparts that are implemented with
a keyboard and a monitor [6].Fields et. a1 conclude
that where multiple media exist it might be
tempting to integrate flight strips and radar into a
single coordinated representation [7]. However,
they point out that when the burden of integration is
reduced so is the requirement to humans to integrate
information resulting in a worse mental model [7].
All recognize the ATC workstation as a
collaborative working environment in which
different actors need to work together, the
controIlers, pilots, flight operators and
communication relay operators. At CENA, work
has been camed out in the Toccata project to
develop digital strips [4]. Some of the features are
animation; touch screens, texture and color
gradation, and gestures.
The controller workstation at Icelandic Civil
Aviation Administration (ICAA) consists of three
graphical user interfaces, the FDPS system, which
manages electronic flight strips, the Radar Display,
which displays radar data and Situation Display,
which is a backup system for the FDPS system and
displays the data from flight strips on a
geographicalbackground. These systems are
presented to the controller using up to four different
computer screens making the workstation big and,
according to the controllers, inconvenientto use,
especially in highly stressful situations. The ICAA
is looking at ways to integrate the current set of user
interfaces in an effort to increase controller
performance. This paper proposes a spatial display
for air traffic control in oceanic air traffic control
region in order to increase controller performance,
simplify the controller workstation and to make the
transition to future technology easier.

Oceanic Air Traffic Control

Air traffic traveling over the ocean is different
from domestic en-route traffic for two reasons.
First, aircraft in the oceanic environment are largely
out of radar coverage and therefore surveillance of
the airspace occurs through position reports
provided by the pilots. Position reports are
provided approximately every IO degrees of
longitude or latitude, depending on the speed and Figure 1:The Controller Workstation at ICAA
direction of each flight. Secondly, the
communication between controllers and pilots goes
through communication relay service that uses high
frequency (HF) radio [8,9]. The traffic over the
North Atlantic is divided into two flows, a
westbound flow leaving in the moming and an
eastbound flow leaving in the evening. To avoid
congestion on the North Atlantic routes several
oceanic ATC initiatives based on equipage have
been implemented. These initiatives include
Reduced Vertical Separation Minima (RVSM) that
has been implemented in the North Atlantic and the
Pacific and Reduced Horizontal Separation Minima
(RHSM) for RNP-10 certified aircraft is active in
the Pacific.

Current Controller Workstation at

ICAA
The air traffic controller workstation at the
ICAA, illustrated in Figure 1, consists of up to three
user interfaces, the Flight Data Processing System
(FDPS), the Radar Display and the Situation
Display. On the right of the controller in Figure 1 is
the FDPS system, illustrated in Figure 2 and on the
left is the Radar Display, illustrated in Figure 3.
4 b
Longitude
Figure 2. The Strip Bay of the FDPS System
In April 2002, the ICAA employed the FDPS
system, illustrated in Figure 2. It replaced the old
paper flight strips with electronic flight strips and
allowed the air traffic controllers to use electronic
messaging, which means that inter-facility
communication is no longer done with voice or
telephone. It allows electronic messaging with
other air traffic control centers if data links are
available. It also automates tasks that were done
manually before. For example, when the
communication relay service forwards position

2.B.1-2
reports electronically to the FDPS system, the
system automatically updates the flight strips. The
FDPS system is the main, system that air traffic
controllers at ICAA use.
The flight strips in Figure 2 are grouped into
flight level groups (altitude), e.g., F310,320, and
330. Within each group they are then ordered in
time sequence so that the first aircraft to fly past 30
degrees west or 10 degrees west, depending on the
direction of flight, is positioned on the bottom of
the group. Horizontally the longitudinal waypoint
information is given.
The Radar Display, illustrated in Figure 3,
serves controllers controlling the south or east
sector of the Icelandic Air Traffic Control region. It
gives a spatial presentation of the radar data.
Aircraft are presented in the Radar Display using
aircraft icons for each aircraft in radar coverage.
Attached to each aircraft icon is a data block that
contains information that controllers uses while
they control the air traffic. Information about the
aircraft route is however not available in the Radar
Display and controllers have to rely on the FDPS
system for that information.
Figure 3. The Radar Display
The Situation Display gives the controller a
spatial presentation of the aircraft route found in the
flight strips. It is used as a backup system for the
FDPS system and is never used for maintaining
separation between aircraft.
2.B.1-3
Analysis of Three Alternative
Integrations
After exploring the current set of user
interfaces in an attempt to identify weaknesses the
next step was to identify altematives for integration
approaches [lo]. Three approaches for the
integration of the user interfaces were suggested.
The approaches are a temporal only interface,
which means that the Radar Display is integrated
into the FDPS system, a spatial only display where
the FDPS system is integrated into the Radar
Display and finally, synchronization between the
FDPS system and the Radar Display with
synchronization of information between the two
separate interfaces. These three approaches are
described in more detail below.
Temporal Display
In this approach the radar data is processed and
displayed in the FDPS system as a part of a flight
strip. A new box is added to the flight strip that
contains radar information for an aircraft position.
This box is then updated at the same rate as the
radar data is in the radar display. The aircraft
continue to be grouped with other aircraft in the
same flight level as before. Additional information
found in the radar data block is added to the flight
strip. Obviously, the extra box and added
information are only available while aircraft is in
radar coverage; if an aircraft is not in radar
coverage the extra box and information is excluded
from the flight strip.
Spatial Display
In this approach the FDPS system and
Situation Display are integrated into the Radar
Display. This means that the information found on
the flight strips is moved into the Radar Display for
spatial presentation. Aircraft icons are used to
distinguish between different surveillance sources
and the route for each aircraft is displayed as a line
between the waypoints defined in the aircrafts flight
plan.
Distinction between aircraft that a relevant
controller is responsible for, from other aircraft is
available through color-coding or by only
displaying aircraft that is under the controller’s
control. When a controller wants to give a
clearance to a pilot he would right mouse click the
Table 1. Example Results of the Claims Analysis
aircraft in question and select ftom a menu what ~

action to take the selected aircraft. Information Scenario Description

found in the flight strips will have to be added in a Feature
new design of the data block.
Flight Spatial presentation gives the
Surveillance controllers an inherent view of the
Synchronization between FDPS System and environment when conducting flight
Radar Display surveillance
In this approach the FDPS system and the Flight Spatial presentation gives the
Radar Display show the same sector(s) that a Commanding controllers an inherent view of the
controller is responsible for. environment when processing
The controller has two Radar Displays clearances
running; one that shows a global view of the sector Action By automating unwanted workload
and another that is synchronized with the FDPS. Automation air traffic controllers are better
The FDPS system and the synchronized instance of supported during their work
the Radar Display have the same set of aircraft
visible. In the synchronized work station a For most scenario features the spatial display
controller working on a specific aircraft or set of has equal or less negatives than the other two
aircraft in the FDPS system the controller sees the approaches. Table 2 shows the number of positives
same aircraft(s) highlighted in the Radar Display, and negatives for each alternative and the
and vice versa. This would decrease controller’s proportion between the two.
search time when comparing information between
the two systems. No synchronization is Table 2. The Results of the Claims Analysis
implemented for the Situation Display since it is a
backup system and is not used when controlling Approach Nr. of Nr. of Positives1
aircraft. positives negatives negatives
Temporal 16 11 -1.5
Claims Analysis Spatial 29 10 2.9
Claims analysis is used to find and incorporate Synchronizat 17 10 1.7
features of practice that have key implications for 1 ion
use. Each implication, or feature, is written down
with its hypothesized good and bad effects. Claims Table 2 shows that a spatial approach is the
elaborate a set of scenarios, explaining how and most desirable one since it has by far the greatest
why a particular feature is having a range of number of positives. The next section reports on
impacts on the actors. Claims also motivate design controllers’ attitude towards the three approaches.
reasoning because designers will try to increase Based on this result a spatial approach was selected
positive impacts and decrease negative impacts and a paper prototype developed.
PI].
The result of the claims analysis was that the Controllers’ Response
spatial approach had more positives than the other
When user testing was conducted at ICAA on
two approaches for all but one scenario feature.
the spatial prototype six air traffic controllers
Table 1 contains a few examples of the claims but
the complete list is given in [lo]. participated in the testing. They were first
presented with the three altematives for a prototype
and asked to select which one they found most
desirable. Table 3 shows the controllers’ response.

2.B.1-4

Approach Response
1
Temporal Display I 016
Synchronization I 216
Spatial Display I 416
The majority of the controllers chose the
spatia1 approach opposed to none the temporal
which is interesting given that they have been using
a temporal focused approach for decades, first on
paper and then digitally. The synchronization
approach was the second favorite. When compared
to the result of the claims analysis we see that the
outcome is identical. The best outcome was for the
spatial approach and second best outcome was for
the synchronization approach.
Initial Spatial Display Prototype
We will now proceed to describe a paper
prototype of the spatial display. Paper prototypes
are considered one of the best prototyping
techniques because it is the easiest method to use
when building user interface designs [12]. They do
not require programming skills, are built with low-
fidelity tools but emphasize visualization of user
interfaces over functionality. Therefore, in usability
testing, a sequence of snap-shots are presented to
users or experts as a part of a storyboard, but the
user can seldom control the user interface or get
feedback in response since the prototype is not
running. The advantage of paper prototyping is that
they require fewer resources and are able to show
and communicate ideas to users and other
stakeholders early in the development lifecycle.
Rudd, Stem and Isense characterize low and high
2.B.1-5
fidelity prototypes and compare their advantages
and disadvantages [13].
A study that compared the effectiveness and
satisfaction of paper prototypes and computer
prototypes reported no difference in the quantity
and quality of critical user statements but users
preferred computer prototypes [14].
The prototype of the integrated user interface
discussed in this paper was built using Photoshop.
Numerous screenshots were drawn to display
various aspects of the user interface and used during
user testing at ICAA.
One of the most important aspects when
designing a user interface is choosing an
appropriate color-coding scheme, especially when
designing for a safety critical domain as air traffic
control. It is important to have the colors chosen
distinct without affecting changes in contrast. The
colors should also correspond to common
conventions and user expectations. For example,
red, green and yellow are colors frequently
associated with stop, go and standby respectively.
Therefore, red may be used to indicate emergency
and alarms; green, normal activity; and yellow,
standby and auxiliary function [IS]. Color coding
provides many opporhmities for coding and
structuring information at the user interface as well
as making it pleasant and enjoyable for the user to
look at. The designer must however not user colors
excessively because that can result in color
pollution, particularly when highly saturated colors,
such as a full red and a deep blue are used [16].
The main issues for the first version of the
paper prototype were color-coding of aircraft in
controllers’ working context and a new design of
the data block. Figure 4 shows a screenshot of the
proposed user interface design.
 Figure 4. Screenshot o f the Prototype
Another important aspect of the prototype is
the data block. The data block is the main tool for
presenting information about the aircraft that is not
displayed spatially. So a good data block design is
crucial for the controller when he or she monitors
flights (flight surveillance) and controls flights
(flight commanding).
Aircraft outside radar coverage will be
displayed as a green filled circle. When an aircraft
is only displayed using secondary radar data it will
be displayed as a green unfilled diamond, otherwise
as a green filled diamond indicating that primary
radar data is correlated with the secondary radar
data, as seen in Figure 5.
Figure 5. a) Outside Radar Coverage, b)
Secondary Radar Data Only, c) Secondary
Radar Correlated with Primary Radar
2.B.1-6
Three alternatives for a data block were
designed. The objective was to present the
altematives to air traffic controllers and ask them
which one they would like to see implemented. The
selected data block would then be incorporated into
the prototype during the latter design iteration. The
first suggestion is an enlurged data block with a
fixed set of information. The second suggestion
was to use tool tips for selected aircraft. The
controller has a fixed sized data block and the tool
tip would show information missing from the data
block. The thud suggestion is an extended data
block. This approach suggests the use of a small
data block with minimal information with the
possibility to extend the data block when controllers
need further information. The information
displayed in both data blocks is configurable.
Former User Testing Results
The aim of the user testing was to present the
spatial prototype to six qualified air traffic
controllers to get their feedback on using a spatial
display to control air traffic and use the results to
improve the prototype design. The prototype was a
paper prototype representing the user interface
design. The prototype demonstration was
 administered to six controllers, both experienced
and inexperienced. The most important results are
explained below.
The three altematives for a data block were
presented to the controllers and they asked which
one they would like to see implemented. Table 4
shows the controller response when asked to choose
between the three altematives.
Table 4. Results When Asked to Choose Between
Three Alternatives for a New Data Block
Data block alternative I Response
Enlarged data block 016
Data block using tool-tips 216
Extended data block 416
L I
As a result the extended data block was
incorporated into the prototype design. Figure 6
shows the data block selected.
I I
ICE102
SF350t48
DIKFIGX
- ICE10213454
SF350 ? 48
DIKF’GX
3556 I 2 / 8752
GCLPIBIKFIAXWR
I
I
117 -0.00 1121314 I
I
Figure 6. A Data Block
The controllers were asked if the aircraft icons
were enough to represent different surveillance
sources. Five out of six controllers found two of
the three aircraft icons in Figure 5 a) and c) too
1 similar and suggested that they be changed.
When asked about flight surveillance three
controllers said that the proposed spatial display
was better than the current set of user interfaces and
three said it was not so or were undecided. When
asked about flight commanding five controllers said
that it is better conducted on the spatial display than
with the current set of user interfaces and one said it
was not.
After the prototype demonstration the
controllers were asked to answer a questionnaire.
Table 5 shows the answers for three of the
questions asked. Other questions and answers can
be found in [IO].

Table 5. Questionnaire Results

Questions Answers (Average)

All Controllers preferring Controllers preferring

Synchronization approach (2) Spatial approach (4)
Do you think the proposed user 2.83 4 2.25
interface will give increased support
in your work?
Yes, very much so (1) -Not at all ( 5 )
Do you think the proposed user 2.5 3.5 2
interface will increase your
performance?
Yes, very much so (I) -Not at all ( 5 )
Would you like to use the proposed 3.17 4.5 2.5
user interface instead of the current
set of interfaces?
-Yes, very much so ( I ) -Not at all ( 5 )

2.B.1-7
 There is a difference between responses fiom
the participants that chose the synchronization
approach and the spatial approach. The participants
that chose the synchronization approach were
negative towards the spatial display. The
controllers were inclined that a spatial display
would increase their performance. They also
indicated that it would give them more support but
were concemed about the effect a transition to a
spatial environment would have on their work
which explains why the average for the last
question was high.
The most important conclusion of the user test
is that most of the controllers chose the spatial
altemative for a user interface. The controllers
were pleased with the idea of having all data
present in one user interface. They also liked to
work directly on the aircraft icons and data blocks.
There were some issues that resulted from the
user tests. Trust is an issue for the spatial display.
In order to increase controller trust, characteristics
of the flight strips, which are important when
conducting flight surveillance, have to he identified
and incorporated into the spatial display. Another
challenge is to find ways to support controllers by
automating more tasks that need not be done
manually. Cluttering is another issue that has to be
addressed. Cluttering in a user interface is when
too much information is displayed to the user due to
heavy traffic. Results from this user testing were
used to improve the prototype design that will be
described in the next section.
Improved Spatial Display Prototype
The main issues that were raised during user
testing of version one are how different surveillance
2.B.1-8
sources are presented, cluttering, trust and improved
flight surveillance. Cluttering and trust are
subjects for future research projects but the issues
of how to present surveillance sources as well as
how flight surveillance can be improved were
addressed in version two of the spatial prototype.
Intruding aircraft, projection of routes and
representation of flight levels are features that are
designed in the second version. Intruding aircraft,
i.e. aircraft that deviate from their assigned flight
plan can compromise the safety, security and
efficiency of the ATC system. Conformance
monitoring is therefore required to detect deviations
so that corrective action can be initiated [I 71. In the
spatial prototype aircraft that are not conforming to
their flight plan are color coded with red-brown
color.
Another feature presented in the prototype is to
allow controllers to visually project aircraft
position, as defined in their flight plan, by moving a
slider back and forth. The controllers that took part
in the latter user testing were presented with these
two ideas to get feedback on whether it would be
useful when conducting flight surveillance.
Figure 7 shows a screenshot of the south sector for
the improved prototype. The slider is in the bottom
left hand comer.
In order to give controllers more support when
conducting flight surveillance flight level buttons
have been added to the display, near the left vertical
edge of the window. Only buttons that apply to
flight levels under the controllers’ control are
displayed. These buttons are green when there are
no conflicts in the relevant flight level but turn
yellow or red if conflicts have been identified. Red
and yellow colors are used to indicate a warning or
alert state for conflicts.
 Figure 7. Screenshot of the Improved Prototype
Latter User Testing Results
The second user testing was conducted with
six qualified air traffic controllers. When asked
about whether the aircraft icons distinguish clearly
enough between different surveillance sources, four
controllers said yes and two said no. Two
controllers indicated that color might also be
required for this purpose. This is something that
has to be explored in future versions of the
prototype.
When asked about whether.it would increase
their performance to give clearance for a new flight
level through the data block three controllers said
yes and three said no. One of the controllers who
said no claimed that performance would be the
same as it is today and the other said that this is not
the case generally but under some circumstance it
could mean more performance.
When asked the same question about giving
clearances for a new route five controllers said yes
and only one said no. These results indicate that
controllers are rather keen on this method of
Z.B.l-9
commanding flights, which agrees with the first
user testing session.
The controllers were asked whether using
flight level buttons could replace the flight level
grouping of the flight strips within the FDPS strip
bay. Five controllers said yes and one said no. All
of the controllers said it was obvious which flight
level is chosen. Three of the controllers said that
showing the aircraft position spatially complements
the loss of the time grouping of flight strips within
each flight level of the FDPS strip bay. Two said
no and one said he was not sure.
When asked about using the slider to project
future aircraft position, four controllers claimed it
would support them well. One controller said no
and one controller said he was not sure.
Five of the controllers claimed conducting
flight sweillance as was presented to them
opposed to the current method would increase their
performance. Only one said it would not. This is a
very interesting result because it shows that
controllers are very open to the possibility of using
a spatial display as primary means of maintaining
separation between aircraft. This is an increase
from the Iast user test, which also indicates that
there is added support for controllers in this version
of the prototype. Five said that indicating that an
aircraft is not conforming to their flight plan is a
very good feature and would give them good
support since this is done manually now. One of
the six controllers had doubts about having too
much automation in the system.
As in the former user testing the controllers
were asked to answer a questionnaire after the
prototype demonstration. Table 6 shows the
answers for four of the questions asked.

Questions Answers (Average)

I
All Spatial Approach Temporal Approach
Would you like to use the proposed 1.17 1 2
spatial display instead of the current
set of user interface?
Yes (I) -No (2)
Do you think the proposed spatial 1.67 1.6 2
~ display would be better suited for
flight surveillance than the current set
' of user interfaces?
Yes, very much so ( I ) - Not at all ( 5 )
Do you think that having only the 2.33 2.4 2
proposed spatial display opposed to
the current set of user interfaces would
increase your performance?
Yes, very much so ( 1 ) -Not at all (5)
Do you see a spatial only display as 1.17 1.2 1
the future of air traffic control?
Yes ( I ) -No (2)

lncorporating the suggested improvements Conclusions

from the former user testing as well as the added
support for flight surveillance made a big difference
when these results are compared to the previous
results. It is interesting that there is little difference
between grades given by the group of controllers
that preferred the current set of user interfaces and
the group that preferred the proposed spatial
display.
Another interesting result is that the majority
of the controllers see a spatial only display as the
future of air traffic control. Given good support the
controllers are very open to the possibility of
making a transition to a spatial environment in their
work.
The result of the prototype design and user test
is threefold. First, the suggested aircraft icons may
not be enough to distinguish between surveillance
sources. Research needs to be done in order to
determine whether aircraft icons are enough
distinction or whether other measure, such as color
coding, needs to be added into the prototype.
Secondly, information cluttering needs to be
examined to make sure that it will not be a problem
if a transition to a spatial environment will be
implemented at ICAA. In the formed user testing
session controllers expressed concerns with the
amount of information being displayed as well as
them amount of color coding used.
Third, controllers were more positive during
the second iteration regarding flight surveillance

2.B.1-10
 capabilities because of the added support that was
added in the second design iteration. However, in
order to truly determine whether the spatial
prototype is better suited for flight surveillance and
flight commanding research needs to be conducted
on an implemented prototype where these two
aspects of air traffic control are examined. Such a
study would determine whether using flight strips
(temporal) or a spatial display is more suitable for
flight surveillance and flight commanding. It is
interesting that when controllers were asked
whether they considered a spatial display as the
future of air traffic control 5 out of 6 said yes. This
is a clear indication that the design of spatial
displays is an important subject for future research.
Paper prototypes are considered one of the best
prototyping techniques because it is the easiest
method to use when building user interface designs
[12]. It is however apparent that when the design is
for a safety critical system there are limitation to the
paper prototypes because issues like trust and
cluttering cannot be addressed without an
implemented prototype running.
References
[l] Duke, Graham, 2001, Air Traffic Control, Ian
Allan Publishing Ltd, Hersham, Surrey.
[2] RTCA, Inc., 2002, National Airspace System
Concepts of Operation and Vision for the Future of
Aviation, Washington, DC 20036-4001, USA.
[3] North Atlantic Implementation Group, 1999,
Report of the NICE Task Force: The NAT IMG
Cost/Effectiveness Programme, Reykjavik.
[4] Christophe, Mertz, Stkphane Chatty, Jean-Luc
Vinot, June 2000, Pushing The Limit of ATC user
interface design beyond S&M interaction: the
Digistrips experience, 3rd USAEurope Air Traffic
Management R&D Seminar Napoli.
[5] MacKay, Wendy, Anne-Laure Fayard, Laurent
Frobert, Lionel Midini, CHI, april 1998,
Reinventing the Familiar: Exploring an
Augemented Reality Design Space for Air Traffic
Control.
[6] MacKay, Wendy, December 1999, Is Paper
Safe? The Role of Paper Flight Strips in Air Traffic
Control, University of Aarhus, ACM Transactions
2.B.l-11
View publication stats
on Computer-Human Interaction, Vol. 6, No. 4,
Pages 31 1-340.
[7] Fields, R.E., P.C. Wright, P. Marti, M.
Palmonari, 1998, Air Traffic Control As a
Distributive Cognitive System: A study of extemal
representations, University of York.
[8] Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),1994,
Study 3.12 Oceanic Controller Jobnask Analysis;
Final Report, Volume DI,JRA Summary &
Interfacility Comparisons, Washington, D.C.: FAA.
[9] Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 2000,
Advanced Technologies and Oceanic Procedures
(ATOP) Result Report: Oceanic Controller
Jobnask Analysis (JRA) Year 2000 Revisions,
Washington, D.C.: FAA.
[ 101 Johannsson, Hlynur, 2004, Integration of Air
Traffic Control User Interfaces, University of
Iceland.
[ I l l Rosson, M.B., J.M. Carroll, 2002, Usability
Engineering, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, San
Francisco, CA 94104-3205, USA.
[I21 Scanlon, Tara, 1998, Paper Prototypes: Still
Our Favorite,
htto://www.uie.com/aaicles/Dauerurototyuind,
accessed January 2004.
[I31 Rudd, Jim, Ken Stem, Scott Isensee, January
1996, Low vs. High-fidelity prototyping debate,
ACM Interactions.
[I41 Sefelin, Reinhard Manfred Tscheligi, Verena
Giller, April 2003, Paper Prototyping - What is it
good for? A Comparison of Paper- and Computer-
based Low-fidelity Prototyping, Short papers, p.
778-779 CHI’2003, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.
[lS] Dix, Alan, Janet Finlay, Gregory Abowd,
Russel Beak, 1998, Human-Computer Interaction,
Second Edition, Prentice Hall Europe.
[I61 Preece, J., Yvonne Rogers, Helen Sharp, David
Benyon, Simon Holland, Tom Carey, 1994,
Human-Computer Interaction, Addison-Wesley
Publishing Company.
[17] Reynolds, Tom G., R.J. Hansman, 2003,
Analyzing Conformance Monitoring in Air Traffic
Control Using Fault Detection Approaches &
Operational Data, Massachusetts Institute of
Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.