Engineering Psychology and Cognitive

Ergonomics: Cognition and Design:

14th International Conference, EPCE
2017, Held as Part of HCI International
2017, Vancouver, BC, Canada, July
9-14, 2017, Proceedings, Part II 1st
Edition Don Harris (Eds.)
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/engineering-psychology-and-cognitive-ergonomics-co
gnition-and-design-14th-international-conference-epce-2017-held-as-part-of-hci-intern
ational-2017-vancouver-bc-canada-july-9-14-2017-proceed/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics:

Cognition and Design: 14th International Conference,
EPCE 2017, Held as Part of HCI International 2017,
Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 9-14, 2017, Proceedings,
Part II 1st Edition Don Harris (Eds.)
https://textbookfull.com/product/engineering-psychology-and-
cognitive-ergonomics-cognition-and-design-14th-international-
conference-epce-2017-held-as-part-of-hci-
international-2017-vancouver-bc-canada-july-9-14-2017-proceed/

Augmented Cognition Enhancing Cognition and Behavior in

Complex Human Environments 11th International
Conference AC 2017 Held as Part of HCI International
2017 Vancouver BC Canada July 9 14 2017 Proceedings
Part II 1st Edition Dylan D. Schmorrow
https://textbookfull.com/product/augmented-cognition-enhancing-
cognition-and-behavior-in-complex-human-environments-11th-
international-conference-ac-2017-held-as-part-of-hci-
international-2017-vancouver-bc-canada-july-9-14-2017-proce/

Augmented Cognition Neurocognition and Machine Learning

11th International Conference AC 2017 Held as Part of
HCI International 2017 Vancouver BC Canada July 9 14
2017 Proceedings Part I 1st Edition Dylan D. Schmorrow
https://textbookfull.com/product/augmented-cognition-
neurocognition-and-machine-learning-11th-international-
conference-ac-2017-held-as-part-of-hci-
international-2017-vancouver-bc-canada-
july-9-14-2017-proceedings-part-i-1st-edition-d/
Design User Experience and Usability Designing
Pleasurable Experiences 6th International Conference
DUXU 2017 Held as Part of HCI International 2017
Vancouver BC Canada July 9 14 2017 Proceedings Part II
1st Edition Aaron Marcus
https://textbookfull.com/product/design-user-experience-and-
usability-designing-pleasurable-experiences-6th-international-
conference-duxu-2017-held-as-part-of-hci-
Learning and Collaboration Technologies. Technology in
Education: 4th International Conference, LCT 2017, Held
as Part of HCI International 2017, Vancouver, BC,
Canada, July 9-14, 2017, Proceedings, Part II 1st
Edition Panayiotis Zaphiris
https://textbookfull.com/product/learning-and-collaboration-
technologies-technology-in-education-4th-international-
conference-lct-2017-held-as-part-of-hci-
international-2017-vancouver-bc-canada-
july-9-14-2017-proceedings-p/
Virtual Augmented and Mixed Reality 9th International
Conference VAMR 2017 Held as Part of HCI International
2017 Vancouver BC Canada July 9 14 2017 Proceedings 1st
Edition Stephanie Lackey
https://textbookfull.com/product/virtual-augmented-and-mixed-
reality-9th-international-conference-vamr-2017-held-as-part-of-
hci-international-2017-vancouver-bc-canada-
july-9-14-2017-proceedings-1st-edition-stephanie-lackey/

Distributed Ambient and Pervasive Interactions 5th

International Conference DAPI 2017 Held as Part of HCI
International 2017 Vancouver BC Canada July 9 14 2017
Proceedings 1st Edition Norbert Streitz
https://textbookfull.com/product/distributed-ambient-and-
pervasive-interactions-5th-international-conference-
dapi-2017-held-as-part-of-hci-international-2017-vancouver-bc-
canada-july-9-14-2017-proceedings-1st-edition-norbert-streitz/

HCI in Business Government and Organizations Supporting

Business 4th International Conference HCIBGO 2017 Held
as Part of HCI International 2017 Vancouver BC Canada
July 9 14 2017 Proceedings Part II 1st Edition Fiona
Fui-Hoon Nah
https://textbookfull.com/product/hci-in-business-government-and-
organizations-supporting-business-4th-international-conference-
hcibgo-2017-held-as-part-of-hci-international-2017-vancouver-bc-
canada-july-9-14-2017-proceedings-part-ii/

Design User Experience and Usability Theory Methodology

and Management 6th International Conference DUXU 2017
Held as Part of HCI International 2017 Vancouver BC
Canada July 9 14 2017 Proceedings Part I 1st Edition
Aaron Marcus
https://textbookfull.com/product/design-user-experience-and-
usability-theory-methodology-and-management-6th-international-
conference-duxu-2017-held-as-part-of-hci-
 Don Harris (Ed.)

Engineering Psychology
LNAI 10276

and Cognitive Ergonomics

Cognition and Design
14th International Conference, EPCE 2017
Held as Part of HCI International 2017
Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 9–14, 2017, Proceedings, Part II

123
Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence 10276

Subseries of Lecture Notes in Computer Science

LNAI Series Editors

Randy Goebel
University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Yuzuru Tanaka
Hokkaido University, Sapporo, Japan
Wolfgang Wahlster
DFKI and Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany

LNAI Founding Series Editor

Joerg Siekmann
DFKI and Saarland University, Saarbrücken, Germany
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/1244
Don Harris (Ed.)

Engineering Psychology
and Cognitive Ergonomics
Cognition and Design
14th International Conference, EPCE 2017
Held as Part of HCI International 2017
Vancouver, BC, Canada, July 9–14, 2017
Proceedings, Part II

123
Editor
Don Harris
Faculty of Engineering and Computing
Coventry University
Coventry
UK

ISSN 0302-9743 ISSN 1611-3349 (electronic)

Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence
ISBN 978-3-319-58474-4 ISBN 978-3-319-58475-1 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-58475-1

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017939723

LNCS Sublibrary: SL7 – Artificial Intelligence

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the
material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation,
broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information
storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication
does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant
protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are
believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors
give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or
omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affiliations.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer International Publishing AG
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
 Foreword

The 19th International Conference on Human–Computer Interaction, HCI International

2017, was held in Vancouver, Canada, during July 9–14, 2017. The event incorporated
the 15 conferences/thematic areas listed on the following page.
A total of 4,340 individuals from academia, research institutes, industry, and gov-
ernmental agencies from 70 countries submitted contributions, and 1,228 papers have
been included in the proceedings. These papers address the latest research and
development efforts and highlight the human aspects of design and use of computing
systems. The papers thoroughly cover the entire field of human–computer interaction,
addressing major advances in knowledge and effective use of computers in a variety of
application areas. The volumes constituting the full set of the conference proceedings
are listed on the following pages.
I would like to thank the program board chairs and the members of the program
boards of all thematic areas and affiliated conferences for their contribution to the
highest scientific quality and the overall success of the HCI International 2017
conference.
This conference would not have been possible without the continuous and unwa-
vering support and advice of the founder, Conference General Chair Emeritus and
Conference Scientific Advisor Prof. Gavriel Salvendy. For his outstanding efforts,
I would like to express my appreciation to the communications chair and editor of HCI
International News, Dr. Abbas Moallem.

April 2017 Constantine Stephanidis

 HCI International 2017 Thematic Areas
and Affiliated Conferences

Thematic areas:
• Human–Computer Interaction (HCI 2017)
• Human Interface and the Management of Information (HIMI 2017)
Affiliated conferences:
• 17th International Conference on Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergo-
nomics (EPCE 2017)
• 11th International Conference on Universal Access in Human–Computer Interac-
tion (UAHCI 2017)
• 9th International Conference on Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality (VAMR
2017)
• 9th International Conference on Cross-Cultural Design (CCD 2017)
• 9th International Conference on Social Computing and Social Media (SCSM 2017)
• 11th International Conference on Augmented Cognition (AC 2017)
• 8th International Conference on Digital Human Modeling and Applications in
Health, Safety, Ergonomics and Risk Management (DHM 2017)
• 6th International Conference on Design, User Experience and Usability (DUXU
2017)
• 5th International Conference on Distributed, Ambient and Pervasive Interactions
(DAPI 2017)
• 5th International Conference on Human Aspects of Information Security, Privacy
and Trust (HAS 2017)
• 4th International Conference on HCI in Business, Government and Organizations
(HCIBGO 2017)
• 4th International Conference on Learning and Collaboration Technologies (LCT
2017)
• Third International Conference on Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population
(ITAP 2017)
 Conference Proceedings Volumes Full List

1. LNCS 10271, Human–Computer Interaction: User Interface Design, Development

and Multimodality (Part I), edited by Masaaki Kurosu
2. LNCS 10272 Human–Computer Interaction: Interaction Contexts (Part II), edited
by Masaaki Kurosu
3. LNCS 10273, Human Interface and the Management of Information: Information,
Knowledge and Interaction Design (Part I), edited by Sakae Yamamoto
4. LNCS 10274, Human Interface and the Management of Information: Supporting
Learning, Decision-Making and Collaboration (Part II), edited by Sakae
Yamamoto
5. LNAI 10275, Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics: Performance,
Emotion and Situation Awareness (Part I), edited by Don Harris
6. LNAI 10276, Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics: Cognition and
Design (Part II), edited by Don Harris
7. LNCS 10277, Universal Access in Human–Computer Interaction: Design and
Development Approaches and Methods (Part I), edited by Margherita Antona and
Constantine Stephanidis
8. LNCS 10278, Universal Access in Human–Computer Interaction: Designing
Novel Interactions (Part II), edited by Margherita Antona and Constantine
Stephanidis
9. LNCS 10279, Universal Access in Human–Computer Interaction: Human and
Technological Environments (Part III), edited by Margherita Antona and
Constantine Stephanidis
10. LNCS 10280, Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality, edited by Stephanie Lackey
and Jessie Y.C. Chen
11. LNCS 10281, Cross-Cultural Design, edited by Pei-Luen Patrick Rau
12. LNCS 10282, Social Computing and Social Media: Human Behavior (Part I),
edited by Gabriele Meiselwitz
13. LNCS 10283, Social Computing and Social Media: Applications and Analytics
(Part II), edited by Gabriele Meiselwitz
14. LNAI 10284, Augmented Cognition: Neurocognition and Machine Learning
(Part I), edited by Dylan D. Schmorrow and Cali M. Fidopiastis
15. LNAI 10285, Augmented Cognition: Enhancing Cognition and Behavior in
Complex Human Environments (Part II), edited by Dylan D. Schmorrow and
Cali M. Fidopiastis
16. LNCS 10286, Digital Human Modeling and Applications in Health, Safety,
Ergonomics and Risk Management: Ergonomics and Design (Part I), edited by
Vincent G. Duffy
17. LNCS 10287, Digital Human Modeling and Applications in Health, Safety,
Ergonomics and Risk Management: Health and Safety (Part II), edited by
Vincent G. Duffy
18. LNCS 10288, Design, User Experience, and Usability: Theory, Methodology and
Management (Part I), edited by Aaron Marcus and Wentao Wang
X Conference Proceedings Volumes Full List

19. LNCS 10289, Design, User Experience, and Usability: Designing Pleasurable
Experiences (Part II), edited by Aaron Marcus and Wentao Wang
20. LNCS 10290, Design, User Experience, and Usability: Understanding Users and
Contexts (Part III), edited by Aaron Marcus and Wentao Wang
21. LNCS 10291, Distributed, Ambient and Pervasive Interactions, edited by Norbert
Streitz and Panos Markopoulos
22. LNCS 10292, Human Aspects of Information Security, Privacy and Trust, edited
by Theo Tryfonas
23. LNCS 10293, HCI in Business, Government and Organizations: Interacting with
Information Systems (Part I), edited by Fiona Fui-Hoon Nah and Chuan-Hoo Tan
24. LNCS 10294, HCI in Business, Government and Organizations: Supporting
Business (Part II), edited by Fiona Fui-Hoon Nah and Chuan-Hoo Tan
25. LNCS 10295, Learning and Collaboration Technologies: Novel Learning
Ecosystems (Part I), edited by Panayiotis Zaphiris and Andri Ioannou
26. LNCS 10296, Learning and Collaboration Technologies: Technology in Education
(Part II), edited by Panayiotis Zaphiris and Andri Ioannou
27. LNCS 10297, Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population: Aging, Design and
User Experience (Part I), edited by Jia Zhou and Gavriel Salvendy
28. LNCS 10298, Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population: Applications, Ser-
vices and Contexts (Part II), edited by Jia Zhou and Gavriel Salvendy
29. CCIS 713, HCI International 2017 Posters Proceedings (Part I), edited by
Constantine Stephanidis
30. CCIS 714, HCI International 2017 Posters Proceedings (Part II), edited by
Constantine Stephanidis
 Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics

Program Board Chair(s): Don Harris, UK

• Henning Boje Andersen, Denmark • Andreas Luedtke, Germany

• Martin Baumann, Germany • Randy Mumaw, USA
• Nicklas Dahlstrom, • Jan Noyes, UK
United Arab Emirates • Paul Salmon, Australia
• Shan Fu, P.R. China • Axel Schulte, Germany
• John Huddlestone, UK • Patrick Waterson, UK
• Kyeong-ah Kate Jeong, USA • Alf Zimmer, Germany
• Wen-Chin Li, UK

The full list with the Program Board Chairs and the members of the Program Boards of
all thematic areas and affiliated conferences is available online at:
http://www.hci.international/board-members-2017.php
 HCI International 2018

The 20th International Conference on Human–Computer Interaction, HCI International

2018, will be held jointly with the affiliated conferences in Las Vegas, NV, USA, at
Caesars Palace, July 15–20, 2018. It will cover a broad spectrum of themes related to
human–computer interaction, including theoretical issues, methods, tools, processes,
and case studies in HCI design, as well as novel interaction techniques, interfaces, and
applications. The proceedings will be published by Springer. More information is
available on the conference website: http://2018.hci.international/.

General Chair
Prof. Constantine Stephanidis
University of Crete and ICS-FORTH
Heraklion, Crete, Greece
E-mail: general_chair@hcii2018.org

http://2018.hci.international/
 Contents – Part II

Cognition and Design

System Latency Guidelines Then and Now – Is Zero Latency Really

Considered Necessary? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Christiane Attig, Nadine Rauh, Thomas Franke, and Josef F. Krems

Evaluation of Interface Modality for Control of Multiple

Unmanned Vehicles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Gloria L. Calhoun, Heath A. Ruff, Kyle J. Behymer,
and Clayton D. Rothwell

Research on User Mental Model Acquisition Based on Multidimensional

Data Collaborative Analysis in Product Service System
Innovation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Jinhua Dou and Jingyan Qin

Are 100 ms Fast Enough? Characterizing Latency Perception Thresholds

in Mouse-Based Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Valentin Forch, Thomas Franke, Nadine Rauh, and Josef F. Krems

Design and Evaluation of an Assistive Window for Soft Keyboards

of Tablet PCs that Reduces Visual Attention Shifts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Bomyeong Kim, Kyungdoh Kim, Jinho Ahn, and Robert W. Proctor

Integrated Information Visualization and Usability of User Interfaces

for Safety-Critical Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Sonja Th. Kwee-Meier, Marion Wiessmann, and Alexander Mertens

The Study of Presentation Characteristics of the Warning Information

and Its Influence on User’s Cognitive Process Based on Eye Tracking . . . . . 86
Yun Lin, Chengqi Xue, Qi Guo, Jing Zhang, Ningyue Peng,
and Yafeng Niu

Cognitive Task Analysis for Interface Designs to Assist Medical Engineers

in Hemodialysis Machine Troubleshooting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Yoshitaka Maeda, Satoshi Suzuki, and Akinori Komatsubara

Design of a Decision-Making Task for a Collaborative Brain-Computer

Interface System Based on Emotiv EEG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
Ânderson Schuh and Márcia de Borba Campos
XVI Contents – Part II

Effects of Key Size, Gap and the Location of Key Characters

on the Usability of Touchscreen Devices in Input Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Da Tao, Qiugu Chen, Juan Yuan, Shuang Liu, Xiaoyan Zhang,
and Xingda Qu

Natural, Multi-modal Interfaces for Unmanned Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145

Glenn Taylor

UI-Design and Evaluation for Human-Robot-Teaming in Infantry Platoons . . . . . 159

Martin Westhoven, Christian Lassen, Irmtrud Trautwein,
Thomas Remmersmann, and Bernd Brüggemann

“Smooth” or “Intermittent”? The Necessity of Halt in the Dynamic

Visualization Due to the Features of Working Memory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
Xiaozhou Zhou, Chengqi Xue, An Li, Yafeng Niu, and Jing Zhang

Cognition in Aviation and Space

Study on the Astronaut Error Criteria of a Manually Controlled Rendezvous

and Docking Operation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Jiayi Cai, Weifen Huang, Jie Li, Wang Liu, Haipeng Jing, Dong Chen,
Yanlei Wang, and Xiang Zhang

Multi-modal Interaction Between Pilots and Avionic Systems On-Board

Large Commercial Aircraft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200
Jason Gauci, Matthew Xuereb, Alan Muscat,
and David Zammit-mangion

A Study for Human-Machine Interface Design of Spacecraft Display

& Control Device Based on Eye-Tracking Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211
Qi Guo, Chengqi Xue, Yun Lin, Yafeng Niu, and Mo Chen

The Future Flight Deck . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222

Don Harris

Automated Online Determination of Pilot Activity Under Uncertainty

by Using Evidential Reasoning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231
Fabian Honecker and Axel Schulte

Assessing Human-Computer Interaction of Operating Remotely Piloted

Aircraft Systems (RPAS) in Attitude (ATTI) Mode . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251
Pete McCarthy and Guan Kiat Teo

Multi-UAV Based Helicopter Landing Zone Reconnaissance: Information

Level Fusion and Decision Support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
Marc Schmitt and Peter Stütz
 Contents – Part II XVII

Factors Influencing Cargo Pilots’ Fatigue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284

Rui-shan Sun, Zi-li Chen, Guang-xia Huang-fu, Guang-fu Ma,
Di Wu, and Zhen Liu

A Landing Operation Performance Evaluation System Based

on Flight Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297
Lei Wang, Yong Ren, Hui Sun, and Chuanting Dong

Dynamic Measurement of Pilot Situation Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306

Xu Wu, Chuanyan Feng, Xiaoru Wanyan, Yu Tian, and Shoupeng Huang

An Approach for Assessing the Usability of Cockpit Display System . . . . . . 317

Hongjun Xue, Tao Li, and Xiaoyan Zhang

Cognition and Driving

Partial-autonomous Frenzy: Driving a Level-2 Vehicle on the Open Road . . . 329

Francesco Biondi, Rachel Goethe, Joel Cooper, and David Strayer

The Human Element in Autonomous Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339

Jerone Dunbar and Juan E. Gilbert

How Do Hybrid Electric Vehicle Drivers Acquire Ecodriving

Strategy Knowledge? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363
Thomas Franke, Matthias G. Arend, and Neville A. Stanton

Design and Evaluation of a Mixed-Initiative Planner

for Multi-vehicle Missions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375
Fabian Schmitt, Gunar Roth, and Axel Schulte

A Field Study of Multimodal Alerts for an Autonomous

Threat Detection System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393
Erin T. Solovey, Pallavi Powale, and M.L. Cummings

Clustering of in-Vehicle User Decision-Making Characteristics

Based on Density Peak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413
Qing Xue, Qian Zhang, Xuan Han, and Jia Hao

Driver’s Multi-Attribute Task Battery Performance and Attentional Switch

Cost Are Correlated with Speeding Behavior in Simulated Driving . . . . . . . . 426
Jie Zhang, Mengnuo Dai, and Feng Du

Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437

 Contents – Part I

Mental Workload and Performance

A Method to Estimate Operator’s Mental Workload in Multiple Information

Presentation Environment of Agricultural Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Xiaoping Jin, Bowen Zheng, Yeqing Pei, and Haoyang Li

The Evaluation of Pilot’s First Fixation and Response Time to Different

Design of Alerting Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Wen-Chin Li, Jiaqi Cao, Jr-Hung Lin, Graham Braithwaite,
and Matthew Greaves

An Analysis of Pilot’s Workload Evaluation Based on Time Pressure

and Effort . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Wenmeng Liu, Yanyu Lu, Dan Huang, and Shan Fu

The Effects of Task Complexity and Spatial Ability

on Teleoperation Performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Dan Pan, Yijing Zhang, and Zhizhong Li

Model-Driven Payload Sensor Operation Assistance for a Transport

Helicopter Crew in Manned–Unmanned Teaming Missions: Assistance
Realization, Modelling Experimental Evaluation of Mental Workload . . . . . . 51
Christian Ruf and Peter Stütz

Modeling of Performance Biases Induced by the Variance of Information

Presentation to the Operator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Sen Tian, Dan Huang, Lin Wang, and Shan Fu

Can Fixation Frequency Be Used to Assess Pilots’ Mental Workload

During Taxiing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Xiaoyan Zhang, Hongjun Xue, Xingda Qu, and Tao Li

Psychological and Emotional Issues in Interaction

MINIMA Project: Detecting and Mitigating the Negative Impact

of Automation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Bruno Berberian, Oliver Ohneiser, Francesca De Crescenzio,
Fabio Babiloni, Gianluca Di Flumeri, and Andreas Hasselberg

Cognitive Considerations in Auditory User Interfaces: Neuroergonomic

Evaluation of Synthetic Speech Comprehension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Adrian Curtin and Hasan Ayaz
XX Contents – Part I

Dynamic Changes of ERPs in Gestaltzerfall Phenomena: Analysis Using

Multi-data Selecting and Averaging Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Mariko Funada, Tadashi Funada, and Yoshihide Igarashi

Decision-Making for Adaptive Digital Escape Route Signage Competing

with Environmental Cues: Cognitive Tunneling in High-Stress
Evacuation Situations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
Sonja Th. Kwee-Meier, Wolfgang Kabuss, Alexander Mertens,
and Christopher M. Schlick

Factors Research on EEG Signal Analysis of the Willingness

of Error Reporting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
Hongxia Li and Nan Zhou

Mentally Imagined Item Captures Attention During Visual Search. . . . . . . . . 155

Haifeng Li and Xiaomei Li

Evaluation of the Usability and Playability of an Exergame for Executive

Functions Stimulation and Its Development Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
João Batista Mossmann, Eliseo Berni Reategui,
Débora Nice Ferrari Barbosa, Rochele Paz Fonseca,
Caroline de Oliveira Cardoso, and Vitor Caetano Silveira Valadares

Understanding the Relations Between Self-concept and Causal Attributions

Regarding Computer Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
Adelka Niels and Monique Janneck

Greater Heart Rate Responses to Acute Stress is Correlated

with Worse Performance of Visual Search in Special Police Cadets. . . . . . . . 200
Xiaofang Sun, Yi Yuan, Zhuxi Yao, Kan Zhang, and Jianhui Wu

On-time Measurement of Subjective Anxiety of a Passenger in an

Autonomous Vehicle: Gradually Changing Sounds Decreases Anxiety
of Passenger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209
Akitoshi Tomita, Etsuko T. Harada, Satoshi Ando, Kozue Miyashiro,
Maito Ohmori, and Hiroaki Yano

Investigating the Influence of Emotion in Air Traffic Controller Tasks:

Pretest Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
Martina Truschzinski, Georg Valtin, and Nicholas H. Müller

Stressor Load and Stress Resilience: A New Perspective

for Occupational Stress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232
Lijing Wang, Yanlong Wang, Yingchun Chen, Dayong Dong,
and Wenjun Dong
 Contents – Part I XXI

Situation Awareness and Control

An Integrated Approach of Human Oriented Interactions with Complexity . . . 247

Cedric Bach, Viviane Perret, and Guillaume Calvet

Human-Swarm Interaction as Shared Control: Achieving Flexible

Fault-Tolerant Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
Jacob W. Crandall, Nathan Anderson, Chace Ashcraft, John Grosh,
Jonah Henderson, Joshua McClellan, Aadesh Neupane,
and Michael A. Goodrich

The Evaluation of Remote Tower Visual Assistance System

in Preparation of Two Design Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285
Maik Friedrich, Stefan Pichelmann, Anne Papenfuß, and Jörn Jakobi

The Investigation Human-Computer Interaction on Multiple Remote

Tower Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
Peter Kearney, Wen-Chin Li, Graham Braithwaite,
and Matthew Greaves

Integrated Design of System Display and Procedural Display in Advanced

NPP Control Rooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310
Yiran Ma, Qin Gao, Fei Song, and Yufan Wang

Design and Evaluation of an Abstract Auxiliary Display for Operating

Procedures in Advanced NPP Control Rooms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 319
Yahui Ma, Xiang Jiang, Qin Gao, Haitao Lian, and Qiuyu Wang

Authority Pathway: Intelligent Adaptive Automation for a UAS Ground

Control Station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
Derek McColl, Kevin Heffner, Simon Banbury, Mario Charron,
Robert Arrabito, and Ming Hou

An Evaluation of New Console Technology – Large Display – in Process

Control Display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343
Benjamin Noah, Jingwen Li, and Ling Rothrock

Use of Graphic Imagery as a Mean of Communication Between Operators

and Unmanned Systems in C3Fire Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362
Tal Oron-Gilad and Ilit Oppenheim

Controller Intervention Degree Evaluation of Intersection

in Terminal Airspace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382
Yannan Qi, Xinglong Wang, and Xingjian Zhang

Implementation of a Responsive Human Automation Interaction Concept

for Task-Based-Guidance Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394
Georg Rudnick and Axel Schulte
XXII Contents – Part I

Team Situation Awareness: A Review of Definitions

and Conceptual Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 406
Manrong She and Zhizhong Li

Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 417

Cognition and Design
 System Latency Guidelines Then and Now – Is Zero
Latency Really Considered Necessary?

Christiane Attig1 ✉ , Nadine Rauh1, Thomas Franke2, and Josef F. Krems1

( )

1
Department of Psychology, Cognitive and Engineering Psychology,
Chemnitz University of Technology, Chemnitz, Germany
{christiane.attig,nadine.rauh,
josef.krems}@psychologie.tu-chemnitz.de
2
Institute for Multimedia and Interactive Systems,
Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics,
Universität zu Lübeck, Lübeck, Germany
franke@imis.uni-luebeck.de

Abstract. Latency or system response time (i.e., the delay between user input and
system response) is a fundamental factor affecting human-computer interaction
(HCI). If latency exceeds a critical threshold, user performance and experience get
impaired. Therefore, several design guidelines giving recommendations on
maximum latencies for an optimal user experience have been developed within the
last five centuries. Concentrating on the lower boundary latencies, these guidelines
are critically reviewed and contrasted with recent empirical findings. Results of the
review reveal that latencies below 100 ms were seldom considered in guidelines so
far even though smaller latencies have been shown to be perceivable to the user and
impact user performance negatively. Thus, empirical evidence suggests a need for
updated guidelines for designing latency in HCI.

Keywords: System response time · Latency · User experience · Design

guidelines · Human-computer interaction

1 Introduction

Even though many technological advances aiming at fulfilling the quest for zero latency
have emerged in recent years (e.g., regarding hardware and software speed, communica‐
tion bandwidth), system latency still remains an inevitable aspect of human-computer
interaction (HCI). If latency or system response time (SRT; i.e., the time interval between
user input and system response), also known as lag or delay, exceeds a certain threshold,
users are able to perceive and become aware of latency (e.g., [18]). If it increases even
further, user experience (e.g., [35]) and satisfaction (e.g., [12]) can be impaired. Finally,
also users’ performance can be negatively affected by latency (e.g., [5]), even by latencies
below the perceptional threshold [22].
For enabling system engineers and interface designers to create systems with the best
user experience possible, several design guidelines for various applications have been
established in the last 45 years (for overviews see e.g. [3, 9]). All these guidelines try to

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

D. Harris (Ed.): EPCE 2017, Part II, LNAI 10276, pp. 3–14, 2017.
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-58475-1_1
4 C. Attig et al.

answer the core question: Where are the latency thresholds? However, different guidelines
for different aspects of HCI have to be distinguished. While some guidelines deal with
human perception (e.g., what is the upper level of latency that users will just not notice?),
others deal with user experience (e.g., what is the minimum latency where users start to get
annoyed?). In this review, classic (i.e., before 1999) and more recent (i.e., since 2000)
latency guidelines for designing interactive systems are examined. In the light of technical
advances striving for zero-latency systems, our central question is: Are latencies close to
zero considered necessary in these guidelines? Therefore, we concentrate on the lower
latency limits that are specified in the reviewed latency guidelines (see Table 1).

Table 1. Latency guidelines and their lower limit latency recommendations.

Guideline Smallest latency Characterization
threshold
Miller [23] 100–200 ms • Latency guidelines for 17 different types of HCI
• 100–200 ms is the longest acceptable latency for control
activations
• Based on the author’s expert estimation
Shneiderman and 50–150 ms • Latency guidelines for different task complexity levels
Plaisant [31] • 50–150 ms is the longest acceptable latency for basic, repetitive
tasks
• Based on empirical data
Card et al. [7] 100 ms • Latency guidelines representing human perceptual limits
• 100 ms is the maximum latency for creating the illusion that a
system runs instantaneously
• Generalized from classic psychophysical experiments
Seow [29] 100–200 ms • Latency guidelines for different user expectations
• 100–200 ms is the longest acceptable latency for system
responses that the user expects to be instantaneous
• Foundations not clearly stated
Tolia et al. [32] 150 ms • Latency guidelines for interactions with thin clients
• Below 150 ms user performance will not be negatively
influenced and the user will not notice the latency
• Based on previous guidelines and empirical data
Kaaresoja et al. [19] visual: 30–85 ms • Latency guidelines for different feedback modalities after
audio: 20–70 ms touchscreen button presses
tactile: 5–50 ms • Perceived button quality will decrease with latencies above the
thresholds
• Based on empirical data
Kaaresoja [20] visual-audio • Latency guidelines for bimodal feedback after touchscreen
visual: 90 ms button presses
audio: 70 ms • Perceived button quality will decrease with latencies above the
visual-tactile thresholds
visual: 100 ms • Based on empirical data
tactile: 55 ms
tactile-audio
tactile: 25 ms
audio: 100 ms
Doherty and 300 ms • Latency guidelines for different user expectations and
Sorenson [11] attentional states
• Below 300 ms the users will feel as if they are in direct control
• Based on previous guidelines and empirical data
 System Latency Guidelines Then and Now 5

2 Classic Latency Guidelines

The first author to determine latency thresholds was Miller in 1968 [23]. His design
recommendations for various types of HCI were based on “the best calculated guesses by
the author” ([23], p. 271), that is, they were not based on systematic empirical investiga‐
tions (see also [5]). These early guidelines, which were focused on user acceptance (i.e.,
acceptable latencies), were theoretically grounded on two pillars: (1) common expectan‐
cies in interpersonal communication (i.e., typical patterns of interpersonal communica‐
tion) and (2) memory research. Regarding the first aspect, according to Miller, in a
conversation between two people an answer is expected within a few seconds. If the
response delay exceeds four seconds, the thread of communication breaks [23]. Miller
applied this pattern to HCI, which he viewed as a conversational act similar to a dialogue
between two people, and defined maximum SRTs for 17 different kinds of conversa‐
tional acts between the user and the system. Regarding the second aspect, due to the
limited capacity of short-term memory, human thought and problem solving processes are
interrupted if the SRT exceeds a certain threshold. The longer a chunk has to be kept
active in short-term memory, the more likely are the chances of errors or forgetting (e.g.,
the chances of forgetting an e-mail address rise with increasing delay in loading the e-
mail software). According to Miller, the longest acceptable latency for the system
response in the most basic interactions (control activations, i.e., feedback that signals
physical activation, e.g., an audible mouse click) is 100–200 ms. SRTs below 100 ms are
not mentioned by Miller. Being aware that his recommendations can only be a starting
point, Miller urged the need for empirical validation of his guidelines. Nevertheless, they
constituted a first valuable guidance for practitioners and were used as reference in
research on SRT and its effects on user experience.
In his review on SRT and human performance, Shneiderman [30] summarized
experimental research on SRT and underlined the importance of users’ expectations for
the acceptance of latencies. Expectancies are influenced by three factors [30, 31]: (1)
prior experience, (2) an individual’s tolerance for and adaptability to delays, and (3) task
complexity. First, prior experience with a certain kind of task shapes a user’s expecta‐
tions regarding the same or similar tasks in the future (e.g., if a user learns that the delay
between a search query in Google and the display of results is 300 ms, s/he will expect
future search processes to take the same amount of time). Second, several person vari‐
ables (e.g., age, professional experience, mood) determine a user’s willingness to wait.
Moreover, people can adapt to long SRTs (e.g., by fulfilling other tasks while waiting).
Third, with increasing task complexity, users are willing to accept longer SRTs. An
experiment investigating simple, repetitive control tasks [15], which Shneiderman [30]
referred to, showed SRTs below 1 s (i.e., 160 ms, 720 ms) to be superior for user
performance (in contrast to 1149 ms). Regarding more complex problem solving tasks,
the picture is less clear: While users had a more favorable attitude towards a low-latency
system (330 ms), they made fewer errors with a longer latency (1250 ms; [33]). Further‐
more, the higher the complexity, the higher users’ adaptation to the latency [30]. In sum,
for simple and repetitive tasks, users have a higher satisfaction and better performance
if SRTs are short. In contrast, users can adapt to longer SRTs in complex tasks, but their
satisfaction decreases with increasing SRT [30, 31]. Based on these empirical results,
6 C. Attig et al.

Shneiderman and Plaisant [31] defined task-centered latency guidelines regarding user
acceptance for tasks with different complexity levels. According to the authors, the most
basic, repetitive tasks (e.g., single keystrokes and mouse clicks) require SRTs from
50-150 ms to keep the user satisfied. However, the theoretical basis for the lower boun‐
dary of 50 ms remains unclear. Moreover, it is not explicitly stated for which kind of
tasks latencies below 100 ms are required, thus, it can only be assumed that users with
high prior task experience and a low tolerance for delays prefer very small latencies in
simple tasks (i.e., below 100 ms). Yet, as Dabrowski and Munson [9] point out, a
definition of task complexity is missing in Shneiderman’s classification, thus, it remains
unclear what exactly makes a task complex.
Choosing a different approach, Card, Robertson, and Mackinlay [7] referred to psycho‐
physical experiments investigating human perception thresholds (e.g., regarding apparent
motion; [6]) and applied those results to HCI. According to the authors, for creating the
illusion that a system runs instantaneously, a maximum SRT of 100 ms has to be applied,
otherwise the user will notice the delay (e.g., distinct lights on a graphical user interface
instead of a single light in motion; [6])1. This 100 ms threshold of perceptual processing
was later made popular by Nielsen ([24]; see also [29]). Together with the early work by
Miller [23], the work of Card et al. [6, 7] made the 100 ms threshold a frequently cited
design rule implying that longer SRTs are not acceptable to the user [27].
However, in the 100 ms rule of thumb empirical data regarding perceptual
thresholds [6] and subjective estimates regarding user acceptance [23] are somehow
entangled. In guidelines based on empirical data regarding user latency acceptance
also latencies below 100 ms are mentioned, at least for the most basic computer
tasks [31]. Nevertheless, as we will see in the next section, 100 ms remained the
lower bottom SRT guideline even in modern design guidelines, implying that SRTs
below this threshold should not affect users markedly.

3 Recent Latency Guidelines

In his book on time perception in HCI, Seow [29] emphasized the importance of user
expectations for establishing latency guidelines. He stated, similar to Shneiderman
[30], that latency acceptance is relative to users’ expectations and the nature of the
task (i.e., longer latencies are acceptable for tasks with higher complexity as these are
expected to require more computing capacity, and therefore, more time). In contrast
to Shneiderman [31], he did not derive guidelines for different levels of task
complexity but for different user expectations (i.e., instead of task-centered, his
guidelines are user-centered with a stronger focus on the interaction). According to
Seow [29], users have certain expectations regarding the responsiveness of the system
if a certain task is conducted. For instance, tasks that mimic events in the physical
world with instantaneous responses (e.g., pressing a virtual button which mimics

1
It has to be emphasized that Card et al. referred to classic experiments investigating apparent
motions. In these, influences of different framerates – and not input latency – on human percep‐
tion were investigated.
 System Latency Guidelines Then and Now 7

pressing a physical button) should also show instantaneous responses (e.g., an audible
click). For this very basic kind of task, the user expects the system to respond instan‐
taneous, which means that a maximum SRT of 100 ms is required for very simple
feedback (e.g., audible click after a virtual button press), respectively 200 ms for
slightly more complex feedback (e.g., visual drop down menu). The next category,
labelled “immediate”, concerns situations in which the user expects the system to
respond by performing an action initiated by the user (e.g., the display of a letter after
a keystroke) and requires a maximum SRT of 500–1000 ms [29]. It remains unclear
on what data these latency thresholds are grounded on as no empirical data are
presented.
Different from these universal guidelines, some guidelines for single use cases have
been developed. Tolia, Andersen, and Satyanarayanan [32] defined latency guidelines
for thin clients (i.e., lightweight computers using remote access to a server to run appli‐
cations). In this case, besides the latency within the application, the end-to-end commu‐
nication from user to server and back produces additional latency. This is a particular
challenge for system engineers, because users are nowadays used to systems without
perceivable delay [32]. Based on prior empirical work and latency guidelines [23, 31],
the authors concluded that user performance is not negatively influenced by SRTs below
150 ms. Therefore, in order to perceive the thin client’s system output as immediate, the
SRT (here: end-to-end latency meaning the time it takes from user input to server and
back until the display of system output) must not exceed 150 ms, otherwise, the delay
will get noticeable (>150 ms) and, finally, the interaction becomes annoying
(>1000 ms). Thus, this guideline contains recommendations both for latency perception
and user experience.
In contrast, Kaaresoja, Brewster, and Lantz [19] made a clear distinction between
perception and user experience by empirically investigating both variables independ‐
ently and deriving latency guidelines for another specific use case: touchscreen button
presses. By experimentally manipulating the latency between the first finger touch and
system feedback as well as feedback modality (visual, audio, tactile), the authors calcu‐
lated the point of subjective simultaneity (PSS) for each feedback modality and, in
addition, assessed users’ perceived quality of the touchscreen button. Combinations of
the three different feedback modalities and nine different latency conditions (ranging
from 0 to 300 ms, in addition to the baseline system latency) were presented. Users had
to state if the feedback appeared simultaneously with their touch and, in a later but similar
phase, how s/he would rate the quality of the button (from 1 = low quality to 7 = high
quality). It was reported that the PSS for visual feedback was 32 ms, for audio feedback
19 ms and for tactile feedback 5 ms. Thus, the participants were able to perceive very
small latencies, especially for tactile feedback. Significant drops in the perceived quality
scores were found at 100–150 ms for visual, and 70–100 ms for audio as well as for
tactile feedback. Moreover, buttons with any feedback with a 300 ms latency were rated
significantly lower than the buttons with any feedback with latencies ranging from 0 to
150 ms. According to the guidelines by Kaaresoja et al. [19], latencies for visual feed‐
back should lie between 30–85 ms, for audio feedback between 20–70 ms and for tactile
feedback between 5–50 ms. Hence, their guidelines were the first to explicitly incorpo‐
rate latencies smaller than 50–100 ms, if only for a very specific use case.
8 C. Attig et al.

Using a similar experimental approach, Kaaresoja [20] expanded his guidelines for
bimodal feedback (i.e., visual-audio, visual-tactile and tactile-audio). It was found that
for different feedback pairs different levels of symmetry between the two feedback
modality latencies emerge, as follows. For the combination of visual and audio feedback,
the visual feedback latency should not be greater than 90 ms while the audio feedback
should not exceed 70 ms. For the combination of visual and tactile feedback, the visual
feedback latency should not be greater than 100 ms while the tactile feedback should
not exceed 55 ms. And lastly, for the combination of tactile and audio feedback, the
tactile feedback latency should not be greater than 25 ms while the audio feedback should
not exceed 100 ms.2 The empirical results [19, 20] suggest a high sensitivity for delay
of tactile feedback in tactile HCI. This finding is in line with the suggestion that inter‐
actions which mimic events in the physical world (e.g., tactile feedback after virtual
button touch) require very small latencies to be perceived as instantaneous [28].
In their review, Doherty and Sorenson [11] updated and expanded the existing
general latency guidelines [29, 30] with a special focus on the flow experience [8]. The
authors argue that in the usage of today’s frequently used interactive systems (e.g.,
smartphones, tablets) short interactions (e.g., menu navigation, scrolling) are predomi‐
nant. As it has been pointed out before, small latencies will get noticed or even annoy
the user especially in very short and basic interactions (e.g., [19, 23, 29, 31, 32]). One
negative influence of perceived latency is that users’ interaction with the system can be
interrupted, thus, users’ flow gets broken ([11]; see also [29]). Incorporating empirical
results on user expectations, perceived task complexity and perceptual limits, Doherty
and Sorenson’s guidelines [11] represent the most elaborate latency guidelines for an
optimal user experience so far. However, the authors raised the lower boundary latency
threshold for instantaneous responses to 300 ms. This figure was incorporated because
of Kaaresoja’s [20] finding that the perceived quality of the touchscreen button was
significantly lower with 300 ms latency in contrast to 0–150 ms. Thus, “[…] depending
on the input modality (mouse, keyboard, touchscreen, air, gesture, speech, etc.), the
perception of what a user would consider instantaneous will vary.” ([11], p. 4390). While
the lower limit of 300 ms gives the guideline a higher generalizability, it also decreases
its accuracy for very short interactions.
It becomes apparent that latencies below 100 ms do not play a role in most design
guidelines. The only general guideline that explicitly mentioned a latency threshold smaller
than 100 ms was the one by Shneiderman and Plaisant [31], but it was not explicitly stated
under which conditions (e.g., task demands, user status) a latency has to be as small as
50 ms to be acceptable. The only other guideline recommending maximum latencies below
100 ms is the one by Kaaresoja et al. [20], suggesting that in very basic interactions (i.e.,
control tasks; [9]) – the ones that Miller [23] called “control activations” and Seow [29]
expected to be “instantaneous” – user experience gets significantly impaired by latencies
below 100 ms. Still, following the majority of guidelines, zero-latency systems do not seem
necessary for optimal user experience. But is this really the case?

2
Note that the dependent variable was a PSS judgment. Thus, based on these results, users will
notice the delay if one of the feedback modalities exceeds the latency thresholds. If and when
the participants perceived an asynchronicity between the two feedbacks was not assessed.
 System Latency Guidelines Then and Now 9

4 Empirical Evidence for the Perception of Latencies Below 100 ms

and their Impact on HCI

Within recent years, there has been a considerable growth of studies examining latency
effects in HCI even below the 100 ms threshold, possibly also because of increasing
technical potentialities (e.g., high-speed cameras). In several studies, system latency was
experimentally varied and perceptual limits were tested by applying classic psycho‐
physical methods (i.e., estimating the just noticeable difference regarding perceived
latency between two identical tasks with different latencies). These studies, which are
presented in the following, indicate that users are indeed able to perceive latencies well
below 100 ms. In addition, other studies show that even such small latencies can have
negative effects on user performance – even when the latencies are below the percep‐
tional threshold. Moreover, influencing factors on the perception of latencies are inves‐
tigated, implying that latency perception is dependent on user and task variables.
During a digital inking task using a stylus [2], users were able to perceive latencies
between input (i.e., the touch of the stylus on the screen) and visual feedback (i.e., the
appearance of the digital ink) down to 50 ms with slightly higher perception thresholds
for tasks that require more attentional resources (i.e., cause a greater workload). In a
direct dragging task on a touchscreen, users were even able to notice latencies down to
11 ms [10], 6 ms [27] and even down to 2 ms under specific circumstances [25]. And
even in a direct tapping task on a touchscreen (i.e., button press) where relatively few
data are available to make latencies salient, a perceptional threshold of 64 ms was
found [18].
So far, these results all refer to zero-order tasks. Zero order is one type of control order,
that is, the way that the system responds to a change of the position of the control [34]. In
zero-order tasks, a change in the position of the control (e.g., the mouse on the mousepad)
leads to a change in the position of the displayed system output (e.g., the cursor on the
screen; [17, 34]). In contrast, first-order control tasks require velocity control [34]. Here, a
change in the control position leads to a constant change of velocity (e.g., a button press
on a DVD remote control to raise up the playback speed to 2x). Finally, second-order
control tasks deal with a change of acceleration (i.e., changes in the rate of velocity) and
require more cognitive resources than zero- and first-order control tasks. One example in
the field of vehicle control is the relationship between steering wheel position and the
vehicle’s lateral position in the lane. Here, a constant change in the steering wheel position
leads to an increasing rate of change in the lateral position [34]. In second-order tasks,
when the input is set to zero, the output continues to change and is not instantly set to zero
as it is the case in zero- and first-order tasks [17]. Such a more demanding, second-order
task was applied in an own study [22]. Using a virtual balance task, it has been shown that
performance was already impaired by an added latency of 49 ms (technical base latency:
10.8 ms). However, participants perceived only the added latency from 97 ms on. Hence,
even though users were not able to perceive the latency, it had an effect on their performance.
The effect of latency on user performance was also examined more closely in
recent years. For instance, Brady et al. [4] applied an indirect mouse movement task
and found that an added latency of 33 ms significantly impaired user performance.
10 C. Attig et al.

In a pointing task, latency began to affect performance at 16 ms [14]. In a 3D game

environment, a latency of 41 ms impaired user performance in an aiming task [16].

5 Factors Affecting Latency Perception

The studies presented so far were concerned with identifying latency thresholds for
perception and performance. Other studies examined effects of influencing factors on
latency perception, suggesting that latency thresholds are not cast in stone, yet, are
system-, task- and person-dependent. Hence, a key task from an engineering psychology
perspective is to structure relevant variables affecting latency perception. In the
following, empirical results as well as assumptions regarding (1) system characteristics,
(2), task characteristics, and (3) person characteristics will be discussed.
First, concerning system characteristics, different input modalities can be distin‐
guished. When comparing direct (e.g., via touchscreen) and indirect input (e.g., with
conventional input devices such as a mouse), sensitivity to latencies is higher in direct
interaction [10, 26]. This can likely be ascribed to a higher salience of the latency because
the visual attention is located within the same place as the system input. Another factor
is the output modality: The latency perception thresholds differ with respect to the
modality of the feedback after a virtual button press. Users are extremely sensitive to a
latency in tactile feedback (when compared to audio and visual feedback) when the input
is also tactile [19, 20]. According to Seow [29], a tactile feedback after a virtual button
press is very similar to the press of a real physical button, therefore the user expects an
instantaneous response and might be more sensitive to interaction delays. Moreover, the
number of feedbacks seems to play a role in latency perception. When two feedbacks
are provided in contrast to just one, latency sensitivity is lower [18, 20, 28]. One explan‐
ation for this effect might be an additional information-processing step which is needed
to integrate the two feedbacks [25], however, this remains speculative at the present
time. In visual dragging tasks, the size ratio between physical reference and visual feed‐
back affects latency perception. If the size of the physical reference (e.g., a stylus nib)
and the visual feedback are more similar, latency perception is improved [25]. Possibly
this can also be attributed to the higher similarity to an interaction in the physical
world [29].
Second, regarding task characteristics, an important factor that has already been
incorporated in guidelines is task complexity. By experimentally varying task
complexity, two studies found that users perceive smaller latencies in simple tasks (i.e.,
dragging tasks) compared to slightly more complex, thus, demanding tasks (i.e., scrib‐
bling tasks; [2, 25]. Moreover, interaction speed affects latency perception in dragging
tasks. The faster the user’s hand motion in a dragging task, the better the latency percep‐
tion [26]. This finding is attributed to the visual effect of a fast hand motion in a dragging
task which creates the illusion that the displayed square is “attached to a rubber band to
the user’s finger” ([26], p. 453). This effect makes latency visible and salient to the user.
The latency perception model [1], which describes the process of latency perception,
postulates that the user utilizes a referent to make latency judgments. More specifically,
a referent is a stimulus within the interaction (e.g., a stylus nib, the user’s finger) that
 System Latency Guidelines Then and Now 11

the user compares to the system response to evaluate the latency magnitude [1]. One
example is the user’s hand in a dragging task as described before [26]. According to [1],
the presence of a referent affects latency perception. If the hand is made invisible and
can therefore not be used as a referent, latency sensitivity is diminished in a scribbling
task [2]. Further, the modality of the referent is discussed as a factor influencing latency
perception [1].
Finally, regarding person characteristics, domain specific experience seems to be an
important factor for the perception of latencies. The experience with highly dynamic
computer games (i.e., action games, racing games, first person shooter games) was found
to correlate positively with latency perception in a dragging task [13]. Experience with
a specific musical instrument might also affect the perception of audio latencies when
playing it [21]. Moreover, age has been suggested as a factor affecting latency percep‐
tion, with younger users perceiving smaller latencies than older users [21]. Closely
connected to task complexity is cognitive load. The higher the task demands (e.g.,
because of higher task complexity, secondary tasks or environmental variables), the
higher the user’s cognitive load. This factor has been discussed with respect to latency
perception in several studies [2, 19, 25].

6 Conclusion and Implications

To conclude, while several design guidelines recommend a maximum latency of 100 ms

for an optimal user experience in basic interactions, empirical results suggest that latency
thresholds for different tasks lay substantially lower. Users are indeed able to perceive
latencies down to single milliseconds in specific tasks. Moreover, performance in zero-
order and more demanding second-order tasks already gets impaired by latencies
between 16–60 ms. Therefore, the lower boundary of 100 ms as mentioned in several
design guidelines appears outdated. Especially interactions that are very similar to phys‐
ical interactions require substantially smaller maximum acceptable latencies. Further‐
more, several factors affect latency perception and consequently user performance and
tolerance. Hence, a need for updated, evidence-based latency guidelines incorporating
system-, task-, and person characteristics emerges.
The literature review revealed further implications. First, the majority of tasks that
were utilized in empirical investigations on latency perception were zero-order tasks.
However, latency can also impair user performance and experience in first- and second-
order tasks. Especially in the emerging field of human-robot-interactions, virtual envi‐
ronments and remote-controlled systems, influences of latency should be further inves‐
tigated in more complex tasks. Second, the study of factors affecting latency perception,
user performance, and user experience needs to be intensified. Besides replicating
previous studies and examining several variables more deeply (e.g., domain-specific
experience, learning effects, attentional focus, motivational aspects), this also involves
assessing age-diverse samples with varying usage experience of the utilized devices and
highly dynamic computer games. Moreover, with technical progress aiming at increas‐
ingly reducing latencies, users likely get accustomed to hardly perceivable delays. This
could lead to a higher sensitivity for very short latencies in users with much experience
12 C. Attig et al.

with such modern systems and is probably one factor why guidelines from the 20th
century are not applicable anymore.
Updated latency guidelines that give specific recommendations for different user
groups and use cases will constitute a fruitful information source for interaction
designers and system engineers and will enable a more precise and differentiated eval‐
uation of the question: Is zero-latency really necessary?

References

1. Annett, M.: The fundamental issues of pen-based interaction with tablet devices. Dissertation,
University of Alberta (2014)
2. Annett, M., Ng, A., Dietz, P., Bischof, W., Gupta, A.: How low should we go? Understanding
the perception of latency while inking. In: Graphics Interface Conference 2014, 7–9 May,
Montreal, Canada, pp. 167–174. Canadian Human-Computer Communications Society
(2014)
3. Boucsein, W.: Forty years of research on system response times – what did we learn from it?
In: Schlick, C.M. (ed.) Industrial Engineering and Ergonomics, pp. 575–593. Springer,
Heidelberg (2009). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-01293-8_42
4. Brady, K., Wu, B., Sim, S.H., Enquobahrie, A., Ortiz, R., Arikatla, S.: Modeling reduced user
experience caused by visual latency. In: Soares, M., Falcão, C., Ahram, T.Z. (eds.) Advances
in Ergonomics Modeling, Usability & Special Populations. Advances in Intelligent Systems
and Computing, pp. 267–277. Springer, Cham (2017). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-41685-4_24
5. Butler, T.W.: Computer response time and user performance. In: Janda, A. (ed.) CHI
1983, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems,
pp. 58–62. ACM, New York (1983). doi:10.1145/800045.801581
6. Card, S.K., Moran, T.P., Newell, A.: The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction.
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1983)
7. Card, S.K., Robertson, G.G., Mackinlay, J.D.: The information visualizer, an information
workspace. In: CHI 1991, Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems, pp. 181–186. ACM, New York (1991). doi:10.1145/108844.108874
8. Csikszentmihalyi, M.: Flow and the Foundations of Positive Psychology. Springer, Dordrecht
(2014). doi:10.1007/978-94-017-9088-8
9. Dabrowski, J., Munson, E.V.: 40 Years of searching for the best computer system response
time. Interact. Comput. 23, 555–564 (2011). doi:10.1016/j.intcom.2011.05.008
10. Deber, J., Jota, R., Forlines, C., Wigdor, D.: How much faster is fast enough? User perception
of latency & latency improvements in direct and indirect touch. In: CHI 2015, April 18–23,
2015, Seoul, Republic of Korea, pp. 1827–1836. ACM, New York (2015). doi:
10.1145/2702123.2702300
11. Doherty, R.A., Sorenson, P.: Keeping users in the flow: mapping system responsiveness with
user experience. Proc Man 3, 4384–4391 (2015). doi:10.1016/j.promfg.2015.07.436
12. Fischer, A.R.H., Blommaert, F.J.J., Midden, C.J.H.: Monitoring and evaluation of time delay.
Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Int. 19, 163–180 (2005). doi:10.1207/s15327590ijhc1902_1
13. Forch, V., Franke, T., Rauh, N., Krems, J.F.: Are 100 milliseconds fast enough? Characterizing
latency perception thresholds in mouse-based interaction. Paper presented at the 19th
International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Vancouver, Canada, 9–14 July 2017
(2017)
14. Friston, S., Karlström, P., Steed, A.: The effects of low latency on pointing and steering tasks.
IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. 22, 1605–1615 (2015). doi:10.1109/TVCG.2015.2446467
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 The shaft, however, was never built. Screw propulsion was just
coming into use; the design of the vessel was changed, and the
whole scheme lapsed. A year or so later, M. Schneider, the French
iron master of Creuzot, and his engineer, M. Bourdon, visited
Bridgewater while Nasmyth happened to be away. Mr. Gaskell, after
taking them about the plant, showed them the Scheme Book and
pointed out the sketch of the hammer, telling them of the purpose for
which it was intended. They were impressed with it and took careful
notes and sketches of its details. Nasmyth was informed of their visit
upon his return, but knew nothing of their having taken sketches of
the hammer.
In 1842 Nasmyth visited France, and was cordially received at
Creuzot and shown about the works. “On entering,” he writes, “one
of the things that particularly struck me was the excellence of a large
wrought-iron marine engine single crank, forged with a remarkable
degree of exactness in its general form. I observed also that the
large eye of the crank had been punched and drifted with
extraordinary smoothness and truth. I inquired of M. Bourdon ‘how
that crank had been forged?’ His immediate reply was, ‘It was forged
by your steam hammer!’... He told me ... that he had taken careful
notes and sketches, and that among the first things he did after his
return to Creuzot was to put in hand the necessary work for the
erection of a steam hammer.... M. Bourdon conducted me to the
forge department of the works, that I might, as he said, ‘see my own
child’; and there it was, in truth—a thumping child of my brain.”[100]
Fortunately it was still time to save his patent rights. He moved
rapidly and in June, 1842, two months after his visit to Creuzot, a
patent was obtained.[101]. The steam hammer soon found its way
into all the large shops of the world and greatly increased Nasmyth’s
already comfortable fortune. Nasmyth transferred his United States
patent to S. V. Merrick of Philadelphia, who introduced the hammer
into the American iron works.
[100] Ibid., pp. 246-247. The self-acting valve motion for the steam
hammer was invented by Mr. Wilson, when Nasmyth was absent on
business. Wilson was manager at Patricroft and later became a partner. It
was much used for a time but with the advent of balanced piston-valves the
hand-operated gear supplanted it. Nasmyth’s invention of the hammer was
 denied by M. Schneider in 1871. For fuller discussion of the history of this
hammer see London Engineer, May 16, 1890, and a pamphlet by T. S.
Rowlandson, entitled “History of the Steam Hammer.” Manchester, 1866.
[101] No. 9382, June 9, 1842.

Besides work on the hammer and machine tools, Nasmyth made a

number of inventions of interest. While still with Maudslay he
invented the flexible shaft made of a coiled spring, and speaks with
amusement at his finding the same idea in a dental engine many
years later credited as an American invention. He invented the ball-
and-socket joint for shafting hangers and also the single wedge gate
valve. His steam piledriver, an adaptation of the steam hammer, was
the invention in which he seems to have taken the most satisfaction.
He was working out a method of puddling iron with a blast of steam
when he was eclipsed by Bessemer’s brilliant invention, in 1855, of
the air blast. Nasmyth was a member of the Small Arms Committee
which remodeled the Small Arms Factory at Enfield. His connection
with this will be taken up in the consideration of the rise of
interchangeable manufacture.
Nasmyth retired from business in 1856, bought an estate in Kent,
and spent the remainder of his life in travel and in his studies in
astronomy. He was deeply interested in this study from boyhood.
Before he was twenty he had built an excellent 6-inch reflecting
telescope, and it was he who aroused Maudslay’s interest in the
subject. He had a 10-inch telescope at Patricroft and a large one at
Hammersfield. He began his study of the moon in 1842, and
received a medal for his work at the Exhibition of 1851. His book,
“The Moon, Considered as a Planet, a World, and a Satellite,”
published in 1874, in conjunction with James Carpenter, the result of
his thirty-two years of work, is authoritative today.
Nasmyth died in 1890 at the age of eighty-two. He was much more
than a splendid mechanic. His personal charm and quality of mind
can best be appreciated by reading his own story. This chapter will
have served its purpose if it induces the reader to read the
autobiography from which we have quoted so freely.
 CHAPTER IX
WHITWORTH
The work of the earlier generation of English tool builders may be
said to have culminated in that of Sir Joseph Whitworth. For a man
of his commanding influence, the information in regard to his life is
singularly meager. He left no account of himself as Nasmyth and
William Fairbairn did; no biography of him was written by his
contemporaries, and the various memoirs which appeared at the
time of his death are short and incomplete.
He was born at Stockport in 1803. His father was a minister and
schoolmaster. At fourteen he was placed in the office of his uncle, a
cotton spinner in Derbyshire, to learn the business. But commercial
work did not appeal to him. He slighted the office as much as
possible and delved into every nook and corner of the manufacturing
and mechanical departments of the establishment. In a few years he
had mastered the construction of every machine in the place and
acquired the deep-seated conviction that all the machinery about him
was imperfect. He ran away to Manchester to escape a routine
business life, and found work with Creighton & Company, as a
working mechanic. He married in 1825, and shortly afterward went to
work with Maudslay & Field in London. Maudslay soon placed him
next to John Hampson, a Yorkshireman, who was his best workman.
While there, Whitworth developed his method of making accurate
plane surfaces by hand scraping them, three at a time. On leaving
Maudslay, Whitworth worked for Holtzapffel, and later for Clement.
He returned to Manchester in 1833, rented a room with power, and
hung out a sign, “Joseph Whitworth, Tool Maker from London.” Here
he began his improvements in machine tools—the lathe, planer,
drilling, slotting and shaping machines. He improved Nasmyth’s
shaper, adding the quick-return motion, which has been known ever
since as the Whitworth quick-return motion. His tools became the
standard of the world, and in the London Exhibition of 1851 stood in
a class by themselves.
Their preëminence lay not so much in novelty of design as in the
standard of accuracy and quality of workmanship which they
embodied. With unerring judgment, Whitworth had turned his
attention first, to use his own words, “to the vast importance of
attending to the two great elements in constructive mechanics,—
namely, a true plane and power of measurement. The latter cannot
be attained without the former, which is, therefore, of primary
importance.... All excellence in workmanship depends upon it.”[102]
[102] Presidential Address. Institution of Mechanical Engineers, 1856, p.
125.

The first step, the production of true plane surfaces, made while
he was at Maudslay’s, was, we are told, a self-imposed task. The
method of producing these, three at a time, is generally credited to
Whitworth. We have already quoted Nasmyth’s statement that the
method was in use at Maudslay’s and that it was “a very old
mechanical dodge.” While this is probably true, Whitworth
contributed something to the method, which very greatly increased
the accuracy of the product. The writer is inclined to believe that that
element was the substitution of hand scraping for grinding in the final
finishing operations. Whitworth’s paper, read before the British
Association for the Advancement of Science at Glasgow in 1840,
indicates this, although it does not say so directly. In this paper he
specifically points out the reason why planes should not be finished
by grinding them together with abrasive powder in between; namely,
that the action of the grinding powder was under no control, that
there was no means of securing its equal diffusion or modifying its
application and localizing its action to the particular spot which
needed it. Holtzapffel confirms this view, saying, in 1847: “The entire
process of grinding, although apparently good, is so fraught with
uncertainty, that accurate mechanicians have long agreed that the
less grinding that is employed on rectilinear works the better, and Mr.
Whitworth has recently shown in the most satisfactory manner,[103]
that in such works grinding is entirely unnecessary, and may, with
the greatest advantage be dispensed with, as the further prosecution
of the scraping process is quite sufficient to lead to the limit of
attainable accuracy.... The author’s previous experience had so fully
prepared him for admission of the soundness of these views, that in
his own workshop he immediately adopted the suggestion of
accomplishing all accurate rectilinear works by the continuance of
scraping, to the entire exclusion of grinding.”[104]
[103] Referring to the paper before the British Association, 1840.
[104] “Turning and Mechanical Manipulation,” Vol. II, p. 872.

When Whitworth determined to make a better set of planes than

any in use at the Maudslay shop, we are told that he was laughed at
by Hampson and his other fellow workmen for undertaking an
impossible job. He not only succeeded, but the truth of the planes he
produced aroused the admiration and wonder of all who saw them.
Nasmyth distinctly mentions scraping, but it should be remembered
that he worked at Maudslay’s four or five years after Whitworth went
there, and scraping may have been introduced into their older
methods of making triple surface-plates by Whitworth, and have
accounted for the wonderful accuracy of which Nasmyth speaks.
Having realized what he considered the first element in good
workmanship, Whitworth began on the second,—improved methods
in measurement. He introduced the system of “end measurements,”
relying ordinarily on the sense of touch rather than eyesight; and, for
extreme accuracy, on the falling of a tumbler held by friction between
two parallel planes. At the presentation of the address before the
Institution of Mechanical Engineers, in 1856, he exhibited a
measuring machine built on this principle which detected differences
of length as small as one-millionth of an inch. The address was
largely devoted to the advantages of end measurement. Referring to
the machine before him, he said: “We have in this mode of
measurement all the accuracy we can desire; and we find in practice
in the workshop that it is easier to work to the ten-thousandth of an
inch from standards of end measurements, than to one-hundredth of
an inch from lines on a two-foot rule. In all cases of fitting, end
measure of length should be used, instead of lines.” This principle
has become almost universal for commercial work, although for
extremely accurate work upon final standards line measurements,
aided by the microscope, are used.
It was Whitworth who brought about the standardization of screw
thread practice in England. He had come into contact with the best
thread practice at Maudslay’s and at Clement’s, but in the other
shops throughout the country there was chaos, so far as any
recognized standard was concerned. Using their work as a basis,
and collecting and comparing all the screws obtainable, Whitworth
arrived at a pitch for all sizes and a thread contour, which he
proposed in a paper before the Institution of Civil Engineers in
1841.[105] It was received with favor, and by 1860 the “Whitworth
thread” had been generally adopted throughout the country.
[105] The Minutes of the Institution, Vol. I, give only an abstract of this
paper. A recent writer, however, in the American Machinist, Vol. XLIII, p.
1178, quotes Whitworth as follows:
It is impossible to deduce a precise rule for the threads of screws from
mechanical principles or from any number of experiments. On the other
hand, the nature of the case is such that mere approximation would be
unimportant, absolute identity of thread for a given diameter being
indispensable.
There are three essential characters belonging to the screw thread, namely,
pitch, depth and form. Each of these may be indefinitely modified
independently of the others, and any change will more or less affect the
several conditions of power, strength and durability. The selection of the
thread is also affected by the mutual relation subsisting between the three
constituent characters of pitch, depth and form. Each of these may be
separately modified; but practically no one character can be determined
irrespective of the others.
We find instead of that uniformity which is so desirable, a diversity so great
as almost to discourage any hope of its removal. The only mode in which
this could be attempted with any probability of success would be by a sort of
compromise, all parties consenting to adopt a medium for the sake of
common advantage. The average pitch and depth of the various threads
used by the leading engineers would thus become the common standard,
which would not only have the advantage of conciliating general
concurrence, but would, in all probability, be nearer the true standard for
practical purposes than any other.
An extensive collection was made of screw bolts from the principal
workshops throughout England, and the average thread was carefully
observed for different diameters.
(Then follows the well-known table showing the number of threads per
inch.)
It will be remembered that the threads, of which the preceding table shows
the average, are used in cast iron as well as wrought; and this circumstance
has had its effect in rendering them coarser than they would have been if
restricted to wrought-iron.
The variation in depth among the different specimens was found to be
greater proportionately than in pitch. The angle made by the sides of the
thread will afford a convenient expression for the depth. The mean of the
variations of this angle in 1-in. screws was found to be about 55 deg., and
this was also pretty nearly the mean of the angle in screws of different
diameters. As it is for various reasons desirable that the angle should be
constant, more especially with reference to general uniformity of system,
the angle of 55 deg. has been adopted throughout the entire scale. A
constant proportion is thus established between the depth and the pitch of
the thread.
In calculating the former, a deduction is to be made for the quantity rounded
off, amounting to one-third of the whole depth—that is, one-sixth from the
top and one-sixth from the bottom of the thread. Making this deduction it will
be found that the angle of 55 deg. gives for the actual depth rather more
than three-fifths and less than two-thirds of the pitch. The precaution of
rounding off is adopted to prevent the injury which the thread of the screw,
and that of the taps and dies, might sustain from accident.
Figure 25. Sir Joseph Whitworth
 In 1853 Whitworth visited the United States, and in conjunction
with George Wallis of the South Kensington Museum, reported on
the enterprises and manufactures of the United States.[106] Nearly all
the memoirs of Whitworth refer to the profound effect of this report.
As one reads it today, it seems difficult to see why it should have had
so much influence. It is probable that Whitworth’s own personal
report to the influential men about him contained much which does
not appear in the formal report. In it he takes up steam engines,
railway supplies, woodworking tools, electric telegraph, textile mills,
and gives brief accounts of some of the factories and methods which
he found at various places in New England and the Middle States.
The longest description is given to the Springfield Armory, but even
this is a mere fragment, and the only detailed information is of the
time necessary to finish a gun-stock. We know, however, that this
armory and the various private armories they saw, made an
impression upon Whitworth and the whole Commission which led to
the remodeling of the British gun-making plant at Enfield. Nasmyth
was also concerned in this and a fuller account of it will be given
later.
[106] “Report of the British Commissioners to the New York Industrial
Exhibition.” London, 1854.

The conclusion of Whitworth’s report shows clearly that he was

deeply impressed with the extent to which the automatic principle
was being applied to machine tools in America. “The labouring
classes,” he says, “are comparatively few in number, but this is
counterbalanced by, and indeed, may be regarded as one of the
chief causes of, the eagerness with which they call in the aid of
machinery in almost every department of industry. Wherever it can
be introduced as a substitute for manual labour, it is universally and
willingly resorted to.... It is this condition of the labour market, and
this eager resort to machinery wherever it can be applied, to which,
under the guidance of superior education and intelligence, the
remarkable prosperity of the United States is mainly due.” Another
characteristic of American manufacture attracted his attention,—the
tendency toward standardization. In his address in 1856 he
condemns the overmultiplication of sizes prevalent in every branch
of English industry.
Shortly after his return from America, Whitworth was requested by
the government to design a complete plant for the manufacture of
muskets. He disapproved of the Enfield rifle and declined to
undertake the work until exhaustive tests were made to determine
the best type of rifle. The government, therefore, equipped a testing
plant and range near Manchester, and Whitworth began a series of
tests which showed the Enfield rifle to be inferior in almost every
respect. He then submitted a new rifle, designed on the basis of his
experiments, which embodied the small bore, an elongated projectile
and a rapid rifle-twist and great accuracy of manufacture. Although
this rifle excelled all others in accuracy, penetration and range, it was
rejected by the war office. Some thirty years later, the Lee-Metford
rifle, which embodied Whitworth’s improvements, was adopted, but
only after these principles had been recognized and used by every
other government in Europe. His contributions to the manufacture of
heavy ordnance were even greater, but they met with the same
reception from the war office. In 1862 he completed a high-powered
rifle cannon with a range of six miles, the proportions of which were
substantially those in use today. He developed the manufacture of
fluid compressed steel, about 1870, to supply a stronger and more
reliable material for ordnance use. Few men in any country have had
a greater influence on the design and development of ordnance and
armor. His partnership with Sir William Armstrong resulted in one of
the greatest gun factories in the world.
Whitworth married twice but had no children. He acquired a great
fortune. During his lifetime he established the famous Whitworth
scholarships. At his death, large sums were distributed by friends, to
whom he had willed them for the execution of his wishes, and they
devoted nearly £600,000 ($3,000,000) to the foundation or
endowment of the Whitworth Institute, Owens College, and the
Manchester Technical Schools, and other public institutions. In 1874
he converted his Manchester business into a stock company, giving
the majority of the stock to his foremen and making provision for the
acquiring of further stock by his clerks and workmen. While he was
slow in receiving recognition from his own government, he became
universally recognized as one of the greatest engineering authorities
in the world, and was honored as few engineers have been, being
elected to the Royal Society, chosen president of the Institution of
Mechanical Engineers, given degrees by Dublin and Oxford, the
Cross of the Legion of Honor; and, in 1869, made a baronet.
As he grew older he became irritable and exceedingly dogmatic,
possibly because of his long contests with slow-moving government
officials. Charles T. Porter, in his autobiography, brings out this side
of his nature and shows that the initiative of subordinates in his shop
was practically killed. Perhaps this limited his service somewhat in
his later years, but when all is taken into account, he was, without
question, one of the greatest of mechanical engineers. He was a
master experimenter. Tests which he made were thorough,
conclusive, and always led somewhere. His experiments, whether in
machine tools, screw threads, or ordnance, always resulted in a
design or process which sooner or later became standard.
Whitworth’s position as a tool builder is not weakened by the fact
that most of the general tools had been invented by the time he
began his independent work. He raised the whole art of tool building
by getting at the fundamental conditions. He led the way in the
change from the weak, architectural style of framing; introduced the
box design or hollow frame for machinery, taking his suggestion from
the human body, and very greatly increased the weight of metal
used.
In 1850 Whitworth was, without doubt, the foremost tool builder in
the world. He had introduced a standard of accuracy in machine
tools unknown before, and so improved their design and
workmanship that he dominated English tool practice for several
generations. In fact, the very ascendency of Whitworth’s methods
seems to have been an element in the loss of England’s leadership
in tool building. Most of the progressive work for the next fifty years
was done in America.
In the foregoing chapters we have traced briefly the work of the
great English mechanics from 1800 to 1850. Their services to
engineering, and, in fact, to mankind, cannot be measured. When
they began, machine tools in any modern sense did not exist. Under
their leadership nearly all of the great metal-working tools were given
forms which have remained essentially unchanged. England had the
unquestioned leadership in the field of machine tools. Machine-tool
building in Germany and France was one or two generations behind
that of England, and nearly all their machinery was imported from
that country. With the exception of the early and incomplete work of
the ingenious French mechanics, which we have referred to from
time to time, practically all of the pioneer work was done by
Englishmen.
In glancing back at these early tool builders, it will be seen that few
of them were men of education. All were men of powerful minds,
many of them with broad intellectual interests. It is suggestive to note
one thing, whatever may be its bearing. Only three of all these men,
Matthew Murray and the two Fairbairns, served a regular
apprenticeship. Bentham and Brunel were naval officers; Bramah, a
farmer’s boy and cabinetmaker; Maudslay, a blacksmith; Clement, a
slater; Roberts, a quarry laborer; Nasmyth, a clever school boy; and
Whitworth, an office clerk.
Whatever may have been the reason, the rapid advance of the
English machine-tool builders ceased about the middle of the last
century, and they have made but few radical changes or
improvements since that time. At about the same time the American
engineers introduced a number of improvements of very great
importance.
The great distance of America from England forced it into a
situation of more or less commercial and mechanical independence.
While France and Germany were importing machine tools from
England, America began making them and soon developed
independence of design. The interchangeable system of
manufactures and the general use of accurate working gauges,
which were hardly known in England, developed rapidly in America.
These, with the introduction of the turret, the protean cam, and
precision grinding machinery, and the great extension of the process
of milling, served in the next fifty years to transfer the leadership in
machine-tool design from England to America. A visit to any one of
the great machine shops in England, Germany or France will
convince one that the leadership now rests with the American tool
builders.
 The remaining chapters will take up the lives and work of those
who have contributed to this great change.
 CHAPTER X
EARLY AMERICAN MECHANICS
The phrase “Yankee ingenuity” has become a part of the English
language. If New England no longer holds all the good mechanics in
the United States, there was a time when she came so near it that
the term “New England mechanic” had a very definite meaning over
the whole country.
The industrial development of New England was long delayed, but
once started it was rapid. Up to 1800 New England artisans supplied
merely small local needs and there was little or no manufacturing in
any modern sense; but from then on the development was so rapid
that by 1850 New England was not only supplying the United States
with most of its manufactured products, but was beginning to export
machinery and tools to England, where machine tools originated. For
five generations, American mechanics had little or no industrial
influence on Europe, and then within fifty years they began to
compete on even terms.
There were several reasons for this. A market for machinery must
of necessity be a wide one, for no single community, not even a
large modern city, can alone support a great manufacturing
enterprise. Machinery building can thrive only in a settled country
having a large purchasing power and good transportation facilities.
The colonies lacked all of these conditions; the people were widely
scattered and poor, and there were practically no facilities for heavy
transportation, at least by land. The colonial mechanics were often
ingenious and skilled, but they had few raw materials and they could
supply only their immediate neighborhood. Any approach to
specialization and refinement was therefore impossible.
The second cause for delayed development was England’s
industrial policy toward her American colonies. The colonists had
hardly gained a foothold when they began to show a manufacturing
spirit and an industrial independence which aroused the
apprehension of the manufacturing interests in England. The first
importations of iron into England from the colonies came from
Virginia and Maryland, about 1718.[107] The importations for a few
years thereafter are not known, as no records are available. They
were sufficient, however, to arouse the jealousy of the English iron
masters, for, although there was plenty of iron ore in England, they
were beginning to feel seriously the shortage in wood which was
then used for its reduction. They felt that the abundance of iron ore,
fuel and water power in America constituted a serious menace, and
they vigorously opposed the growth of any kind of manufacture in the
colonies. This resulted in a prohibition of the manufacture of any
form of ironware and of bar or pig iron by forges or other works. In
spite of these repressive measures, a report on manufactures in the
colonies, made to the House of Commons in 1731, indicated that
New England had six furnaces, nineteen forges, one slitting mill and
one nail factory.[108] These could, however, have supplied only a
small part of the materials required even for colonial use. By 1737
much discussion had arisen respecting the policy of encouraging
importation of American iron, and petitions in favor of doing so were
presented to Parliament. England imported at that time about 20,000
tons of foreign iron, 15,000 from Sweden and 5000 from Russia,
most of which was paid for in money.[109] It was urged that if this
could be obtained from the colonies it could be paid for in British
manufactures, at a saving of £180,000 annually. The annual
production of bar iron in England was about 18,000 tons, and on
account of the shortage of wood this could not be materially
increased. To encourage colonial exportation of pig and bar iron to
England would, it was urged, be the best means of preventing such
further manufacturing as would interfere with their own. It was,
therefore, proposed that a heavy duty be laid on all iron and
manufactured products imported into the colonies from continental
Europe, and on all iron imported into England except from America.
These views prevailed and resulted in the act of 1750, which was
entitled “An act to encourage the importation of pig and bar iron from
His Majesty’s Plantations in America,” and provided that “pig-iron
made in the British Colonies in, America, may be imported, duty free,
and bar-iron into the port of London; no bar-iron, so imported, to be
carried coastwise, or to be landed at any other port, except for the
use of his Majesty’s dock yards; and not to be carried beyond ten
miles from London.”[110] With this was incorporated another clause
designed to arrest all manufacture at that stage. It was enacted that
“from and after the 24th day of June, 1750, no mill, or other engine
for slitting or rolling of Iron, or any plating forge to work with a tilt-
hammer, or any furnace for making steel shall be erected, or after
such erection, continued in any of his Majesty’s Colonies of America”
under penalty of £200.[111] This attempt to stifle the industrial life of
the colonies, persistently adhered to, ultimately brought about the
Revolution.
[107] J. L. Bishop: “History of American Manufactures,” Vol. I, p. 625.
[108] Ibid., Vol. I, p. 623.
[109] Ibid., Vol. I, p. 623.
[110] Ibid., Vol. I, p. 624.
[111] Ibid., Vol. I, pp. 624-625.

From 1730 to 1750 there had been an importation of about 2300

tons of bar iron annually, 90 per cent of which came from Maryland
and Virginia, and a little less than 6 per cent from Pennsylvania. New
England and New York were producing iron by that time, but were
using nearly all of their product, hence their small share in the trade.
The iron masters of the midland counties in England protested
against this act, prophesying the utter ruin of the English iron
industry. England, they said, would be rendered dependent upon the
colonies, and thousands of English workmen would be reduced to
want and misery; American iron could never supply the place of the
Swedish iron in quality, nor the Russian iron in cheapness,
consequently the manufacture of tools would be stopped and
numberless families reduced to beggary.
The manufacturers of Birmingham, on the other hand, petitioned
that the bill was a benefit to their trade and to the colonists, who
would exchange their raw products for British manufactures; that
manufacturing was more valuable to the nation than the production
of raw materials, and as iron could not be produced at home in such
quantity and at such price as to supply all the needs of the
manufacturers, it was the duty of Parliament to encourage the
importation of raw materials, even if it should arrest their production
in England; that the importation of iron from America could affect the
iron works no more than the same quantity from any other country,
and the home production was less than one-half the amount
required, and growing steadily dearer: that the increasing activity of
the English manufacturers rendered it more and more necessary to
obtain these materials at the lowest price, and the only way to do this
was either to reduce the duty on continental iron, or make it
necessary for English iron masters to reduce their prices by raising
up a rival in America. They heartily concurred, however, in the
prohibition of all finishing of materials as an interference with British
manufactures. The merchants of Bristol petitioned that American bar
iron, which was admitted only at the port of London, be imported
duty free into all of His Majesty’s ports. This discussion continued
until 1757, when the privilege of importation was extended to the
other ports of Great Britain.[112]
[112] Ibid., Vol. I, pp. 626-627.

Under the act of 1750, the importation rose to about 3250 tons, 94
per cent of which still came from Maryland, Virginia and
Pennsylvania. Practically all the iron produced in New England was
used there, for, despite the repressive measures from the mother
country, small local manufacturing enterprises, “moonshine iron
works,” were constantly cropping up. The iron supply of New
England came at first from the bog ores in eastern Massachusetts
and Rhode Island. By 1730-1760 better mines were opened at
Salisbury, Conn., and in Orange County, New York, so that the
production of iron in the bog-ore regions gradually dwindled.
The Revolution terminated British legislative control over the trade
and manufactures of America. The war itself furnished a market for
supplies for the army, and the manufacture of cannon and guns was
active. Many of these factories were ruined by the flood of imports
which followed the Revolution. In 1789 the present Federal
Government replaced the ineffective Confederation, which had left to
the separate states the duty of protecting their manufacturing
interests, and a tariff was placed upon manufactured articles. Freed
from the old restrictions, and with foreign competition largely
precluded, manufacturing industries began to spring up on every
hand.
A third cause contributed to rapid development at this time. An
enormous production of cotton followed Whitney’s invention of the
cotton gin in 1792, and the South, which had never been a
manufacturing community, furnished both a source of supply and a
rich market, easily accessible by coastwise trade. The beginnings of
New England’s manufacturing industries are closely identified with
the rise of the American cotton crop, and most of the first machine
shops were developed to manufacture textile machinery.
England, who seems to have blundered whenever she legislated
on early American trade, made one more serious mistake. In 1785
Parliament passed a stringent law, with severe penalties, to stop the
emigration of all mechanics and workmen in iron and steel
manufactures, and to prevent not only the exportation of every
description of tool, engine or machine, or parts of a machine used in
making and working up iron and other materials, but even the
models and plans of such machinery.[113] England was then the most
advanced of all countries in the production of engines, tools and
textile machinery, and it was hoped by this act that manufacturing
might be kept there. It had the opposite effect so far as America was
concerned. It was inevitable that mechanics, such as Samuel Slater
and William Crompton, should get away, and with them, ideas. The
act only stimulated a race of skillful mechanics in America to
independent development of machine tools, textile machinery, and
the like. America, instead of buying her machinery from England as
she would naturally have done, proceeded to make it herself.
[113] Ibid., Vol. I, p. 630.

One of the earliest American mechanics was Joseph Jenks, who

came from Hammersmith, England, to Lynn, Mass., about 1642, and
died in 1683. With the backing of Governor Winthrop, he set up an
iron foundry and forge near a bog-iron mine. The very first attempt in
America to start an iron works had been made in Virginia more than
twenty years before, at the settlement of Jamestown. It was hardly
started, however, before it was destroyed in the general sack of the
settlement, and for one hundred years there was no further attempt
at producing iron in Virginia.[114]
[114] Beverley: “History of Virginia.” Bishop: “History of American
Manufactures,” Vol. I, pp. 469, 595.

From the little forge and foundry started at Lynn, there is no break
in the spread of iron manufacturing in this country. The forge was
located on the lands of Thomas Hudson, of the same family as
Hendrick Hudson, the explorer. Jenks was “the first founder who
worked in brass and iron on the western continent. By his hands, the
first models were made and the first castings taken of many
domestic implements and iron tools.”[115] The very first casting is said
to have been an iron quart pot.
[115] Lewis: “History of Lynn.”

For many years the colonial records refer to his various activities.
He made the dies for the early Massachusetts coinage, including the
famous pine-tree shilling.[116] In 1646 the General Court of
Massachusetts resolved that “In answer to the peticon of Joseph
Jenckes, for liberty to make experience of his abilityes and
Inventions for ye making of Engines for mills to go with water for ye
more speedy despatch of work than formerly, and mills for ye making
of Sithes and other Edged tools, with a new invented Sawe-Mill, that
things may be afforded cheaper than formerly, and that for fourteen
yeeres without disturbance by any others setting up like inventions;
... this peticon is granted.”[117] In 1655 he was granted a
Massachusetts patent for scythes, his improvement consisting of
making them long and thin, instead of short and thick, as in the old
English scythe, and of welding a bar of iron upon the back to
strengthen it, which later became the universal practice,[118] and no
radical change has been made in the blade of this implement since
his day. He built for the town of Boston the first fire engine used in
this country, and also made machines for drawing wire. Jenks seems
to have also been interested in another iron works started at
Braintree between 1645 and 1650.
 [116] Weeden: “Economic and Social History of New England,” Vol. I, p.
191.
[117] Goodrich: “History of Pawtucket,” p. 17.
[118] Weeden, Vol. I, p. 184. Bishop, Vol. I, p. 477.

An iron works was started at Raynham in 1652 by the Leonards,

who came from England about the same time as Jenks and had
worked at Lynn.[119] The Jenks and Leonard families were all
mechanics. It used to be said that wherever you found a Leonard
you found a mechanic; and the Jenks family has been in some form
of manufacturing continuously from the days of Joseph Jenks to the
present time.
[119] Bishop, Vol. I, p. 479. Weeden, Vol. I, p. 192.

The near-by portions of Rhode Island and Massachusetts

centering on the headwaters of Narragansett Bay, became famous
for the production and manufacture of iron. A young Scotchman,
Hugh Orr, settled in Bridgewater about 1738. He was a pioneer in
the manufacture of edged tools, and is said to have introduced the
trip hammer into this country. “For several years he was the only
edge-tool maker in this part of the country, and ship-carpenters,
millwrights, etc., ... constantly resorted to him for supply. And,
indeed, such was his fame, that applications were frequently made
to him from the distance of twenty miles for the purpose of having an
axe, an adze or an auger new tempered by his hands.” In 1748, he
built 500 stand-of-arms for the province, the first made in America,
and later did much casting and boring of cannon during the
Revolution. After the war, he made cotton machinery until his death
in 1798, at the age of eighty-two. Weeden credits Hugh Orr with
being “perhaps the most conspicuous” American iron worker in the
eighteenth century. His son, Robert Orr, was also a skilled mechanic,
and was one of the very early master armorers of the Springfield
Arsenal.[120]
[120] Weeden, Vol. II, p. 685. Bishop, Vol. I, pp. 486-487.

Joseph Holmes is another of the pioneers of this neighborhood.

He is said to have made more than 3000 tons of iron from bog ore,
and “Holmes’ iron” was famous for anchors. He also furnished many