Buradasınız

HAVA ARACI KOKPİT ARAYÜZ DEĞERLENDİRMESİ İÇİN ÇOK KRİTERLİ BİR YAKLAŞIM

A MULTI CRITERIA APPROACH FOR AIRCRAFT COCPIT INTERFACE EVALUATION

Journal Name:

Publication Year:

Abstract (2. Language): 
The most important factor in aircraft flight safety is the interfaces, which provide human-machine interaction. There is a close relationship between flight safety and interface usability with pilot-cockpit interaction quality. The consequences of crew errors in interacting with cockpit interfaces are catastrophic. Interaction quality and flight safety can be improved with a user-friendly interface design. Different usability evaluation techniques are applied for interface design and usability in literature. Subjectivity within most usability evaluation techniques may lead to inaccurate results. In this study, a multi-criteria approach is offered for the usability evaluation, improvement and ranking of cockpit interfaces. Alternative interfaces, used in this study, are the results of quantitative, qualitative and unified design approaches. More satisfactory results were obtained from the unified design.
Abstract (Original Language): 
Hava araçlarında uçuş emniyetini sağlayan en önemli faktör insan-makine etkileşimini sağlayan arayüzlerdir. Pilot-kokpit etkileşim kalitesi ile uçuş emniyeti ve arayüz kullanılabilirliği arasında yakın bir ilişki vardır. Kokpit arayüzleri ile etkileşimde mürettebat hataları yıkıcı sonuçlar ortaya çıkarabilmekte olup, kullanıcı-dostu arayüz tasarımı ile etkileşim kalitesi ve uçuş emniyeti iyileştirilebilmektedir. Literatürde arayüz tasarımı ve kullanılabilirliği için farklı kullanılabilirlik değerlendirme teknikleri (KDT) kullanılmaktadır; bu tekniklerin çoğunun öznel değerlendirmelere bağlı olması sebebiyle hatalı sonuçların elde edilebilmesine sebep olmaktadır. Bu çalışmada kokpit arayüz kullanılabilirlik seviyelerinin değerlendirilmesi, geliştirilmesi ve kullanılabilirlik sıralaması için çok kriterli bir yaklaşım önerilmiştir. Çalışmada kullanılan alternatif arayüzler; nicel, nitel ve birleşik tasarım yaklaşımlarının sonucu olarak belirlenmiş ve birleşik tasarım ile daha tatminkar sonuçlar elde edildiği görülmüştür.
685
693

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Strauch, B., "Automation and Decision Making—
Lessons from the Cali Accident", Proc. Hum.
Factors and Ergonomics Soc. 41st Annu. Meet.
Albuquerque, NM: Hum. Factors and Ergon. Soc.,
195–199, 1997.
2. Funk, K. Suroteguh, C. Wilson, J. and Lyall, B.,
"Flight deck automation and task management",
Proc. of 1998 IEEE Int. Conf. on Syst. Man and
Cybern. San Diego, Cilt 1, 863–868, 1998.
3. Sarter, N. Woods, D., Billings, C., "Automation
surprises", Salvendy, G. (Eds.), Handbook of
human factors and ergonomics. 2nd Ed. New
York: Wiley, 1926–1943, 1997.
4. Singer, G., "Filling the gaps in the human factors
certification net", Dekker, S., Hollnagel, E. (Eds.),
Coping with Computers in the Cockpit.
Brookfield, VT: Ashgate, 87–107, 1999.
5. Billings, C.E., Aviation automation: The search
for a human-centered approach. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Assfociates, Inc, 1997.
6. Smith, C., "Design of the Eurofighter human
machine interface", Air and space Europe.
Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, Cilt 1, No 3, 54–59,
1999.
7. Previc, F.H., Ercoline, W.R., "The outside-in
attitude display concept revisited", Int. J. Aviat.
Psycholo., 377-401, 2000.
8. Tlauka, M., Stanton, D. and Kenna, F.P. Dual
Displays., Dept. of Psycholo. Univ. of Leicester,
2000.
9. Torenvliet, G.L., Jamieson, G.A., Vicente, K.J.,
"Making the most of ecological interface design:
the role of individual differences", Appl. Ergon.,
31, 395-408, 2000.
10. Kima, G.J., Hanb, S.H., Yangb, H., Choa, C.,
"Body-based interfaces", Appl. Ergon., Cilt 35,
263-274, 2004.
11. Jones, G.R., Hooper, R.H., "The effect of singleor
multiple-layered garments on interface pressure
measured at the backpack-shoulder interface",
Appl. Ergon., Cilt 36, 79-83, 2005.
12. Wellings, T., Williams, M., Tennant, C.,
"Understanding customers’ holistic perception of
switches in automotive human–machine
interfaces", Appl. Ergon., Cilt 41, 8-17, 2010.
13. Rubens, E.M., Trotter, M.J., Lenné, M.G.,
"Effects on driving performance of interacting
with an in-vehicle music player: A comparison of
three interface layout concepts for information
presentation", Appl. Ergon., Cilt 42, 583-591,
2011.
14. Rydström, A., Broström, R., Bengtsson, K.J., "A
comparison of two contemporary types of in-car
multifunctional interfaces", Appl. Ergon., Cilt 43,
507-514, 2012.
15. Lee, K.W., Lee, Y.C., "Design and validation of
an improved graphical user interface with the
‘Tool ball’", Appl. Ergon., Cilt 43, 57-68, 2012.
16. Virzi, R.A., "Usability inspection methods",
Helander, M., Landauer, T., Prabhu, P. (Eds.),
Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction.,
New York: Elsevier, 705–715, 1997.
17. Dağdeviren, M, Eren, T., "Analytic hierarchy
process and use of 0-1 goal programming methods
in selecting supplier firm", J. Fac. Eng. Archit.,
Gazi Univ. Cilt 16, 41-52, 2001.
18. Bozdağ, C.E., Kahraman, C., Ruan, D., "Fuzzy
group decision making for selection among
computer integrated manufacturing systems",
Comp. Ind., Cilt 5, 13-29, 2003.
Hava Aracı Kokpit Arayüz Değerlendirmesi için Çok Kriterli Bir Yaklaşım M. B. Şenol ve ark.
Gazi Üniv. Müh. Mim. Fak. Der. Cilt 28, No 4, 2013 693
19. Büyüközkan, G., Ertay, T., Kahraman, C., Ruan,
D., "Determining the importance weights for the
design requirements in the house of quality using
the fuzzy analytic network approach", Int. J.
Intel. Syst., Cilt 19, 443-461, 2004.
20. Xiaohua, W., Zhenmin, F., "Sustainable
development of rural energy and its appraising
system in Chine", Renew. Sustain. Energ., Cilt
6, 395-404, 2002.
21. Yedla, S., Shresta, R.M., "Multi-criteria approach
for the selection of alternative options for
environmentally sustainable transport system in
Delhi", Transp. Res., Cilt 37, 717-729, 2003.
22. Aras, H., Erdogmus, S., Koc, E., "Multi-criteria
selection for a wind observation station location
using analytic hierarchy process", Renew. Energ.,
Cilt 29, 1383-1392, 2004.
23. Tolga, E, Demircan, M.L., Kahraman, C.,
"Operating system selection using fuzzy
replacement analysis and analytic hierarchy
process", Int. J. Prod. Econ., Cilt 97, 89-117,
2005.
24. Kim, P.P, Lee K.J, Lee B.W., "Selection of an
optimal nuclear fuel cycle scenario by goal
programming & analytic hierarchy process", Ann.
of Nucl. Energy, Cilt 26, 449-460, 1999.
25. Wolfslehner, B., Vacik, H., Lexer, M.J.,
"Application of the analytic network process in
multi-criteria analysis of sustainable forest
management", For. Ecol. Manag., Cilt 207, 157-
170, 2005.
26. Saaty, T.L., Takizawa, M., "Dependence and
independence: from linear hierarchies to nonlinear
Networks", Eur. J. Oper. Res. 26, 229-237, 1986.
27. Saaty, T.L., Decision Making with Dependence
and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process,
RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, 1996.
28. Yüksel, İ., Dağdeviren, M., "Using the analytic
network process (ANP) in a SWOT analysis-A
case study for a textile firm", Inf. Sci., Cilt 177,
3364-3382, 2007.
29. Ayağ, Z., Özdemir, R.G., "A hybrid approach to
concept selection through fuzzy analytic network
process", Comp. Ind. Eng., 56, 368-379, 2009.
30. Lee, H., Lee, S., Park, Y., "Selection of
technology acquisition mode using the analytic
network process", Math. Comp. Model., Cilt 49,
1274-1282, 2009.
31. Boran, S., Göztepe, K., "Development of a fuzzy
decision support system for commodity
acquisition using fuzzy analytic network process",
Expert Syst. Appl., Cilt 37, 1939-1945, 2010.
32. Vinodh, S., Ramiya, R.A., Gautham, S.G.,
"Application of fuzzy analytic network process for
supplier selection in a manufacturing
organisation", Expert Syst. Appl., Cilt 38, 272-
280, 2011.
33. Shyur, H.J. "COTS evaluation using modified
TOPSIS and ANP", Appl. Math. Comp., Cilt
177, 251-259, 2006.
34. Le Téno, J., F., Mareschal, B., "An interval
version of PROMETHEE for the comparison of
building products’ design with ill-defined data on
environmental quality", Eur. J. Oper. Res., Cilt
109, 522–529, 1988.
35. Goumas, M., Lygerou, V., "An extension of the
PROMETHEE method for decision making in
fuzzy environment: Ranking of alternative energy
exploitation projects", Eur. J. Oper. Res., Cilt
123, 606-613, 2000.
36. Geldermann J., Spengler, T., Rentz, O., "Fuzzy
outranking for environmental assessment, case
study: Iron and steel making industry", Fuzzy Set
Syst., Cilt 115, 45– 65, 2000.
37. Bilsel, R., U., Büyüközkan, G., Ruan, D., "A
fuzzy prefernce-ranking model for a quality
evaluation of hospital websites", Int. J. Intel.,
Syst. Cilt 21, 1181-1197, 2006.
38. Liu P., Guan Z., "Evaluation research on the
quality of the railway passenger service based on
the linguistic variables and the improved
PROMETHEE-II method", J. Comp., Cilt 4, 265-
270, 2009.
39. Yılmaz, B., Dağdeviren, M., "Comparative
analysis of PROMETHEE and fuzzy
PROMETHEE methods in equipment selection
problem", J. Fac. Eng. Archit. Gazi Univ., Cilt
25, No 4, 811-826, 2010.
40. Arıkan, F., Küçükçe, Y.S, "Satın alma faaliyeti
için bir tedarikçi seçimi-değerlendirme problemi
ve çözümü", J. Fac. Eng. Archit. Gazi Univ., Cilt
27, No 2, 255-264, 2012.
41. Aydoğan, E.K., Soylu, M.Y., Gencer, C., Çetin,
S., Soysal, M., Bektaş, O., Yüce, E., Öztürk, Y.,
Gökırmak, Y., Sağıroğlu, Ş., " IPv4’den IPv6’ya
geçiş için AHP modeli", J. Fac. Eng. Archit. Gazi
Univ., Cilt 26, No 3, 701-709, 2011.
42. DuBois D., Prade H., "Operations on fuzzy
numbers", Int. J. Syst Sci., Cilt 9, 613– 626,
1978.
43. Şenol, M.B. Dağdeviren, M. Kurt, M. and
Çilingir, C., "Display panel design of a general
utility helicopter by applying quantitative and
qualitative approaches", Hum. Factors and
Ergon. in Manuf., Cilt 20, No 1, 73-86, 2010.
44. Yager, R. R., "A prodecure for ordering fuzzy
subsets of the unit interval", Inf. Sci., Cilt 24,
143-700, 1981.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com