Ergonomic Aspects of Human-

Computer Interaction
Authors: Robert, Jean-Marc
in 52. Visual Display Units, Berthelette, Diane, Editor, Encyclopedia of Occupational Health and Safety, Jeanne Mager
Stellman, Editor-in-Chief. International Labor Organization, Geneva. 2011.
font size
Print
E-mail
Introduction
The development of efective interfaces to computer systems is the fundamental objective of research on human-
computer interactions.
An interface can be defned as the sum of the hardware and software components through which a system is
operated and users informed of its status. The hardware components include data entry and pointing devices (e.g.,
keyboards, mice), information-presentation devices (e.g., screens, loudspeakers), and user manuals and
documentation. The software components include menu commands, icons, windows, information feedback,
navigation systems and messages and so on. An interfaces hardware and software components may be so closely
linked as to be inseparable (e.g., function keys on keyboards). The interface includes everything the user perceives,
understands and manipulates while interacting with the computer (Moran 1981). It is therefore a crucial determinant of
the human-machine relation.
Research on interfaces aims at improving interface utility, accessibility, performance and safety, and usability. For
these purposes, utility is defned with reference to the task to be performed. A useful system contains the necessary
functions for the completion of tasks users are asked to perform (e.g., writing, drawing, calculations, programming).
Accessibility is a measure of an interfaces ability to allow several categories of usersparticularly individuals with
handicaps, and those working in geographically isolated areas, in constant movement or having both hands occupied
to use the system to perform their activities. Performance, considered here from a human rather than a technical
viewpoint, is a measure of the degree to which a system improves the efciency with which users perform their work.
This includes the efect of macros, menu short-cuts and intelligent software agents. The safety of a system is defned
by the extent to which an interface allows users to perform their work free from the risk of human, equipment, data, or
environmental accidents or losses. Finally, usability is defned as the ease with which a system is learned and used.
By extension, it also includes system utility and performance, defned above.
Elements of Interface Design
Since the invention of shared-time operating systems in 1963, and especially since the arrival of the microcomputer in
1978, the development of human-computer interfaces has been explosive (see Gaines and Shaw 1986 for a history).
The stimulus for this development has been essentially driven by three factors acting simultaneously:
First, the very rapid evolution of computer technology, a result of advances in electrical engineering, physics and
computer science, has been a major determinant of user interface development. It has resulted in the appearance of
computers of ever-increasing power and speed, with high memory capacities, high-resolution graphics screens, and
more natural pointing devices allowing direct manipulation (e.g., mice, trackballs). These technologies were also
responsible for the emergence of microcomputing. They were the basis for the character-based interfaces of the
1960s and 1970s, graphical interfaces of the late 1970s, and multi- and hyper-media interfaces appearing since the
mid-1980s based on virtual environments or using a variety of alternate-input recognition technologies (e.g., voice-,
handwriting-, and movement-detection). Considerable research and development has been conducted in recent years
in these areas (Waterworth and Chignel 1989; Rheingold 1991). Concomitant with these advances was the
development of more advanced software tools for interface design (e.g., windowing systems, graphical object
libraries, prototyping systems) that greatly reduce the time required to develop interfaces.
Second, users of computer systems play a large role in the development of efective interfaces. There are three
reasons for this. First, current users are not engineers or scientists, in contrast to users of the frst computers. They
therefore demand systems that can be easily learned and used. Second, the age, sex, language, culture, training,
experience, skill, motivation and interest of individual users is quite varied. Interfaces must therefore be more fexible
and better able to adapt to a range of needs and expectations. Finally, users are employed in a variety of economic
sectors and perform a quite diverse spectrum of tasks. Interface developers must therefore constantly reassess the
quality of their interfaces.
Lastly, intense market competition and increased safety expectations favour the development of better interfaces.
These preoccupations are driven by two sets of partners: on the one hand, software producers who strive to reduce
their costs while maintaining product distinctiveness that furthers their marketing goals, and on the other, users for
whom the software is a means of ofering competitive products and services to clients. For both groups, efective
interfaces ofer a number of advantages:
For software producers:
better product image
increased demand for products
shorter training times
lower after-sales service requirements
solid base upon which to develop a product line
reduction of the risk of errors and accidents
reduction of documentation.

For users:
shorter learning phase
increased general applicability of skills
improved use of the system
increased autonomy using the system
reduction of the time needed to execute a task
reduction in the number of errors
increased satisfaction.

Efective interfaces can signifcantly improve the health and productivity of users at the same time as they improve the
quality and reduce the cost of their training. This, however, requires basing interface design and evaluation on
ergonomic principles and practice standards, be they guidelines, corporate standards of major system manufacturers
or international standards. Over the years, an impressive body of ergonomic principles and guidelines related to
interface design has accumulated (Scapin 1986; Smith and Mosier 1986; Marshall, Nelson and Gardiner 1987; Brown
1988). This multidisciplinary corpus covers all aspects of character-mode and graphical interfaces, as well as
interface evaluation criteria. Although its concrete application occasionally poses some problemsfor example,
imprecise terminology, inadequate information on usage conditions, inappropriate presentationit remains a valuable
resource for interface design and evaluation.
In addition, the major software manufacturers have developed their own guidelines and internal standards for
interface design. These guidelines are available in the following documents:
Apple Human Interface Guidelines (1987)
Open Look (Sun 1990)
OSF/Motif Style Guide (1990)
IBM Common User Access guide to user interface design (1991)
IBM Advanced Interface Design Reference (1991)
The Windows interface: An application design guide (Microsoft 1992)

These guidelines attempt to simplify interface development by mandating a minimal level of uniformity and
consistency between interfaces used on the same computer platform. They are precise, detailed, and quite
comprehensive in several respects, and ofer the additional advantages of being well-known, accessible and widely
used. They are the de facto design standards used by developers, and are, for this reason, indispensable.
Furthermore, the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standards are also very valuable sources of
information about interface design and evaluation. These standards are primarily concerned with ensuring uniformity
across interfaces, regardless of platforms and applications. They have been developed in collaboration with national
standardization agencies, and after extensive discussion with researchers, developers and manufacturers. The main
ISO interface design standard is ISO 9241, which describes ergonomic requirements for visual display units. It is
comprised of 17 parts. For example, parts 14, 15, 16 and 17 discuss four types of human-computer dialogue
menus, command languages, direct manipulation, and forms. ISO standards should take priority over other design
principles and guidelines. The following sections discuss the principles which should condition interface design.
A Design Philosophy Focused on the User
Gould and Lewis (1983) have proposed a design philosophy focused on the video display unit user. Its four principles
are:
1. Immediate and continuous attention to users. Direct contact with users is maintained, in order to better
understand their characteristics and tasks.
2. Integrated design. All aspects of usability (e.g., interface, manuals, help systems) are developed in parallel
and placed under centralized control.
3. Immediate and continuous evaluation by users. Users test the interfaces or prototypes early on in the design
phase, under simulated work conditions. Performance and reactions are measured quantitatively and qualitatively.
4. Iterative design. The system is modifed on the basis of the results of the evaluation, and the evaluation cycle
started again.

These principles are explained in further detail in Gould (1988). Very relevant when they were frst published in 1985,
ffteen years later they remain so, due to the inability to predict the efectiveness of interfaces in the absence of user
testing. These principles constitute the heart of user-based development cycles proposed by several authors in recent
years (Gould 1988; Mantei and Teorey 1989; Mayhew 1992; Nielsen 1992; Robert and Fiset 1992).
The rest of this article will analyse fve stages in the development cycle that appear to determine the efectiveness of
the fnal interface.
Task Analysis
Ergonomic task analysis is one of the pillars of interface design. Essentially, it is the process by which user
responsibilities and activities are elucidated. This in turn allows interfaces compatible with the characteristics of users
tasks to be designed. There are two facets to any given task:
1. The nominal task, corresponding to the organizations formal defnition of the task. This includes objectives,
procedures, quality control, standards and tools.
2. The real task, corresponding to the users decisions and behaviours necessary for the execution of the
nominal task.

The gap between nominal and real tasks is inevitable and results from the failure of nominal tasks to take into account
variations and unforeseen circumstances in the work fow, and diferences in users mental representations of their
work. Analysis of the nominal task is insufcient for a full understanding of users activities.
Activity analysis examines elements such as work objectives, the type of operations performed, their temporal
organization (sequential, parallel) and frequency, the operational modes relied upon, decisions, sources of difculty,
errors and recovery modes. This analysis reveals the diferent operations performed to accomplish the task
(detection, searching, reading, comparing, evaluating, deciding, estimating, anticipating), the entities manipulated
(e.g., in process control, temperature, pressure, fow-rate, volume) and the relation between operators and entities.
The context in which the task is executed conditions these relations. These data are essential for the defnition and
organization of the future systems features.
At its most basic, task analysis is composed of data collection, compilation and analysis. It may be performed before,
during or after computerization of the task. In all cases, it provides essential guidelines for interface design and
evaluation. Task analysis is always concerned with the real task, although it may also study future tasks through
simulation or prototype testing. When performed prior to computerization, it studies external tasks (i.e., tasks
external to the computer) performed with the existing work tools (Moran 1983). This type of analysis is useful even
when computerization is expected to result in major modifcation of the task, since it elucidates the nature and logic of
the task, work procedures, terminology, operators and tasks, work tools and sources of difculty. In so doing, it
provides the data necessary for task optimization and computerization.
Task analysis performed during task computerization focuses on internal tasks, as performed and represented by
the computer system. System prototypes are used to collect data at this stage. The focus is on the same points
examined in the previous stage, but from the point of view of the computerization process.
Following task computerization, task analysis also studies internal tasks, but analysis now focuses on the fnal
computer system. This type of analysis is often performed to evaluate existing interfaces or as part of the design of
new ones.
Hierarchical task analysis is a common method in cognitive ergonomics that has proven very useful in a wide variety
of felds, including interface design (Shepherd 1989). It consists of the division of tasks (or main objectives) into sub-
tasks, each of which can be further subdivided, until the required level of detail is attained. If data is collected directly
from users (e.g., through interviews, vocalization), hierarchical division can provide a portrait of users mental
mapping of a task. The results of the analysis can be represented by a tree diagram or table, each format having its
advantages and disadvantages.
User Analysis
The other pillar of interface design is the analysis of user characteristics. The characteristics of interest may relate to
user age, sex, language, culture, training, technical or computer-related knowledge, skills or motivation. Variations in
these individual factors are responsible for diferences within and between groups of users. One of the key tenets of
interface design is therefore that there is no such thing as the average user. Instead, diferent groups of users should
be identifed and their characteristics understood. Representatives of each group should be encouraged to participate
in the interface design and evaluation processes.
On the other hand, techniques from psychology, ergonomics and cognitive engineering can be used to reveal
information on user characteristics related to perception, memory, cognitive mapping, decision-making and learning
(Wickens 1992). It is clear that the only way to develop interfaces that are truly compatible with users is to take into
account the efect of diferences in these factors on user capacities, limits and ways of operating.
Ergonomic studies of interfaces have focused almost exclusively on users perceptual, cognitive and motor skills,
rather than on afective, social or attitudinal factors, although work in the latter felds has become more popular in
recent years. (For an integrated view of humans as information-processing systems see Rasmussen 1986; for a
review of user-related factors to consider when designing interfaces see Thimbleby 1990 and Mayhew 1992). The
following paragraphs review the four main user-related characteristics that should be taken into account during
interface design.
Mental representation
The mental models users construct of the systems they use refect the manner in which they receive and understand
these systems. These models therefore vary as a function of users knowledge and experience (Hutchins 1989). In
order to minimize the learning curve and facilitate system use, the conceptual model upon which a system is based
should be similar to users mental representation of it. It should be recognized however that these two models are
never identical. The mental model is characterized by the very fact that it is personal (Rich 1983), incomplete, variable
from one part of the system to another, possibly in error on some points and in constant evolution. It plays a minor
role in routine tasks but a major one in non-routine ones and during diagnosis of problems (Young 1981). In the latter
cases, users will perform poorly in the absence of an adequate mental model. The challenge for interface designers is
to design systems whose interaction with users will induce the latter to form mental models similar to the systems
conceptual model.
Learning
Analogy plays a large role in user learning (Rumelhart and Norman 1983). For this reason, the use of appropriate
analogies or metaphors in the interface facilitates learning, by maximizing the transfer of knowledge from known
situations or systems. Analogies and metaphors play a role in many parts of the interface, including the names of
commands and menus, symbols, icons, codes (e.g., shape, colour) and messages. When pertinent, they greatly
contribute to rendering interfaces natural and more transparent to users. On the other hand, when they are irrelevant,
they can hinder users (Halasz and Moran 1982). To date, the two metaphors used in graphical interfaces are
the desktop and, to a lesser extent, the room.
Users generally prefer to learn new software by using it immediately rather than by reading or taking a coursethey
prefer action-based learning in which they are cognitively active. This type of learning does, however, present a few
problems for users (Carroll and Rosson 1988; Robert 1989). It demands an interface structure which is compatible,
transparent, consistent, fexible, natural-appearing and fault tolerant, and a feature set which ensures usability,
feedback, help systems, navigational aides and error handling (in this context, errors refer to actions that users wish
to undo). Efective interfaces give users some autonomy during exploration.
Developing knowledge
User knowledge develops with increasing experience, but tends to plateau rapidly. This means that interfaces must be
fexible and capable of responding simultaneously to the needs of users with diferent levels of knowledge. Ideally,
they should also be context sensitive and provide personalized help. The EdCoach system, developed by Desmarais,
Giroux and Larochelle (1993) is such an interface. Classifcation of users into beginner, intermediate and expert
categories is inadequate for the purpose of interface design, since these defnitions are too static and do not account
for individual variations. Information technology capable of responding to the needs of diferent types of users is now
available, albeit at the research, rather than commercial, level (Egan 1988). The current rage for performance-support
systems suggests intense development of these systems in coming years.
Unavoidable errors
Finally, it should be recognized that users make mistakes when using systems, regardless of their skill level or the
quality of the system. A recent German study by Broadbeck et al. (1993) revealed that at least 10% of the time spent
by white-collar workers working on computers is related to error management. One of the causes of errors is users
reliance on correction rather than prevention strategies (Reed 1982). Users prefer acting rapidly and incurring errors
that they must subsequently correct, to working more slowly and avoiding errors. It is essential that these
considerations be taken into account when designing human-computer interfaces. In addition, systems should be fault
tolerant and should incorporate efective error management (Lewis and Norman 1986).
Needs Analysis
Needs analysis is an explicit part of Robert and Fisets development cycle (1992), it corresponds to Nielsens
functional analysis and is integrated into other stages (task, user or needs analysis) described by other authors. It
consists of the identifcation, analysis and organization of all the needs that the computer system can satisfy.
Identifcation of features to be added to the system occurs during this process. Task and user analysis, presented
above, should help defne many of the needs, but may prove inadequate for the defnition of new needs resulting from
the introduction of new technologies or new regulations (e.g., safety). Needs analysis flls this void.
Needs analysis is performed in the same way as functional analysis of products. It requires the participation of a
group of people interested by the product and possessing complementary training, occupations or work experience.
This can include future users of the system, supervisors, domain experts and, as required, specialists in training, work
organization and safety. Review of the scientifc and technical literature in the relevant feld of application may also be
performed, in order to establish the current state of the art. Competitive systems used in similar or related felds can
also be studied. The diferent needs identifed by this analysis are then classifed, weighted and presented in a format
appropriate for use throughout the development cycle.
Prototyping
Prototyping is part of the development cycle of most interfaces and consists of the production of a preliminary paper
or electronic model (or prototype) of the interface. Several books on the role of prototyping in human-computer
interaction are available (Wilson and Rosenberg 1988; Hartson and Smith 1991; Preece et al. 1994).
Prototyping is almost indispensable because:
1. Users have difculty evaluating interfaces on the basis of functional specifcationsthe description of the
interface is too distant from the real interface, and evaluation too abstract. Prototypes are useful because they allow
users to see and use the interface and directly evaluate its usefulness and usability.
2. It is practically impossible to construct an adequate interface on the frst try. Interfaces must be tested by
users and modifed, often repeatedly. To overcome this problem, paper or interactive prototypes that can be tested,
modifed or rejected are produced and refned until a satisfactory version is obtained. This process is considerably
less expensive than working on real interfaces.

From the point of view of the development team, prototyping has several advantages. Prototypes allow the integration
and visualization of interface elements early on in the design cycle, rapid identifcation of detailed problems,
production of a concrete and common object of discussion in the development team and during discussions with
clients, and simple illustration of alternative solutions for the purposes of comparison and internal evaluation of the
interface. The most important advantage is, however, the possibility of having users evaluate prototypes.
Inexpensive and very powerful software tools for the production of prototypes are commercially available for a variety
of platforms, including microcomputers (e.g., Visual Basic and Visual C++ (Microsoft Corp.), UIM/X (Visual Edge
Software), HyperCard (Apple Computer), SVT (SVT Soft Inc.)). Readily available and relatively easy to learn,
they are becoming widespread among system developers and evaluators.
The integration of prototyping completely changed the interface development process. Given the rapidity and fexibility
with which prototypes can be produced, developers now tend to reduce their initial analyses of task, users and needs,
and compensate for these analytical defciencies by adopting longer evaluation cycles. This assumes that usability
testing will identify problems and that it is more economical to prolong evaluation than to spend time on preliminary
analysis.
Evaluation of Interfaces
User evaluation of interfaces is an indispensable and efective way to improve interfaces usefulness and usability
(Nielsen 1993). The interface is almost always evaluated in electronic form, although paper prototypes may also be
tested. Evaluation is an iterative process and is part of the prototype evaluation-modifcation cycle which continues
until the interface is judged acceptable. Several cycles of evaluation may be necessary. Evaluation may be performed
in the workplace or in usability laboratories (see the special edition of Behaviour and Information Technology (1994)
for a description of several usability laboratories).
Some interface evaluation methods do not involve users; they may be used as a complement to user evaluation
(Karat 1988; Nielsen 1993; Nielsen and Mack 1994). A relatively common example of such methods consists of the
use of criteria such as compatibility, consistency, visual clarity, explicit control, fexibility, mental workload, quality of
feedback, quality of help and error handling systems. For a detailed defnition of these criteria, see Bastien and
Scapin (1993); they also form the basis of an ergonomic questionnaire on interfaces (Shneiderman 1987; Ravden and
Johnson 1989).
Following evaluation, solutions must be found to problems that have been identifed, modifcations discussed and
implemented, and decisions made concerning whether a new prototype is necessary.
Conclusion
This discussion of interface development has highlighted the major stakes and broad trends in the feld of human-
computer interaction. In summary, (a) task, user, and needs analysis play an essential role in understanding system
requirements and, by extension, necessary interface features; and (b) prototyping and user evaluation are
indispensable for the determination of interface usability. An impressive body of knowledge, composed of principles,
guidelines and design standards, exists on human-computer interactions. Nevertheless, it is currently impossible to
produce an adequate interface on the frst try. This constitutes a major challenge for the coming years. More explicit,
direct and formal links must be established between analysis (task, users, needs, context) and interface design.
Means must also be developed to apply current ergonomic knowledge more directly and more simply to the design of
interfaces.