DISCLAIMER

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsi- bility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Refer- ence herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recom- mendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof.

c c m 0 2 0 - a m - - n

DISCLAIMER

Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document.

c

A Different Afiproach to Designiiqg Visual Disptays and Workstations

Abstract

?he tnaterialpt9?sented in titis p r fs barad un two studies involving the design of viswl displays bastxi on the user’s perspective modd of a system Ihe d e s involve a methodology known as Neurdingulsrfc Pmgmmming (W), and its use in e;paumdfng &sign choices from the user’s “model ofhe world, atad the use of vimallt?dity.

Introduction

Neuro-Linguistic Programming

NLP is a methodology which emails us@ a set of specific, easy-to-leatn techDiques fop gathering precise illfamation, assimilating that i n f e r n into useful patteros, and then using the information toward completioa of explicit outcomes or gods.

For example, seeing and hearing sounds in pictures, or seeing, hearing and hlkg the cry of ababy forthe first time am perfarmed based m specific strategies. me i-epmmm ‘d system of?vfsuai, Audito?y, mrd Kinesthetic am themodalitiesof the strategies with which =use to accessand process the infarmationaround us internally.

Once general patterm can be detected then more explicit distinctioas can be genenated which meal strategies thatareoutsi&the~consciousawarenessof the subject. These strategescanthenbeutilized in

The xneans by which all this information is gatbred fiom a usef is thtaagh the utilization of two by-products of NLe known as Meta Modeling and Synesthesia

assessing ava&yofneusarycatepksofi&mahon - with respect to tbeaser’s total expeximof tb system

Ibemetamodelis“amodelofamode1.” I t i s a ~ h n i q u e w h i c h ~ ~ ~ ~ t t h o s e s e m a n t i c s m l . syntactic contexts in which meta model viohtions occur. ’Ihere 8te three c&egories under *&these m%amadel violations OCCUT: gathering data, expanding limits and changiag meanings. Within each of these

o ~ ~ o ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , n r i n d ~ g , a a r s e a n d ~ a a n d l o s t p e t 3 c o r m a t f v e . It is these processes that limit the user’s ability to provide high calik fesponses during the descriptron

fedback process or interview. Therefore the meta model works to replace or repair the deficieat conmnrnicatiorrS with explicit, 8ccuTate descriptions that are then used in the comtru& *on of tbe design model of the system being e x p e r i d Below is an example of an unspecijki ngkmattcrl index violation under the g&g &a CaWPY.

categories is a set of eight bguistic variations: nfemttiul Ma, twmh&do m, wrspecffied h, modal

Synesthesia

Synesthesia “is the mssover connections h e e n repressenrmionaI system m p k e s , sudt that the activity in one representational system initiates &vity in another system (Bandlea, Wts, bh&x and-, 1980)

Seeing a fuel subassembly and sensing that the subassembly will be cold to the touch is 8 visual- M e t i c SyIleSthesia. Hearhg a fbotbaUgameandvisualizingtheplaysas they areexecuted isanagditory-visuat qmstksia These synesthesia pztttms constitute a large postion of how the human pmceses the i n b w i o n while c o d c a i n g with others. The currelations between -ional system activities are at the mot of such complex proawes as knowledge, choice and communicatioa

“By nrakng these comt?ativepmtenrs a@i&, mull)- linguisticpmgmmniingprvv~ a working model, anuppMte&&~&rthesnvaegicudlitarfon qfcrom~epmremstoseateany behvioml

to those who &site to addeve t h e outcomes, we am, in essence, rqliameany&&r behmior. ” (Bandler, Dilts, outmm By IamgYihg synthetic Seqrcenaes that

DeLozier a Gtinder, 1980).

to spc.@c outcow and by making them tnduble

By replacing missing idomation (given by the user) in its sharpest most Specific possible form, concise d e t a i l S ( t b a t a r e r e q u i r e d f 0 r ~ “emrr fleee” systems) am gathemi and i l K q m k d intoasystem’smoded This ende2lvorprovides the optirmunin reliable knowledge that can be extracted firom willing users and pmvides B foundation fhm Mch calibration of the paired dation&ip of Ianguage and nom& behavioral indicators c811 be iuxxnnpfiw

M v e d fromall theseeffarts is tbe expectationofdeveloping agenesat d l &at canbeepplied to the design of visual displays based on the user’s perspective of a system.

Research Study I: Visual Displays (on CRTs)

The stlady consisted of 38 subjects who were used to delamine favored representational systems (FRS).

examination of the tapes. The focus of the examiaation was the estabIislmmt of b d i v i d u a l e c eye access& patteaas aswciW with other non-verbal cues and Gqpistk usage patteas (predicates). Ibe sufycy that was used pvided a &profile of the person and a basis for speculationf?omthe infi#matonthatwasobt&ed.

The subjects were asked to complete a survey, answer questioas that were used to establish individual Strategies, and evalaate six differemt visual displays Erom which their commmts were corzelated with their favorite

divi&d.

The FRS were resolved through a video-qed inbarviewamt calibrated against both a wtitten it2sbumerd andvisoal

fejmentationalsystem. T h e r e s u l t s r e v d d ~ t h a t o v ~ b e t u f e e n t h e ~ ~ ~ a n d a r e a s w w e € e

Findings

Of the 38 subjects.mted,&e FRss established wefe as follows: 22 were kinestheticafly oriented, nine were visuallyorientedand seven weae auditor. The study shovved that the- ‘onal system Oyetlapped in areas of C O h COIl&L%, standard cokrr and k d C COdh& w- hl and w d&hYS regarding cdor, symbols aed text sizes arrd fonts, and displays in which theinfonnationcould be quickly Bcoess8d, scarmedad interpreted.

It was also folllxi that all threerepresentatIonaI . systems p r e f d illustrative (iconic 02 sy~A~Iic) visual displays over text or document style displays, thoughthe visually ariented gtoop reported they - cumfomble using both. Colors that were “easy-on-theeyes (less fatiguing)” seemed to be an issue mote for the auditmy and kinesthetic groups than for the visual group.

M d u a k that were visually oriented did not favor any specific realmof colors. Tbey seemed to concern

(no fusines m e geometric figuresand text). l[his gronpconsideredseven to ninecdors comhtable to wlork with.

Visually oriented people fbumf it w-e to work with ~” displays that were not “complex.” These users &!bd “complex” disphys as having to consciously cxmtnid arcreate ndditioael geometric pictuns in their minds to complete whatwasbeingdepictedonthedispiay.

& m l v a with the acuity and resolutioo ~ghtnes) of the colm being and colors that were %asy-to-see-

AudiroriEy olienradi-

individuals that wete auditorily oriented favored ”pure- earth-torae cdm of yellow, green, blue d op~llg~, and disapproved of colors that w m “muddy” (lower h e l s of sahmtim), e.g., yellowish-graen, gteenish-tKown,

tone colors. They weremmfostable working with 110 more than four or rivedifkentcoloPsperdisplay. Tbis group prefixred a single system be shown per display ami the information be expressed in an

illustrative f w Labeling techniques needed to be used in ways that WOIlzd explicitly descn’be the system. F l m colors wem a considemtionof this group in the d02 scheme design of visual displays. S o d was also a consideration as d.

bluish-- aml SO forth. cdors had to be clear (distitact) and of good collfrast withb the Spectnrmof 3d”’-

In developing visual displays, the designar needs to be amre of the d i m impacts the three basic nearological inputs have on the way people process iuformtion around them 'hx&m, the focus would be to inmpomb the comfort pmmetem that overlap from each of the represencat! 'OnSystelllK vlsual,~auditorya?&i kinesthmic, then itmcorporate the comfort parameters oftbe most prominent group of the population, and last, Mend in the other two representational system comfortparametess. Anozher method d d be to incorpoPate allthecomfnt paamten that overlap &omeach of the npwmtab 'OIL systems, then allow each individual the means by which to select their choice of cod& paaameters.

Momvex, it is important to mike several issues (a) &at by using theusers' comf'pmmebm, more positive outcomes will be attained in the areas of shorter learning curves in the use of newly developed visual displays, (b) less fiustrationandresistance by the user in accessing and utiliziag the displays, and (c) realization of the elimiaation of (or less emphasis on) adaptability from the user will guarantee that the designer will obtain more reliableand precise informatlo n fromtheoser at the cmceptd stage of thedesignmodeL

Research Study 11: Virtual Reality Models

The focus of this informat stady was to usethe techniquesofmeta-nmdeling andsyaesthesia todevelop a virtual environment that closely resembled the operator's peaspective of the fuel hamJling system of Argo= N a t i o n a l L a b m n y ' s W Breeder Reactor- II at the Idaho site. Aninfwmal study was CoIidUcted using N U as thebehavioml model havirtual reality (VR) setting. No fonnal data(- surveys, questionnaires, and so forth) werecollectedontheparticipants.

An AutoCAD model of EBR-XI was used as the test model fordezermining uvhether a VR enviroment would be f&ble in the areaof fist4 handling for operation and training.

Operation of the fuel handliag system at EJ3R-II is based primarily on crtctile feedback during fuel handhg opefatiom, and cxmcepblal visoalization as seen in photograph, blueprints and outliaed in operational pmcedum. Lack of direct visdizath is due to the configuration of thereactor. So, in an attempt to pravide the operators w i t h a ~ p e r s p e c t i v e o f t h e s y s t e m a n d ~ i n r e a i - t i m e t h a t w a s d y a e m i c a n d ~ ~ - a V R m o d e l ~ constructed in a CAVE ewirOmneat. 'zbe tesetirch strazed at the Umvemity of lI?inois-Chkago (UIC), and was

The wordCAVEisnotauc#xon;ym, but refers to the time wlaenmamacle fires ddpjectimageson the cave walls. Tbe C A W at UK! aad Argo- are Projection-based VR systems that surmund the vieweb. with three screens for walls, andadown-pm@ctionnnforthe floor. Ahead tracking device is attachexi to the viewer so

around the CAVE. A sensory trased wand is held by the v i e w which prwides hteradion with the Virtuat environments. The CAVE Sirnutator updates the position of the simulated wand BS the viewer moves the wand position with his or her hand. (CAVE User's Chide, 1994)

A humanfactorstudyprqosed 0ftheVRmOCiel is to interViewnheoperators with differsmt Sraining and l e a r n i a g ~ ~ O f t h e f u e l h a n d l i o e s y ~ ? h e o p e r a t o r s ~ ~ t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e s a m t ~ ofhow and what the primary tank, the primary vessel and fuel imdling system ~ l o o R s , f e & m t d ~ like to them" By using the techniques of the meta-model and qnmhem, B detailed descriptionof the te8ctg will be rewaled from eachparticipant, thenappliedto the VR model. lite final objective is toamteamodel that includes both theusas' comfortpanmems and their perspective of the system.

comgietedand~~atAtgonaeNatioaalLabanrtoly-Eashinchicago.

that the computer can calculate fix ezrch wall the perspective and steaeo protiections as theviewe€rraoves freely

c . r

Conclusion

The work for this study is ongoing. A formal investigation will be conducted in Jamrary 1995 using lline operators with diflkmt lwei of expertise. what has been found througb this informal evaluation is that the usercan be asked to describe in detail his experience of a model in which all deletions, distortions and gemdidom are fiile4iinorqlain!ed using NLP.

devekprmt is a positive step in the direction of system modeling fix understandrng * how a concept can be qplied through seeing, hearing and i bhg . All modalities are taken inio 8ccoullf, thereby emmpsing all the tepresentationalsystemsthatpeopleusetomodelthe~darouridth~

The feasibitity aadllsabitiQ of 8 virtual reality enviromnent for tmining, aperatiolls, research and

Summary

The key is to provide thedesigner with aneffectivemeans of communicating with the user that will allow the designer to “characterize” or “map the design tenit0ry”based on the usef’s model of the system. lbis will identify and minimb any problem or operator errors at the outset of the initial design and thereby remedy any deleterious design in a cost-effective manner. These are the principal thoughts in NIB methodology in the design of visual displays and systems. Therefme, i m p l e e NLP techniques for design purposes is practical. The challenge comes in developing the model that is capable of matching each user’s model of the world and the sums comes once the designer is flexible enough to change hiSmer own opinionand assessment of the model in order toremaininharmony with the user’s.

Whengatheringinfwmationfromnsers, thedesignershddndizethat,

Ihe meaning ofmy cvmnicmfon is the mponse elicited regardless ofthe intenrion (W).

Inother words, no matter what the communicant may have intemted to convey, the meaning of the comrrrmfication wili always be the mn-verbal and verbal responses elicited from the mpondent. In any c o d c a t i o n , the user wili always answer the designep’s question or comment non-vabally first, and by undershinding the strategic cues given by the user, the designer has taken the first step in gatherins the precise information required for the development of a successlid system.

References

Bandler, R. and MscDonald, W., “An insider’s Gui& To S & M W . ’ ’ Cupertino, CA, Meta pubtications, 1-3, (1988).

Bander, R, Dilts, R, DeLozier, J., and Grinder, J., uNeum-Lingufstic Pr0gmmming:lhe Study ofthe Stmaurn of Subjective E;Qierience, fl VoL I., M&, Utah, Real People Press, 23-24, (1980).

Brow-VanHoozer , S. A. and VanHoozer, W. R., Proceedings of the ZlVEL Computer Symposium, (1994).

Visual Displays and Neuro-Lhpistic Programrmng, * ”

Lewis, B. A. and Pucelik F. R., “Magic Bmysr@ed: An Intmduuim to MP, ” Lake Oswego, Oregon, Metamorphous Press, 5-7, (1982).