Control

Scenario:

You’re driving a new rental car at dusk, you started to

reach for what you thought was the headlight control.
Suddenly, your vision was obscured by a gush of washer
fluid across the windshield. As you reached to try to
correct the mistake, your other hand twisted the very
sensitive steering wheel and the car started to change
direction. Quickly, you brought the wheel back but
overcorrected, and then for a few terrifying moments the
car seesawed back and forth until you fully stopped the
car. Trying once more for the headlight switch, you now
activated the flashing hazard light.
You experienced several difficulties in control that can be
placed in the context of the human information-processing
model.

This model can be paraphrased by "knowing the state of

affairs, knowing what to do, and then doing it."

Control is the "doing it" part of this description.

It is both a noun (a control) and an action verb (to control).

Control primarily involves the selection and execution of

responses - that is, the last two stages of the model -
along with the feedback loop that allows the human to
determine that the control response has been executed in
the manner that was intended.
PRINCIPLES OF RESPONSE SELECTION

The difficulty and speed of selecting a response or an

action is influenced by several variables (Fitts & Posner,
1967; Wickens & Hollands, 2000)

Of which five are particularly critical for system design:

decision complexity, expectancy, compatibility, the
speed-accuracy tradeoff, and feedback.
Decision Complexity

The speed with which an action can be selected is strongly

influenced by the number of possible alternative actions that
could be selected in that context.

This is called the complexity of the decision of what action to

select.

Thus, each action of the Morse code operator, in which only

one of two alternatives is chosen (dit or dah) follows a much
simpler choice than each action of the typist, who must
choose between one of 26 letters.

Hence, the Morse code operator can generate a greater

number of keystrokes per minute.

Correspondingly, users can select an action more rapidly from

a computer menu with two options than from the more
complex menu with eight options.
Engineering psychologists have characterized this
dependency of response selection time on decision
complexity by the Hick-Hyman law of reaction time
(RT) (Hick 1952; Hyman, 1953).

When reaction time or response time is plotted as a

function of Log2(N) rather than N, the function is
generally linear.

Because Log2(N) represents the amount of

information, in bits, conveyed by a choice, in the
formal information theory the linear relation of RT with
bits, conveyed by the Hick-Hyman law, suggests that
humans process information at a constant rate.
The Hick-Hyman law of reaction time. (a) The figure shows the
logarithmic increase in RT as the number of possible stimulus-
response alternatives (N) increases. This can sometimes be
expressed by the formula: RT = a + b Log 2N. This linear relation
is shown in (b).
The Hick-Hyman law does not imply that systems
designed for users to make simpler decisions are
superior.

In fact, if a given amount of information needs to be

transmitted by the user, it is generally more efficient
to do so by a smaller number of complex decisions
than a larger number of simple decisions.

This is referred to as the decision complexity

advantage (Wickens and Hollands 2000).

For example, a typist can convey the same message

more rapidly than can the Morse code operator.
Response Expectancy

We learned that we perceive rapidly (and accurately)

information that we expect.

In a corresponding manner, we select more rapidly

and accurately those actions we expect to carry out
than those that are surprising to us.

We do not, for example, expect the car in front of us to

come to an abrupt halt on a freeway.

Not only are we slow in perceiving its expansion in the

visual field, but we are much slower in applying the
brake (selecting the response) than we would be when
the light expectedly turns yellow at an intersection that
we are approaching.
Compatibility

We discussed the concept of display compatibility

between the orientation and movement of a display and
the operator's expectancy of movement, or mental
model, of the displayed system in the context of the
principle of the moving part.

Stimulus-response compatibility (or display control

compatibility) describes the expected relationship
between the location of a control or movement of a
control response and the location or movement of the
stimulus or display to which the control is related (Fitts &
Seeger, 1953).
Two subprinciples characterize a compatible (and hence
good) mapping between display and control (or stimulus and
response).

(1) Location compatibility: The control location should be

close to (and in fact closest to) the entity being controlled
or the display of that entity.

(2) Movement compatibility: The direction of movement of a

control should be congruent with the direction both of
movement of the feedback indicator and of the system
movement itself. A violation of movement compatibility
would occur if the operator needed to move a lever to the
left, in order to move a display indicator to the right.
The Speed-Accuracy Tradeoff

For the preceding three principles, the designer can

assume that factors that-make the selection of a response
longer (complex decisions, unexpected actions, or
incompatible responses) will also make errors more likely.

Hence, there is a positive correlation between response

time and error rate or, in other terms, a positive correlation
between speed and accuracy.

These variables do not trade off.

However, there are some circumstances in which the two

measures do trade off:

For example, if we try to execute actions very rapidly

(carrying out procedures under a severe time deadline), we
are more likely to make errors. In contrast, if we must be
very cautious because the consequences of errors are
critical, we will be slow.
Feedback

Most controls and actions that we take are associated with

some form of visual feedback that indicates the system
response to the control input.

For example, in a car the speedometer offers visual feedback

from the control of the accelerator. However, good control
design must also be concerned with more direct feedback of
the control state itself.

This feedback may be kinesthetic/tactile (e.g., the feel of a

button as it is depressed to make contact or the resistance
on a stick as it is moved). It may be auditory (the click of the
switch or the beep of the phone tone), or it may be visual (a
light next to a switch to show it is on or even the clear and
distinct visual view that a push button has been depressed).
POSITIONING CONTROL DEVICES

A common task in much of human-machine interaction is

the need to position some entity in space.

This may involve moving a cursor to a point on a screen,

reaching with a robot arm to contact an object, or moving
the setting on a radio dial to a new frequency.

Generically, we refer to these spatial tasks as those

involving positioning or pointing (Baber, 1997). A wide
range of control devices, such as the mouse, joystick, and
thumbpad are available to accomplish such tasks.
 Movement Time

Controls typically require movement of two different

sorts:
(1) movement is often required for the hands or fingers
to reach the control (not unlIke the movement of
attention to access information), and
(2) the control may then be moved in some direction,
often to position a cursor. Even in the best of
circumstances in which control location and
destination are well learned, these movements take
time. Such times can be relatively well predicted by a
model known as Fitts's law (Fitts, 1954; Jagacinski &
Flach, 2003):

where A = amplitude of the movement and W =width of the target

or the desired precision with which the cursor must land. This
means that movement time is linearly related to the logarithm of
the term (2AIW) , which is the index of difficulty of the movement.
Three examples of Fitts's law, with the index of difficulty
calculated to the right.

As shown in rows a and b, each time the distance to the key

doubles, the index of difficulty and therefore movement time
increases by a constant amount.
Correspondingly, each time the required precision of the
movement is doubled (the target width or allowable
precision is halved; compare rows a and c), the movement
time also increases by a constant amount unless the
distance is correspondingly halved (compare rows b and
c, showing the same index of difficulty and therefore the
same movement time).

The mechanisms underlying Fitts's law are based heavily

on the visual feedback aspects of controlled aiming, and
hence the law is equally applicable to the actual physical
movement of the hand to a target (i.e., reaching for a key)
as to the movement of a displayed cursor to a screen target
achieved by manipulation of some control device.
Device Characteristics

The various categories of control devices that can be

used to accomplish these pointing or position tasks
may be grouped into four distinct categories.

In the first category are direct position controls (light

pen and touch screen) in which the position of the
human hand (or finger) directly corresponds with the
desired location of the cursor.

The second category contains indirect position

controls – the mouse or touch pad – in which
changes in the position of the limb directly correspond
to changes in the position of the cursor, but the limb is
moved on a surface different from the display cursor
surface.
The third category contains indirect velocity controls, such
as the joystick and the cursor keys.

Here, typically an activation of control in a given direction

yields a velocity of cursor movement in that direction.

For cursor keys, this may involve either ,repeated presses or

holding it down for a long period.

For joystick movements, the magnitude of deflection

typically creates a proportional velocity.

Joysticks may be of three sorts: isotonic, which can be

moved freely and will rest wherever they are positioned;
isometric, which are rigid but produce movement
proportional to the force applied; or spring-loaded, which
offer resistance proportional to both the force applied and
the amount of displacement, springing back to the neutral
position when pressure is released. The spring-loaded stick,
offering both proprioceptive and kinesthetic feedback of
movement extent, is typically the most preferred.
Task Performance Dependence

For the most critical tasks involved in pointing (designating

targets and "dragging“ them to other locations), there is
good evidence that the best overall devices are the two
direct position controls (touch screen and light pen) and
the mouse (as reflected in the speed, accuracy and
preference data shown.
The Work Space Environment

An important property of the broader workspace within

which the device is used is the display, which presents
target and cursor information.

As we have noted, display size (or the physical

separation between display elements) influences the
extent of device-movement effort necessary to access
targets.

Greater display size places a greater value on efficient

high-gain devices.

In contrast, smaller, more precise targets (or smaller

displays) place a greater need for precise manipulation
and therefore lower gain.

The physical characteristics of the display also influence

usability.
The available workspace size may constrain the ability
to use certain devices.

In particular, devices like joysticks or cursor keys that

may be less effective in desktop workstations become
relatively more advantageous for control in mobile
environments, like the vehicle cab or small airplane
cockpit, in which there is little room for a mouse pad.

The environment itself can have a major impact on

usability.

For example, direct position control devices suffer

greatly in a vibrating environment, such as a vehicle
cab.

Voice control is more difficult in a noisy environment.

Stability

We can discuss briefly one concept that is extremely

important in the human factors of control systems: stability.

Novice pilots sometimes show unstable altitude control as

they oscillate around a desired altitude.

The driver in the scenario introduced at the beginning of

these slides also suffered instability of control.

This is an example of unstable behavior known as closed-

loop instability.

It is sometimes called negative feedback instability because

of the operator's well-intentioned but ineffective efforts to
correct in a direction that will reduce the error (i.e. to negate
the error).

Closed-loop instability results from a particular combination

of three factors:
1. There can be lag somewhere in a total control loop,
either from the system lag or from the human operator's
response time.

2. The gain is too high. This high gain can represent either
the system's gain-too much heading change for a given
steering wheel deflection or the human's gain-a tendency
to overcorrect if there is an error.
3. A person is trying to correct errors too rapidly
and is not waiting until the lagged system output
stabilizes before applying another corrective input.
Technically, this third factor results when the input
bandwidth is high relative to the system lag, and
the operator chooses to respond with corrections to
all of the input "wiggles" (i.e., does not filter out the
high-frequency inputs).
Human factors engineers can offer five solutions that can
be implemented to reduce closed-loop instability:

(1) Lower the gain (either by system design or by

instructing the operator to do so).
(2) Reduce the lags (if possible). This might be done, for
example, by reducing the required complexity of
graphics in a virtual reality system (Pausch, 1991;
Sherman & Craig, 2003).
(3) Caution the operator to change strategy in such a way
that he or she does not try to correct every input but
filters out the high-frequency ones, thereby reducing
the bandwidth.
(4) Change strategy to seek input that can anticipate and
predict (like looking farther down the road when
driving and attending to heading, or paying more
attention to rate-of-change indicators).
(5) Change strategy to go "open loop."