Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:30:16.207Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Frequency of use – the First Step Toward Human-Centred Interfaces for Marine Navigation Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2019

Viet Dung Vu Open the ORCID record for Viet Dung Vu [Opens in a new window] ,
Margareta Lützhöft  and
Gholam Reza Emad
Viet Dung Vu*
Affiliation:
(Australian Maritime College, University of Tasmania, Launceston, Australia) (Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Haugesund, Norway)
Margareta Lützhöft
Affiliation:
(Australian Maritime College, University of Tasmania, Launceston, Australia) (Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Haugesund, Norway)
Gholam Reza Emad
Affiliation:
(Australian Maritime College, University of Tasmania, Launceston, Australia)
*
(E-mail: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents research on how frequently seafarers utilise functions and information available on an Integrated Navigation System to perform navigation duties. Using an online questionnaire, the study collected data from 601 members of the global seafaring community. The results provide an overview of the frequency of use for each feature, together with factors affecting the use and associated usability issues. The study finds that the use of navigation equipment is situation-dependent and affected by administrative factors, experience and professional habits, characteristics of the sailing area, traffic conditions, weather conditions, ship management factors and geographical location. Additionally, information overload, particularly with overlay and alert management functions, was found to be the major issue with existing systems. The findings of this study can be applied to improve menu tree structure, display layout, and interaction methods on the interface of navigation systems, such as making frequently-used features more readily available or easier to access.

Keywords

Human-centred designFrequency of useMarine navigation systemsUser interface
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Navigation , Volume 72 , Issue 5 , September 2019 , pp. 1089 - 1107
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Baldauf, M., Benedict, K. and Hockel, S. (2009). Investigations into enhanced alert management for collision avoidance in ship-borne integrated navigation systems. In: Filipe, J. and Cordeiro, J., (eds). Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Human-Computer Interaction. Milan, Italy, May 06–10, 2009. Berlin: Springer, 169–174.Google Scholar
Barsan, E. and Muntean, C. (2010). Combined complex maritime simulation scenarios for reducing maritime accidents caused by human error. In: Panait, C., Barsan, E., Bulucea, A., Mastorakis, N. & Long, C. (eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Maritime and Naval Science and Engineering. Constanta Maritime University, September 03–05, 2010. Constanta, Romania: WSEAS Press, 88–93.Google Scholar
Benyon, D. (1993). Accommodating individual differences through an adaptive user interface. Human Factors in Information Technology, 10, 149–149.Google Scholar
Brown, C. (1998). Human-computer interface design guidelines, Exeter, England: Intellect Books.Google Scholar
De Souza, F. and Bevan, N. (1990). The use of guidelines in menu interface design: Evaluation of a draft standard. In: Diaper, D., Gilmore, D. J., Cockton, G. & Shackel, B., (eds). INTERACT 90 - 3rd IFIP International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Cambridge, UK, August 27–31, 1990. Cambridge, UK: North Holland Publishing Co., 435–440.Google Scholar
Findlater, L. and Gajos, K. (2009). Design space and evaluation challenges of adaptive graphical user interfaces. AI Magazine, 30, 68.Google Scholar
Gajos, K. Z., Czerwinski, M., Tan, D. S. and Weld, D. S. (2006). Exploring the design space for adaptive graphical user interfaces. In: Celentano, A., (ed.) Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfaces. Venezia, Italy, May 23–26, 2006. New York, NY, USA: ACM, 201–208.Google Scholar
Gong, J. and Tarasewich, P. (2004). Guidelines for handheld mobile device interface design. Proceedings of DSI 2004 Annual Meeting. Boston, November 20–23, 2004. 3751–3756.Google Scholar
Grech, M., Horberry, T. and Koester, T. (2008). Human Factors in the Maritime Domain, Boca Raton, FL. CRC Press.Google Scholar
Hareide, O. and Ostnes, R. (2016). Comparative study of the Skjold-class bridge-and simulator navigation training. European Journal of Navigation, 14.Google Scholar
Hareide, O. and Ostnes, R. (2017). Maritime Usability Study by Analysing Eye Tracking Data. The Journal of Navigation, 70, 927–943.Google Scholar
Hareide, O., Ostnes, R. and Mjelde, F. (2016). Understanding the Eye of the Navigator. European Navigation Conference. Helsinki, Finland.Google Scholar
IMO. (1974). International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS): International Maritime Organisation.Google Scholar
IMO. (2004). MSC.192(79) - Adoption of The Revised Performance Standards for Radar Equipment. International Maritime Organisation.Google Scholar
IMO. (2007). MSC.252(83) Adoption of the Revised Performance Standards for Integrated Navigation System (INS). International Maritime Organisation.Google Scholar
IMO. (2008). Safety Culture [Online]. International Maritime Organisation. Available: http://www.imo.org/en/OurWork/HumanElement/VisionPrinciplesGoals/Pages/Safety-Culture.aspx [Accessed 22 January 2018].Google Scholar
IMO. (2010). MSC.302(87) Adoption of performance standards for bridge alert management. International Maritime Organisation.Google Scholar
IMO. (2015a). MSC.1/ Circ.1512 Guideline on software quality assurance and human-centred design for e-Navigation. International Maritime Organisation.Google Scholar
IMO. (2015b). NCSR 3/28/1 Development of guidance on the Standardized (or S) Mode of operation of navigation equipment. International Maritime Organisation.Google Scholar
IMO. (2017). NCSR 4/29 Report to the Maritime Safety Committee. International Maritime Organisation.Google Scholar
IMO (2018). ISM Code - International Safety Management Code with guidelines for its implementation, London, UK: International Maritime Organisation.Google Scholar
Jacobson, E. and Lutzhoft, M. (2008). Developing user needs for S-mode. Royal Institute of Navigation International Navigation Conference. Church House, Westminster, London, October 28–30, 2008.Google Scholar
Kerstholt, J. H. and Passenier, P. O. (2000). Fault management in supervisory control: the effect of false alarms and support. Ergonomics, 43, 1371–1389.Google Scholar
Langley, P. (1999). User modeling in adaptive interface. In: Kay, J., (ed.) Proceedings of The Seventh International Conference on User Modeling. Banff, Alberta, June 20–24, 1999. Vienna: Springer, 357–370.Google Scholar
Lützhöft, M. and Dukic, T. (2007). Show me where you look and I'll tell you if you're safe: Eye tracking of maritime watchkeepers. The 39th Nordic Ergonomics Society Conference. Lysekil, Sweden, October 1–3, 2007.Google Scholar
Lutzhoft, M., Grech, M. R. and Jung, M. (2016). From reactive in training to proactive in design: applying standard maritime design. International Conference on Human Factors. London, September 28–29, 2016.Google Scholar
MAIB. (2008). Report on the investigation of the grounding of CFL Performer Haisborough Sand North Sea 12 May 2008. Southampton, UK: Marine Accident Investigation Branch.Google Scholar
MAIB. (2014). Report on the investigation of the grounding of Ovit in the Dover Strait on 18 September 2013. Southampton, UK: Marine Accident Investigation Branch.Google Scholar
MAIB. (2017). Report on the investigation of the collision between the pure car carrier City of Rotterdam and the Ro-ro freight ferry Primular Seaways, River Humber, United Kingdom, 3 December 2015,. Marine Accident Investigation Branch: Marine Accident Investigation Branch.Google Scholar
Motz, F. and Baldauf, M. (2007). Investigations into shipborne alarm management - Conduction and results of field studies. The Ninth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems. Funchal, Madeira, Portugal, June 12–16, 2007.Google Scholar
Motz, F., Höckel, S., Baldauf, M., Benedict, K., Dalinger, E., Widdel, H., MacKinnon, S. and Mann, C. (2009). Development of a Concept for Bridge Alert Management. Marine Navigation and Safety of Sea Transportation, 3, 191.Google Scholar
Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering, Mountain View, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Oltedal, H. (2011). Safety culture and safety management within the Norwegian-controlled shipping industry - State of art, Interrelationships and Influencing Factors. Doctor of Philosophy, University of Stavanger.Google Scholar
Rankin, A., Lundberg, J., Woltjer, R., Rollenhagen, C. and Hollnagel, E. (2014). Resilience in everyday operations: a framework for analyzing adaptations in high-risk work. Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making, 8, 78–97.Google Scholar
Rowley, I., Williams, R., Barnett, M., Pekcan, C., Garfield, D., Northcott, L. and Crick, J. (2006). Development of guidance for the mitigation of human error in automated shipborne maritime systems. Southampton, UK, Maritime and Coastguard Agency.Google Scholar
Saunders, B., Sim, J., Kingstone, T., Baker, S., Waterfield, J., Bartlam, B., Burroughs, H. and Jinks, C. (2017). Saturation in qualitative research: exploring its conceptualization and operationalization. Quality & Quantity, 52, 1893–1907.Google Scholar
Sherwood Jones, B., Earthy, J. V., Fort, E. & Gould, D. (2006). Improving the design and management of alarm systems. The World Maritime Technology Conference. London, UK, 2006.Google Scholar
Shneiderman, B. and Plaisan, C. (2004). Designing the user interface: strategies for effective human-computer interaction, Boston, MA: Pearson Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
The Nautical Institute. (2008). S-mode for onboard navigation displays - an NI user-led initiative. Seaways, 25–26.Google Scholar
Thomas, D. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 237–246.Google Scholar
Traub, P. and Hudson, R. (2007). Alarm Management Strategies on Ships Bridges and Railway Control Rooms: A Comparison of Approaches and Solutions. Royal Institution of Naval Architects International Conference - Human Factors in Ship Design, Safety and Operation. London, UK, 2007.Google Scholar
United States Department of Transportation. (2012). Aviation Maintenance Technician Handbook - Airframe, Volume 2. Oklahoma City, OK: United States Department of Transportation.Google Scholar
Woods, D. D., Dekker, S., Cook, R., Johannesen, L. and Sarter, N. (2010). Behind human error. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd, Surrey, England.Google Scholar