Ergonomic qualities of graphic user interfaces (GUI): state and evolution
https://doi.org/10.31089/1026-9428-2018-12-51-57
Abstract
More workers are involved into interaction with graphic user interfaces most part of the working shift. However, low ergonomic qualities or incorrect usage of graphic user interface could result in risk of unfavorable influence on workers’ health. The authors revealed and classified typical scenarios of graphic user interface usage. Various types of graphic user interface and operator occupations are characterized by various parameters of exertion, both biomechanical and psycho-physiological. Among main elements of graphic user interface are presence or absence of mouse or joystick, intuitive clearness, balanced palette, fixed position of graphic elements, comfort level, etc. Review of various graphic user interface and analysis of their characteristics demonstrated possibility of various occupational risk factors. Some disclosed ergonomic problems are connected with incorporation of graphic user interface into various information technologies and systems. The authors presented a role of ergonomic characteristics of graphic user interface for safe and effective work of operators, gave examples of algorithms to visualize large information volumes for easier comprehension and analysis. Correct usage of interactive means of computer visualization with competent design and observing ergonomic principles will optimize mental work in innovative activity and preserve operators’ health. Prospective issues in this sphere are ergonomic interfaces developed with consideration of information hygiene principles, big data analysis technology and automatically generated cognitive graphics.
About the Author
Ivan V. Stepanyan
Izmerov Research Institute of Occupational Health; Institute of Engineering Science named after A.A. Blagonravov
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
senior researcher, Department of Prevention violations of workers’ reproductive health, IRIOH, leading researcher, Department “Vibration Biomechanics”, Institute of Engineering Science named after A.A. Blagonravov, Dr. Sci. Biol, Cand. Tech. Sci.
31, Budennogo Ave., Moscow, 105275; 4, Maly Kharitonyevsky ln, Moscow, 101990
References
1. Bukhtiyarov I.V., Denisov E.I., Yeremin A.L. Fundamentals of Information Hygiene: Concepts and Problems of Innovation. Gigiena i san. 2014; 4: 5–9 (in Russian).
2. Denisov E.I., Eremin A.L., Sivochalova O.V. Information Hygiene and Regulation of Information for Vulnerable Populations. Gigiena i san. 2014; 5: 43–9 (in Russian).
3. Denisov E.I., Prokopenko L.V., Eremin A.L., Kurierov N.N., Bodyakin V.I., Stepanyan I.V. Information as a physical factor: the problems of measurement, hygienic evaluation and IT automation. Med. truda i prom. ekol. 2014; 1: 36–43 (in Russian).
4. Denisov E.I., Pfaf V.F., Stepanyan I.V., Gorokhova S.G. Shift of the medical-biological paradigm: from homeostasis to allostasis. Nejrokomp’yutery: razrabotka, primenenie. 2016; 2: 16–21 (in Russian).
5. The human machine interface as an emerging risk. Topic Centre Risk Observatory: E. Flaspöler, A. Hauke, P. Pappachan, D. Reinert et al. Available at: https://osha.europa.eu/en/publications/literature_reviews/HMI_emerging_risk/view(retrieved 7 Aug 2018 г.).
6. Tutherow G.K.: Operator Interface Evolution. In: B. G. Lipták. Instrument Engineers Handbook. Process Soft ware and Digital Networks.Boca Roton, Florida: CRC Press; 2002.
7. Döös, M. & Backström, T.: Production disturbances as an accident risk. In Kidd, P.T. & Karwowski, W. (Eds.): // Advances in agile manufacturingpp. 375–378. IOS Press, London; 1994.
8. Backström, T. & Harms-Ringdahl, L.: A statistical study of control systems and accidents at work. Journal of Occupational Accidents. 1984; 6: 201–10.
9. Döös, M., Backström, T. & Sundström-Frisk, C.: Human actions and errors in risk handling — an empirically grounded discussion of cognitive action-regulation levels. Safety Science. 2004. 42: 185–204.
10. Nachreiner, F., Nickel P and Meyer I. (2006). Human factors in process control systems: Th e design of human — machine interfaces. Safety Science. 2006; 44: 5–26.
11. Einarsson S., Human error in high hazard systems: Do we treat the problem in an appropriate way? Journal of Risk Research. 1999; 2 (2): 115–28.
12. Reinert D., Brun E. & Flaspöler E.: Complex machinery needs simple explanation. Safety Science. 2007; 45: 579–89.
13. C.-M. Karat. Iterative Usability Testing of a Security Application. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting; 1989.
14. Waters, R.M.: Use of standards to reduce human error. Safety Engineering and Risk Analysis, ASME, Proceedings of the 1994 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition, Nov 6–11 1994, Chicago, IL. 1994; 2: 161–6.
15. Wilpert B. (2007). Psychologyand design processes. Safety Science, 45, 293–303.
16. Ergonomic guidelines for user-interface design. Available at: http://ergo.human.cornell.edu/AHTutorials/interface.html
17. Hix D. & Hartson H.R. Developing User Interfaces: Ensuring usability through product and process, NY; Wiley. 1993; Chap. 2.
18. Dolgov N.S., Shalumov V.G. Forum molodykh uchenykh No. 6(22). forum-nauka.ru Available at: http://forum-nauka.ru/domains_data/files/22/Dolgov_Shalumov.pdf (in Russian).
19. Sakas G. Trends in medical imaging: from 2D to 3D. Computers & Graphics. 2002; 26: 577–87.
20. Stepanyan I.V., Petoukhov S.V. The matrix method of representation, analysis and classifi cation of long genetic sequences. Available at: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.8469.pdf
21. Stepanyan I.V., Denisov E.I., Eremin A.L., Bodyakin V.I., Saveliev A.V. Algorithms for optimizing intellectual labor by visualizing information using cognitive semantic graphics. Nejrokomp’yutery: razrabotka, primenenie. 2014; 7: 53–59 (in Russian).
22. Bodyakin V.I. Th e concept of constructing self-learning information-control systems based on the neurosemantic paradigm. Management of the development of large-scale systems (MLSD’2012): Proceedings of VI Int. Conf. Volume 2. Moscow: IPP RA S; 2012: 289–98 (in Russian).
Review
For citations:
Stepanyan I.V. Ergonomic qualities of graphic user interfaces (GUI): state and evolution. Russian Journal of Occupational Health and Industrial Ecology. 2018;(12):51-56. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31089/1026-9428-2018-12-51-57
Views:
711
Email this article 
