Calendar

May 27

13th Intl. Conf. on New Interfaces for Musical Expression

May 28

Graphics Interface 2013

May 29

Intl. Workshop on Design and Spontaneity in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (DS-CSCL 2013)

May 22

“ User error: replace user and press any key to continue. ”

-- Popular computer one-liner

Share this quote on...
Get more quotes via RSS or by joining our Usability Quote of the Day Facebook Page

Featured chapter

Read the fascinating history of Wearable Computing, told by its father, Steve Mann

Read Steve's chapter !

Help us help you!

Spread the word:
Donate
Other ways to help

Brian Peacock

Add description

← Button will not work: You have not enabled Javascript. How do I enable it?

Rename / change spelling

Add publication

← Button will not work: You have not enabled Javascript. How do I enable it?

Publications by Brian Peacock (bibliography)

1995

Edit | Del

Peacock, Brian, Orr, Gary, Chaffin, Don, Leamon, Tom and Radwin, Rob (1995): The Philosophy of Ergonomics Standards. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting 1995. p. 678.

“The panel will include speakers from Government (Gary Orr), Academia (Don Chaffin), Insurance (Tom Leamon), the HF&ES (Rob Radwin), Industry (Brian Peacock, Panel Chair), the Legal Profession (TBD) and Labor (TBD) After a hectic few years the promised OSHA ergonomics standard has been relegated to the back burner. Various sets of material were distributed, including a draft proposed standard along with extensive appendices. Much has been said and written regarding the scientific basis, the economic implications and the legal ramifications of the standard. Many other attempts have also been made to produce material that represents the general opinion of the profession, including ANSI Z365, the State of California and British Columbia. The issue of standards will not go away and it is probably appropriate at this time to step back and discuss some philosophical issues associated with standards. Operational concepts: * Ergonomics is broader in content and application than the prevention of acute and cumulative trauma disorders and so a standard should adopt a more specific title such as a Musculo Skeletal Disorder Prevention Standard. * Programmatic Guidelines should describe the general content of ergonomics activity such as Job Analysis, Hazard (or Error) Reduction, Training, Medical (or Risk) Management, Record Keeping and Reporting. * Performance Requirements should refer to specific outcome measures such as injury / illness incidence and severity, productivity, product quality and indications of motivation such as attendance. * Design Specifications should take the form of quantitative statements regarding systems, products, processes and environments. * Standards should include probabilistic statements such as target population selection and training characteristics and levels (percentiles) of accommodation, risk or protection. * Physical (mental) work should be optimized, not minimized. * Classical "reductionist" science in this area will always require interpolation or extrapolation before being of value in standards With these concepts in mind, each of the panelists will address the following questions: 1. Is there sufficient need for a standard because of the level of outcomes (such as occupationally induced cumulative trauma)? 2. Is there sufficient scientific evidence relating "doses" and responses to form the basis of a standard? 3. Is our profession being fairly criticized because of our failure to reach agreement on standards? 4. Should a standard take the form of programmatic guidelines, performance requirements or design specifications? 5. What levels of accommodation / protection are appropriate for work standards and to what extent should standards assume certain levels of population selection and training? 6. Following the analogy of the recent changes in vehicular speed limits, should the issue of standards be left to the individual states? 7. How can consensus be achieved?”

1992

Edit | Del

Goldberg, Joseph H., Champney, Paul C., Karn, Keith S., Riley, Michael W. and Peacock, Brian (1992): First Course in Human Factors Engineering: What Should be Taught?. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting 1992. pp. 561-562.

“Industry and academia often have differing desires in the introductory Human Factors education of engineering students. Industry seeks solutions to current problems, whereas academia can communicate state-of-the-art concepts without immediate application. This panel session united members of academia and industry for discussion of what topics and structure should underlie a one-semester, introductory, survey course in Human Factors Engineering. Each panel member expressed his opinion of what should be in such a course, followed by discussion aimed at achieving consensus of opinions.”

1988

Edit | Del

Berry, Mari, Peacock, Brian, Foote, Bobbie and Leemis, Lawrence (1988): Visual Assessment vs. Statistical Goodness of Fit Tests for Identifying Parent Population. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting 1988. pp. 460-464.

“Statistical tests are used to identify the parent distribution corresponding to a data set. A human observer looking at a histogram can also identify a probability distribution that models the parent distribution. The accuracy of a human observer was compared to the chi-square test for discrete data and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov and chi-square tests for continuous data. The human observer proved more accurate in identifying continuous distributions and the chi-square test proved to be superior in identifying discrete distributions. The effect of sample size and number of intervals in the histogram was included in the experimental design.”

Add publication