About Contact Help us

Join us ! Publish !

Interaction Design Foundation

Free educational materials - made by the world's technology elite

About sponsorships

References

Joseph P. Hale

iPad and tablet version

Publication statistics

Pub. period:1993-1995
Pub. count:4
Number of co-authors:7

Co-authors

Number of publications with 3 favourite co-authors:

Mary Lynne Dittmar:2
Richard E. Granda:1
Elizabeth B.-N. Sanders:1

Productive colleagues

Joseph P. Hale's 3 most productive colleagues in number of publications:

Joseph H. Goldberg:19
Ronald G. Shapiro:7
Megan L. Brown:4

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

Joseph P. Hale

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 Joseph P. Hale (bibliography)

1995

Edit | Del

Shapiro, Ronald G., Brown, Megan L., Fogleman, Maxwell, Goldberg, Joseph H., Granda, Richard E., Hale, Joseph P. and Sanders, Elizabeth B.-N. (1995): Preparing for the Human Factors/Ergonomics Job Market. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting 1995. pp. 379-383.

“The panel is designed to help an individual decide on a specialization in human factors/ergonomics and to prepare to enter the human factors job market. Panelists were selected to represent a cross-section of the field, and are from the following sectors: the electronics industry (Megan Brown), loss prevention research (Max Fogleman), academia (Joe Goldberg), the computer industry (Dick Granda), the government (Joe Hale), and consulting (Liz Sanders).”

1994

Edit | Del

Hale, Joseph P. and Dittmar, Mary Lynne (1994): Virtual Reality as a Human Factors Design Analysis Tool for Architectural Spaces -- Control Rooms to Space Stations I: Objective Measures. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 38th Annual Meeting 1994. pp. 275-279.

“One class of Virtual Reality (VR) applications is as a Human Factors design analysis tool for work areas and other architectural spaces. A study was conducted to compare subjects' qualitative and quantitative judgments of two "real" world control rooms at the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) and their corresponding virtual counterparts. The overall Independent Variables (IVs) were World (Real/Virtual) and Room (PCR/SIM) with Gender and World Order (Virtual-Real/Real-Virtual) as blocking variables. Nested within Room were range and relative range estimations. Range estimations were comprised of two IVs: 1) Item (Object/Surface) and 2) the Item's Range from the observer (Near/Far). The relative range estimations were comprised of two IVs: 1) Field-of-View (FOV) (Same/Different, i.e., whether or not the subject can see both objects simultaneously in the same FOV) and 2) the objects' Distance from the observer (Close/Away). There appears little difference between real and virtual worlds in one's ability to differentiate and estimate gross distances and to discriminate small relative range differentials within the same FOV. For different FOVs, this discrimination ability starts to deteriorate in the real world and is lost in the virtual world. There is also a clear World main effect of increased time to make judgments in the virtual world. The different perceptions, and the longer response times, point to a level of filtering occurring in the virtual environment that must be carefully considered when deciding where and how to use VR as a Human Factors analytical tool.”

Edit | Del

Dittmar, Mary Lynne and Hale, Joseph P. (1994): Virtual Reality as a Human Factors Design Analysis Tool for Architectural Spaces -- Control Rooms to Space Stations II: Subjective Measures. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 38th Annual Meeting 1994. pp. 280-284.

“The Architectural Space Questionnaire (ASQ) was developed and employed in order to assess subjects' impressions of four different environments (two real and two virtual rooms) at the NASA Marshall Space Flight Center. The ASQ consists of 18 adjective pairs, arrayed in a 7-point, Likert scale format. Subjects first participated in a variety of distance estimation tasks in the Spacelab Payload Control Room and the Simulation Control Room and in their virtual reality (VR) analogs. After their experience in each room, subjects responded to the ASQ, selecting one value on each adjective pair continuum which best described their impression of the room they were in. The results indicated that the ASQ is sensitive to structural differences between real rooms. Differences between virtual rooms were minimal, possibly due to the absence of visual cues such as lighting and texture in that environment. Implications for the use of VR as a design tool are explored.”

1993

Edit | Del

Hale, Joseph P. (1993): Ergonomics and VDT Design for Space Environments. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction 1993. pp. 196-200.

“In space, there are a variety of unique considerations that must be addressed in the design of workstations, or video display terminals (VDTs). In a micro-gravity environment, the human body assumes a neutral body posture that has direct implications for the relative positioning of the keyboard and display(s). Instead of chairs to sit upon, foot and/or body restraints are used. For Space Station Freedom, the design must accommodate body sizes ranging from a fifth percentile Japanese female to a ninety-fifth percentile American male. In addition to the "fixed" or rack-mounted workstations, there are also "portable workstations" used in space. Their use in a micro-gravity environment bring additional considerations that need to be addressed. These include workstation portage and restraint and location of the monitor relative to the crewmember's task-centered field-of-view. This paper expands on these issues and describes design approaches and options to accommodate them.”

Add publication