No description available... Please help other visitors by providing one!
ADD DESCRIPTION
Example publications from this periodical
The following articles are from "Human Factors":
-- Volume 24 --
Issue 3
Mandal, A. C. (1982): Correct Height of School Furniture. In Human Factors, 24 (3) pp. 257-...
-- Volume 26 --
Issue 4
Carroll, John M. and Carrithers, C. (1984): Blocking learner error states in a training-wheels system. In Human Factors, 26 (4) pp. 377-389
-- Volume 31 --
Andres, Robert. O. and Hartung, Kenny. J. (1989): Prediction of Head Movement Time Using Fitts' Law. In Human Factors, 31 pp. 703-713
-- Volume 40 --
Ziefle, Martina (1998): Effects of display resolution on visual performance. In Human Factors, 40 (4) pp. 554-568
-- Volume 41 --
Issue 1
Bay, Susanne and Ziefle, Martina (2005): Children Using Cellular Phones. The Effects of shortcomings in user Interface Design. In Human Factors, 41 (1) pp. 158-168
“This study is an attempt to show how a "standard" foot can be parameterized using foot length, foot width, foot height and a measure of foot curvature so that foot shape can be predicted using these simple anthropometric measures. The prediction model was generated using forty Hong Kong Chinese males, and the model was validated using a different group of twenty-five Hong Kong Chinese males. The results show that each individual foot shape may be predicted to a mean accuracy of 2.1 mm for the left foot and 2.4 mm for the right foot. Application of this research includes the potential design and development of custom footwear without the necessity of expensive three-dimensional scanning of feet. ”
Sutter, Christine and Ziefle, Martina (2005): Users' Expertise: A biasing Factor for Performance and Usability of Notebook Input Devices. In Human Factors, 47 (1) pp. 169-187
-- Volume 49 --
Issue 4
Oetjen, Sophie and Ziefle, Martina (2007): The Effects of LCD’s Anisotropy on the Visual Performance of Users of Different Ages.. In Human Factors, 49 (4) pp. 619-627
“Objective: The present study examined the visual discrimination speed and accuracy while using an LCD and a CRT display. Background: LCDs have ergonomic advantages,
but their main disadvantage is that they provide inconsistent photometric measures depending on the viewing angle (anisotropy). Method: Independent variables
were screen type (LCD and CRT), viewing angle (0°, 11°, 41°, 50°, and 56°) and user’s age (teenagers, young adults, and middle-aged adults). Dependent variables were speed and accuracy in a visual discrimination task and user’s ratings. Results: The results corroborated the negative impact of LCD anisotropy. Visual discrimination times were by 7.6% slower when an LCD was used instead of a CRT. Performance differences increased with increasing viewing angle for both screens, but performance decrements were larger for the LCD. Young adults showed the best visual performance, as compared
with teenagers and middle-aged adults. Effects of anisotropy were found for all age groups, although the performance of middle-aged adults was affected more when extended viewing angles were adopted. Conclusion: LCD anisotropy is a limiting factor for visual performance, especially in work settings where fast and accurate reactions are necessary. Application: The outcomes of this research allow ergonomic
guidelines for electronic reading.”
Oetjen, Sophie and Ziefle, Martina (2007): The Effects of LCD’s Anisotropy on the Visual Performance of Users of Different Ages. In Human Factors, 49 (4)
-- Volume 50 --
Neth, Hansjörg, Khemlani, Sangeet S. and Gray, Wayne D. (2008): Neth, H., Khemlani, S.S., & Gray, W.D. (2008). Feedback Design for the Control of a Dynamic Multitasking System: Dissociating Outcome Feedback from Control Feedback. In Human Factors, 50 (4) p. 643–651
“Objective: We distinguish outcome feedback from control feedback to show that suboptimal performance in a dynamic multitasking system may be caused by limits inherent to the information provided rather than human resource limits. Background: Tardast is a paradigm for investigating human multitasking behavior, complex system management, and supervisory control. Prior research attributed the suboptimal performance of Tardast operators to poor strategic task management. Methods: We varied the nature of performance feedback in the Tardast paradigm to compare continuous, cumulative feedback (global feedback) on performance outcome with feedback limited to the most recent system state (local feedback). Results: Participants in both conditions improved with practice, but those with local feedback performed better than those with global feedback. An eye gaze analysis showed increased visual attention directed toward the feedback display in the local feedback condition. Conclusion: Predicting performance in the control of a dynamic multitasking system requires understanding the interactions between embodied cognition, the task being performed, and characteristics of performance feedback. In the current case, at least part of what had been diagnosed as a deficit caused by limited cognitive resources has been shown to be data limited. Application: Perfect outcome feedback can provide inadequate control feedback.Instances of suboptimal performance can be alleviated by better feedback design that takes into account the temporal dynamics of the human-system interaction.”
Oetjen, Sophie and Ziefle, Martina (2007): The Effects of LCD Anisotropy on the Visual Performance of Users of different Ages. In Human Factors, 59 (4) pp. 619-627
“Objective: The present study examined the visual discrimination speed and accuracy while using an LCD and a CRT display. Background: LCDs have ergonomic advantages,
but their main disadvantage is that they provide inconsistent photometric measures depending on the viewing angle (anisotropy). Method: Independent variables were screen type (LCD and CRT), viewing angle (0°, 11°, 41°, 50°, and 56°) and user’s age (teenagers, young adults, and middle-aged adults). Dependent variables were speed
and accuracy in a visual discrimination task and user’s ratings. Results: The results corroborated the negative impact of LCD anisotropy. Visual discrimination times were
by 7.6% slower when an LCD was used instead of a CRT. Performance differences increased with increasing viewing angle for both screens, but performance decrements
were larger for the LCD. Young adults showed the best visual performance, as compared with teenagers and middle-aged adults. Effects of anisotropy were found for all
age groups, although the performance of middle-aged adults was affected more when extended viewing angles were adopted. Conclusion: LCD anisotropy is a limiting factor for visual performance, especially in work settings where fast and accurate reactions are necessary. Application: The outcomes of this research allow ergonomic guidelines for electronic reading.”
Give us your opinion! Do you have any comments/additions that you would like other visitors to see?
Yousay:
Mar 10th, 2010
#1
Be the first to add a thoughtful note to this page !
Changes to this page (periodical)
22 Aug 2008: Journal/Periodical was added to the bibliography (approved by an editor) 11 Feb 2008: Journal/Periodical was added to the bibliography (approved by an editor)
12 Aug 2007: Journal/Periodical was added to the bibliography (approved by an editor) 25 Jul 2007: Journal/Periodical was edited (approved by an editor) 23 Jul 2007: Journal/Periodical was added to the bibliography (approved by an editor) 23 Jul 2007: Journal/Periodical was edited (approved by an editor) 16 Jul 2007: Journal/Periodical was added to the bibliography (approved by an editor) 16 Jul 2007: Journal/Periodical was added to the bibliography (approved by an editor) 16 Jul 2007: Journal/Periodical was added to the bibliography (approved by an editor) 16 Jul 2007: Journal/Periodical was added to the bibliography (approved by an editor) 29 Jun 2007: Journal/Periodical was added to the bibliography (approved by an editor) 28 May 2003: Added the periodical to the bibliography 28 May 2003: Added the periodical to the bibliography
You say:
Mar 10th, 2010
