Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T03:40:35.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Maritime Usability Study by Analysing Eye Tracking Data

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2017

Odd Sveinung Hareide  and
Runar Ostnes
Odd Sveinung Hareide*
Affiliation:
(The Royal Norwegian Naval Academy, Navigation Competence Center, Bergen, Norway)
Runar Ostnes
Affiliation:
(Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Department for Advanced Maritime Operations, Aalesund, Norway)
*
(E-mail: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The aim of the Integrated Navigation System (INS) on a ship bridge should be to provide the navigator with added value and aid in the complex task of conducting a safe and efficient passage at high speeds in demanding waters. This article presents a method for analysing eye tracking data to reveal sub-optimal design in the bridge layout and in the software graphical user interface on a maritime navigation display. The analysis of eye tracking data with a focus on scan path events indicates sub-optimal design, and the paper provides suggestions for improvement in design and interfaces. Pros and cons of using Eye Tracking Glasses in a maritime environment are presented. The importance of not affecting the normal behaviour of the navigator by collecting data is stressed, and how the software should provide good visualisation and interpretation of the eye tracking data.

Keywords

Eye TrackingMaritime usability studyNavigationHigh Speed Craft
Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Navigation , Volume 70 , Issue 5 , September 2017 , pp. 927 - 943
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Navigation 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

This paper was presented at the Royal Institute of Navigation's International Navigation Conference in Glasgow, United Kingdom, in November 2016.

References

REFERENCES

Bergstrom, J.R. and Schall, A. (2014). Eye tracking in user experience design, Elsevier.Google Scholar
Bjørneseth, F.B., Clarke, L., Dunlop, M. and Komandur, S. (2014). Towards an understanding of operator focus using eye-tracking in safety-critical maritime settings. International Conference on Human Factors in Ship Design & Operation.Google Scholar
Chisholm, S., Caird, J.K. and Lockhart, J. (2008). The effects of practice with MP3 players on driving performance. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 40, 704–713.Google Scholar
ECDIS Limited. (2016). ECDIS manufacturers [Online]. Available: http://www.ecdis.org/manufacturers/ [Accessed 19.10.2016].Google Scholar
Forsman, F., Dahlman, J. and Dobbins, T. (2011). Developing a Standard Methodology For Dynamic Navigation in the Littoral Environment. Royal Institute of Naval Architects, International Conference, Human Factors in Ship Design and operation.Google Scholar
Forsman, F., Sjors, A., Dahlman, J., Falkmer, T. and Lee, H.C. (2012). Eye Tracking During High Speed Navigation at Sea. Journal of Transportation Technologies, 2(3), 8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilchrist, I.D. and Harvey, M. (2000). Refixation frequency and memory mechanisms in visual search. Current Biology, 10, 1209–1212.Google Scholar
Goldberg, J.H. and Kotval, X.P. (1999). Computer interface evaluation using eye movements: methods and constructs. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 24, 631–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Groen, M. and Noyes, J. (2010). Using eye tracking to evaluate usability of user interfaces: Is it warranted? IFAC Proceedings Volumes, 43, 489–493.Google Scholar
Hareide, O.S. (2013). Control of position sensor input to ECDIS on High Speed Craft. Master of Science (MSc), University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
Hareide, O.S. and Ostnes, R. (2016). Comparative Study of the Skjold-Class Bridge- and Simulator Navigation Training. European Journal of Navigation, 14, 57.Google Scholar
Hareide, O.S., Ostnes, R. and Mjelde, F.V. (2016). Understanding the Eye of the Navigator. In: NAVIGATION, N. I. O., ed. European Navigation Conference, 2016 Helsinki. Confedent International.Google Scholar
Holmqvist, K., Nyström, M., Andersson, R., Dewhurst, R., Jarodzka, H. and Van De Weijer, J. (2011). Eye tracking: A comprehensive guide to methods and measures, OUP Oxford.Google Scholar
IMO. (2016). Development of guidance on the Standardised (or S) Mode of operation of navigation equipment (including plans for a testbed by the Republic of Korea in 2017). Sub-Committee on navigation, communications and search and rescue, 4th session.Google Scholar
IMO. (2007). International Maritime Organization Resolution MSC.252(83): Adoption of the Revised Performance Standard for Integrated Navigation Systems. London.Google Scholar
ISO. (2010). 9241-210: 2010. Ergonomics of human system interaction-Part 210: Human-centred design for interactive systems. International Stadards Organization.Google Scholar
Jacob, R. and Karn, K.S. (2003). Eye tracking in human-computer interaction and usability research: Ready to deliver the promises. Mind, 2, 4.Google Scholar
Kataria, A., Praetorius, G., Schröder-Hinrichs, J.-U. and Baldauf, M. (2015). Making the case for Crew-Centered Design (CCD) in merchant shipping. 19th Triennial Congress of the IEA Proceedings, Melbourne Australia, 1–9.Google Scholar
Luraas, S. (2016). Systemic design in complex contexts: an enquiry through designing a ship's bridge, Oslo School of Architecture and Design.Google Scholar
MAIB. (2008). ECDIS-assisted grounding MARS Report 200930. London: Marine Accident Investigation Branch.Google Scholar
Meck, U., Schiller, F. and Brüggemann, U. (2014). Interaction Design in Ship Building: an Investigation Into the Integration of the User Perspective Into Ship Bridge Design. Journal of Maritime Research, 6, 15–32.Google Scholar
Mitzner, T.L., Touron, D.R., Rogers, W.A. and Hertzog, C. (2010). Checking it Twice: Age-related Differences in Double Checking During Visual Search. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 54th Annual Meeting, 1326–1330.Google Scholar
Norris, A. (2010). Integrated Bridge Systems vol 2 ECDIS and Positioning, London, Nautical Institute.Google Scholar
Papachristos, D., Koutsabasis, P. and Nikitakos, N. (2012). Usability evaluation at the ship's bridge: A multi-method approach. 4th International Symposium on Ship Operations, Management and Economics, 8–9.Google Scholar
Rosengrant, D., Thomson, C. and Mzoughi, T. (2009). Comparing experts and novices in solving electrical circuit problems with the help of eye-tracking. Physics Education Research Conference, AIP Publishing, 249–252.Google Scholar
SMI. (2016). iViewETG User Guide.Google Scholar
Tobii. (2016). User‘s Manual Tobii Pro Glasses 2. Tobii AB.Google Scholar
Van Westrenen, F. (1999). The maritime pilot at work. Evaluation and use of a time-to-boundary model of mental workload in human-machine systems, HASS, 11.Google Scholar
Wiener, E.L. (1989). Human factors of advanced technology (“glass cockpit”) transport aircraft. NASA Contractor Report No. 177528. Moffett Field, CA: NASA-Ames Research Center.Google Scholar
Wingrove, M. (2016). Does ECDIS increase the risk of ship collisions? [Online]. Available: http://www.marinemec.com/news/view,does-ecdis-increase-the-risk-of-ship-collisions_42825.htm [Accessed 05.05.2016].Google Scholar