Final Presentation

hcii.cmu.edu

Final Presentation

64,000,000 Miles From Home:Planning Manned Missions on MarsMHCI ProjectSummer 20084 August 2008Gabe ClapperMatt GuibertBrad HuntAdam OverholtzerJustin RheinfrankTEAMNASA


TopicsTeam & Problem DescriptionUnderstanding the ProblemSolving the ProblemOur SolutionTEAMNASA


TopicsTeam & Problem DescriptionUnderstanding the ProblemSolving the ProblemOur SolutionTEAMNASA


Gabe Matt Brad Adam JustinTEAMNASA


HCI GroupNASA Ames Research CenterTEAMNASA


ProblemTEAMNASA


07 0_ 04 54 CMP Okay, Hank. Read away.!07 04 04 56 CC Okay. First one is at 173:50.!07 04 05 09 CMP Okay.!07 04 05 19 CMP Go ahead.!07 04 05 25 CC Okay. At - Does it say something there about a!VERB_9 maneuver to a P52 COAS cal? That's after!that. 173:55. Wantto change that attitude!to 180, 255, 357?!07 04 05 44 CMP Okay, that COAS cal attitude will be 180, 255,357.!07 04 05 49 CC Roger.!And!the high gain angles are minus 75, 249.!07 04 06 00 CMF Okay. Minus 75 and 249.!07 0_ 06 03 CC Okay. Next page, 174:09; delete theconfigure!for!urine jump - dump, and the H2 purge lineheaters!on.!07 04 06 17 CMP Okay.!07 04 06 18 CC Same page, at the bottom, 17L:28. Delete!the!fuelcell purge and the dumps.!07 04 06 30 CMP Okay, that's done.!TEAMNASA


January 28, 2010:61,721,000 miles(over 1 billion football fields)~6 min @ speed of lightTEAMNASA


TEAMNASA


TEAMNASA


ase valuemultiplier glyphadjacency glyphtotal value = base value × multiplier glyph valueTEAMNASA


Appproximating Latency Between Earth and Mars1 min1 minGround ControlAstronautscore points, the astronaut performs science on targets in the fieldayers know some of the details of the targets, but only by sharing tTEAMNASAowledge and working closely together can players discover the mo


TopicsTeam & Problem DescriptionUnderstanding the ProblemSolving the ProblemOur SolutionTEAMNASA


Understanding the ProblemLiterature ReviewInterviewsContextual InquiryTEAMNASA16


TEAMNASA


ConstructionMars EVAsField AgentRolesForemanAstronautOffsiteEngineerArchitectSchedulerGround ControlTEAMNASA


SuperintendentblueprintsEngineerOff!SiteGeneralForemanOn!SiteConstructionCrewblueprintsForemanblueprintsblueprintsEngineeringInspectorScaffoldingManagerSupport CrewConstruction LessonsTEAMNASA


Research FindingsAvoid communication with a delayPlan on being flexibleShare situational awarenessDon’t over-automateTEAMNASA


TopicsTeam & Problem DescriptionUnderstanding the ProblemSolving the ProblemOur SolutionTEAMNASA


Design & Testing ScheduleAppendix Q: Mars Diagrams, Bitches.BIBLIOGRAPHY?!?!?!?!?!Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Week 8 Week 9 Week 10Concept ValidationThink Aloud - Paper PrototypeThink Aloud - Hi-fidelity PrototypeOperational Readiness TestDesign Iterations Figure 01: Design andTesting Schedule.TEAMNASAFigure 02: The game asan approximation of thelatency between Earthand Mars.Appproximating Latency Between Earth and Mars1 min


3min11minConcept Validation10min4min9min11min17min3min9min11min4min3min10min9min11min11min17min4min10min729min15055219min20112011min725520117min150211209minTEAMNASA


TEAMNASA


ut (Continued)Digital PrototypesTEAMNASA


Operational Readiness Tests18 Participants (14 unique)TEAMNASA


TEAMNASA


TEAMNASA


Operational Readiness TestWireless Networking OutdoorsBuilding a FieldThe UMPC & Design ConstraintsTEAMNASA


TEAMNASA


The Ultra!Mobile PCTEAMNASA


TopicsTeam & Problem DescriptionUnderstanding the ProblemSolving the ProblemOur SolutionTEAMNASA


WorkflowGround Control manages overall plan.Astronaut decides on next actions.Initial plan must allow astronaut to decideaction or react to messages from ground.TEAMNASA


BRIDGING 3 THE GAP121Workflow232133121122223123112TEAMNASAThe initial plan, then, would appear as in the figure above. Ground controlwould specify a number of clusters, encircling high-value targets or targetswith many adjacencies. The path between clusters would represent


Demo VideoTEAMNASA


Target VisualizationCritical for both playersMust be clear and conciseMust enable quick decision-makingTEAMNASA


Target VisualizationChapter 6: Interface DesignTARGET VISUALIZATIONIn ORT 1, it was recognized thbetween clusters was not neeremoved. This change to thescreen real estate.stingThe level of detail of information shown for targets on the map has alwaysbeen tied to the level of zoom. Early interfaces, both paper and digital,contained three states of zoom that were each meant to support a differentoverall task: the zoomed-out view for pre-planning and seeing the overallplan, the mid-level zoom for way-finding between clusters, and thezoomed-in view to support the astronaut performing specific activities on atarget.In ORT 1, it was recognized that the mid-level zoom for way-findingbetween clusters was not needed (See Appendix J.1), and was laterremoved. This change to the current zoom control also helped save inscreen real estate.TEAMNASA


shades of blue to determine the value of a particular adjacency.Target VisualizationIn the full simulation in ORT 1, users were able to utilize the targetvisualizations to find high value targets for both performing science andphotographing (See Appendix J.1). Small visual tweaks continued to bemade for better clarity and color contrast.TEAMNASA


Target VisualizationTEAMNASAChapter 6: Interface DesignTARGET VISUALIZATIONof thThe most detailed target visualizaastronaut’s zoomed-in The sview.adjacThothe ground control’s zoomed-in vthe informationwhilewhen decidingthrouwhas the primary view for the astronusedAll targets whose science valuesTargetarget. A small gray halo surrounreturof the halo shaded blue to represThe most detailed target visualization information is shown the vastronaut’s zoomed-inThe shades of blueview. Though the same vary to conveinformationadjacencies outside the ground control’s zoomed-in view, the astronaut ! of the parentmakes Targe tthe informationwhile adjacencieswhen deciding where toinside thego within the field. size,clustthroughout the interface to represas the primary view for the astronaut.inforused for information regardingthansc All targets whose science values are not known show the value bTargets which have been photogrtarget. A small gray halo surrounds each target, with some valuereturned by the ground display “mof the halo shaded blue to represent an adjacency on that sthe value is still on its way.The shades of blue vary to convey the value of the adjacenc Targeadjacencies outside of the parent cluster are shown!as playeTargets whose science ! valuesanareuwhile adjacencies inside the size, cluster with have larger a circles filled arc. indicating The bthroughout the interface to information represent photography allows astronauts tasks, to wsused for information regarding than science having to values. scan the interfaceOneSupporting data values are also shown, as the ast


TimelineVisualize tasks throughout the EVAMeet information needs of playersEmphasize limited resourcesTEAMNASA


the ORT (See Appendix J.1, J.6-9). The astronaut’s ability to communicateher intent would certainly be valuable information for the ground, butTimeline players were too busy to remember the “Next Activity” requirement and itwas ignored. The simulation is simple enough that the Next Activity featurecould be removed, but EVAs on Mars could benefit for some variation ofthis functionality.In ORT 1, the first test of working software, users were not as concernedwith specific times in a cluster as was originally expected. They did notpay attention to time until it actually mattered at the end of the game. Theyalso essentially ignored ‘Next Activity’ when moving on to a new cluster —largely because they became so consumed with navigating through the fieldTEAMNASA


Timeline ORT 1 also led to the discovery that ground control players had a difficulttime understanding what the astronaut was currently doing (Appendix J.1).Ground control essentially had no situational awareness. To help aid theirunderstanding, an icon in the timeline appears, informing the ground whenthe astronaut has started performing a science activity.ORT 2 revealed that users struggled with sticking to the prescribed planand workflow. Users planned for specific time in a cluster, but thenessentially ignored it. This showed that even though users need to payattention to time to make sure they are executing their plan effectively, theydo not want to plan very specific times in a cluster. These insights duringORT 2 lead to the elimination of the interactive behavior of the timeline inTEAMNASA


to manage the astronaut’s plan.TimelineAs the ground control player creates paths and clusters, the timelineautomatically populates a sequential view of the plan, constrained by thegame’s thirty minute time limit. Time is equally distributed between theclusters, which allows the ground control to emphasize sequence ratherthan duration, because duration is difficult (if not impossible) to evaluategiven a dynamic planning environment. To help the ground control evaluatethe potential value of each cluster, the sum of that cluster’s target basevalues is displayed in each block.During gameplay, the ground control timeline becomes much morecomplex. First, there is a latency visualization: the grayed-out area of thetimeline. To the left of the latency region is a red bar indicating the currentgame time from the astronaut’s point-of-view; on the right is a white barindicating the soonest any message from ground could reach the astronaut.Ground control can use this display see what activities they couldeffectively re-plan, and which ones they should not adjust because they willbe “in the past” by the time they reach the astronaut.TEAMNASAHuman Computer Interaction InstituteCarnegie Mellon UniversityMasters Capstone Project45


FindingsAllow for in-field decision making autonomy.Support in-field decision making with adequate information.Create flexible plans.Structure communication to achieve maximum clarity.TEAMNASA


64,000,000 Miles From Home:Planning Manned Missions on MarsMHCI ProjectSummer 20084 August 2008Gabe ClapperMatt GuibertBrad HuntAdam OverholtzerJustin RheinfrankTEAMNASA

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines