Display and Interface Design

A Meaning Processing Approach 21
Similarly, theories of thinking and decision making tend to focus on violations
of normative models of rationality (e.g., conjunction fallacy, gambler’s
fallacy, etc.) and biases and heuristics in judgment and decision making
(e.g., anchoring and adjustment, representativeness, hindsight). For example,
Wickens (1992) writes:
Many aspects of decision making are not as accurate as they could
be. The limitations of information processing and memory, previously
discussed, restrict the accuracy of diagnosis and choice. In addition,
limits of attention and cognitive resources lead people to adopt
decision-making heuristics, or “mental shortcuts,” which produce
decisions that are often adequate but not usually as precise as they
could be … . Finally, we will sometimes refer to general biases in the
decision-making process. These biases are either described as risky—
leading to a course of action based on insufficient information—or
conservative—leading to the use of less information or less confidence
in a decision than is warranted. (p. 261)
In this context, in which meaning is constructed from ambiguous data
using limited and biased information processes, it is not surprising that
two people can interpret the same situation very differently. For example,
two pilots might have different opinions about where the limits of a safe
approach are or two drivers may have different ideas about when to initiate
braking when approaching a line of traffic. Have you ever instinctively
reached for the imaginary brake pedal when you were the passenger of a
more aggressive driver?
Thus, conventional wisdom tends to treat meaning as if it were synonymous
with interpretation. The meaning is how an individual interprets the
situation. This suggests that meaning is a property of awareness and this
leads implicitly to the conclusion that the situation is, at best, of secondary
interest and, at worst, meaningless or irrelevant. Somehow, meaning is constructed
from ambiguous information, based on arbitrary relations to the
ecology or situation. Meaning becomes a pure invention or construction of
the mind.
In this context, it is not surprising that much of the work in human factors,
engineering psychology, and human–computer interaction (HCI) is framed in
terms of internal mental processes. In this context, the job of the human factors
engineer is to ensure that the designers take into account the limits of
these internal computational processes (e.g., perceptual thresholds, memory
limitations, decision biases, etc.). In terms of aiding problem solving, the target
for design is often framed as a requirement to match the operator’s mental
model.
There are obvious values of the conventional approach. Certainly, if features
of the interface are below perceptual thresholds, if the operator is
overwhelmed by an avalanche of data, or if she is constantly surprised by
unexpected events, then the value of the interface may be compromised.
© 2011 by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC