Metin DAĞDEVİREN, Mehmet Burak ŞENOL, Mustafa KURT

HAVA ARACI KOKPİT ARAYÜZ DEĞERLENDİRMESİ İÇİN ÇOK KRİTERLİ BİR YAKLAŞIM

Hava araçlarında uçuş emniyetini sağlayan en önemli faktör insan-makine etkileşimini sağlayan arayüzlerdir. Pilot-kokpit etkileşim kalitesi ile uçuş emniyeti ve arayüz kullanılabilirliği arasında yakın bir ilişki vardır. Kokpit arayüzleri ile etkileşimde mürettebat hataları yıkıcı sonuçlar ortaya çıkarabilmekte olup, kullanıcı-dostu arayüz tasarımı ile etkileşim kalitesi ve uçuş emniyeti iyileştirilebilmektedir. Literatürde arayüz tasarımı ve kullanılabilirliği için farklı kullanılabilirlik değerlendirme teknikleri (KDT) kullanılmaktadır; bu tekniklerin çoğunun öznel değerlendirmelere bağlı olması sebebiyle hatalı sonuçların elde edilebilmesine sebep olmaktadır. Bu çalışmada kokpit arayüz kullanılabilirlik seviyelerinin değerlendirilmesi, geliştirilmesi ve kullanılabilirlik sıralaması için çok kriterli bir yaklaşım önerilmiştir. Çalışmada kullanılan alternatif arayüzler; nicel, nitel ve birleşik tasarım yaklaşımlarının sonucu olarak belirlenmiş ve birleşik tasarım ile daha tatminkar sonuçlar elde edildiği görülmüştür.

A MULTI CRITERIA APPROACH FOR AIRCRAFT COCPIT INTERFACE EVALUATION

The most important factor in aircraft flight safety is the interfaces, which provide human-machine interaction. There is a close relationship between flight safety and interface usability with pilot-cockpit interaction quality. The consequences of crew errors in interacting with cockpit interfaces are catastrophic. Interaction quality and flight safety can be improved with a user-friendly interface design. Different usability evaluation techniques are applied for interface design and usability in literature. Subjectivity within most usability evaluation techniques may lead to inaccurate results. In this study, a multi-criteria approach is offered for the usability evaluation, improvement and ranking of cockpit interfaces. Alternative interfaces, used in this study, are the results of quantitative, qualitative and unified design approaches. More satisfactory results were obtained from the unified design.

PDF

___

1. Strauch, B., "Automation and Decision Making Lessons from the Cali Accident", Proc. Hum. Factors and Ergonomics Soc. 41st Annu. Meet. Albuquerque, NM: Hum. Factors and Ergon. Soc., 195199, 1997.
2. Funk, K. Suroteguh, C. Wilson, J. and Lyall, B., "Flight deck automation and task management", Proc. of 1998 IEEE Int. Conf. on Syst. Man and Cybern. San Diego, Cilt 1, 863868, 1998.
3. Sarter, N. Woods, D., Billings, C., "Automation surprises", Salvendy, G. (Eds.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics. 2nd Ed. New York: Wiley, 19261943, 1997.
4. Singer, G., "Filling the gaps in the human factors certification net", Dekker, S., Hollnagel, E. (Eds.), Coping with Computers in the Cockpit. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate, 87107, 1999.
5. Billings, C.E., Aviation automation: The search for a human-centered approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assfociates, Inc, 1997.
6. Smith, C., "Design of the Eurofighter human machine interface", Air and space Europe. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, Cilt 1, No 3, 5459, 1999.
7. Previc, F.H., Ercoline, W.R., "The outside-in attitude display concept revisited", Int. J. Aviat. Psycholo., 377-401, 2000.
8. Tlauka, M., Stanton, D. and Kenna, F.P. Dual Displays., Dept. of Psycholo. Univ. of Leicester, 2000.
9. Torenvliet, G.L., Jamieson, G.A., Vicente, K.J., "Making the most of ecological interface design: the role of individual differences", Appl. Ergon., 31, 395-408, 2000.
10. Kima, G.J., Hanb, S.H., Yangb, H., Choa, C., "Body-based interfaces", Appl. Ergon., Cilt 35, 263-274, 2004.
11. Jones, G.R., Hooper, R.H., "The effect of singleor multiple-layered garments on interface pressure measured at the backpack-shoulder interface", Appl. Ergon., Cilt 36, 79-83, 2005.
12. Wellings, T., Williams, M., Tennant, C., "Understanding customers holistic perception of switches in automotive humanmachine interfaces", Appl. Ergon., Cilt 41, 8-17, 2010.
13. Rubens, E.M., Trotter, M.J., Lenné, M.G., "Effects on driving performance of interacting with an in-vehicle music player: A comparison of three interface layout concepts for information presentation", Appl. Ergon., Cilt 42, 583-591, 2011.
14. Rydström, A., Broström, R., Bengtsson, K.J., "A comparison of two contemporary types of in-car multifunctional interfaces", Appl. Ergon., Cilt 43, 507-514, 2012.
15. Lee, K.W., Lee, Y.C., "Design and validation of an improved graphical user interface with the Tool ball", Appl. Ergon., Cilt 43, 57-68, 2012.
16. Virzi, R.A., "Usability inspection methods", Helander, M., Landauer, T., Prabhu, P. (Eds.), Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction., New York: Elsevier, 705715, 1997.
17. Dağdeviren, M, Eren, T., "Analytic hierarchy process and use of 0-1 goal programming methods in selecting supplier firm", J. Fac. Eng. Archit., Gazi Univ. Cilt 16, 41-52, 2001.
18. Bozdağ, C.E., Kahraman, C., Ruan, D., "Fuzzy group decision making for selection among computer integrated manufacturing systems", Comp. Ind., Cilt 5, 13-29, 2003.
19. Büyüközkan, G., Ertay, T., Kahraman, C., Ruan, D., "Determining the importance weights for the design requirements in the house of quality using the fuzzy analytic network approach", Int. J. Intel. Syst., Cilt 19, 443-461, 2004.
20. Xiaohua, W., Zhenmin, F., "Sustainable development of rural energy and its appraising system in Chine", Renew. Sustain. Energ., Cilt 6, 395-404, 2002.
21. Yedla, S., Shresta, R.M., "Multi-criteria approach for the selection of alternative options for environmentally sustainable transport system in Delhi", Transp. Res., Cilt 37, 717-729, 2003.
22. Aras, H., Erdogmus, S., Koc, E., "Multi-criteria selection for a wind observation station location using analytic hierarchy process", Renew. Energ., Cilt 29, 1383-1392, 2004.
23. Tolga, E, Demircan, M.L., Kahraman, C., "Operating system selection using fuzzy replacement analysis and analytic hierarchy process", Int. J. Prod. Econ., Cilt 97, 89-117, 2005.
24. Kim, P.P, Lee K.J, Lee B.W., "Selection of an optimal nuclear fuel cycle scenario by goal programming & analytic hierarchy process", Ann. of Nucl. Energy, Cilt 26, 449-460, 1999.
25. Wolfslehner, B., Vacik, H., Lexer, M.J., "Application of the analytic network process in multi-criteria analysis of sustainable forest management", For. Ecol. Manag., Cilt 207, 157- 170, 2005.
26. Saaty, T.L., Takizawa, M., "Dependence and independence: from linear hierarchies to nonlinear Networks", Eur. J. Oper. Res. 26, 229-237, 1986.
27. Saaty, T.L., Decision Making with Dependence and Feedback: The Analytic Network Process, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, 1996.
28. Yüksel, İ., Dağdeviren, M., "Using the analytic network process (ANP) in a SWOT analysis-A case study for a textile firm", Inf. Sci., Cilt 177, 3364-3382, 2007.
29. Ayağ, Z., Özdemir, R.G., "A hybrid approach to concept selection through fuzzy analytic network process", Comp. Ind. Eng., 56, 368-379, 2009.
30. Lee, H., Lee, S., Park, Y., "Selection of technology acquisition mode using the analytic network process", Math. Comp. Model., Cilt 49, 1274-1282, 2009.
31. Boran, S., Göztepe, K., "Development of a fuzzy decision support system for commodity acquisition using fuzzy analytic network process", Expert Syst. Appl., Cilt 37, 1939-1945, 2010.
32. Vinodh, S., Ramiya, R.A., Gautham, S.G., "Application of fuzzy analytic network process for supplier selection in a manufacturing organisation", Expert Syst. Appl., Cilt 38, 272- 280, 2011.
33. Shyur, H.J. "COTS evaluation using modified TOPSIS and ANP", Appl. Math. Comp., Cilt 177, 251-259, 2006.
34. Le Téno, J., F., Mareschal, B., "An interval version of PROMETHEE for the comparison of building products design with ill-defined data on environmental quality", Eur. J. Oper. Res., Cilt 109, 522529, 1988.
35. Goumas, M., Lygerou, V., "An extension of the PROMETHEE method for decision making in fuzzy environment: Ranking of alternative energy exploitation projects", Eur. J. Oper. Res., Cilt 123, 606-613, 2000.
36. Geldermann J., Spengler, T., Rentz, O., "Fuzzy outranking for environmental assessment, case study: Iron and steel making industry", Fuzzy Set Syst., Cilt 115, 45 65, 2000.
37. Bilsel, R., U., Büyüközkan, G., Ruan, D., "A fuzzy prefernce-ranking model for a quality evaluation of hospital websites", Int. J. Intel., Syst. Cilt 21, 1181-1197, 2006.
38. Liu P., Guan Z., "Evaluation research on the quality of the railway passenger service based on the linguistic variables and the improved PROMETHEE-II method", J. Comp., Cilt 4, 265- 270, 2009.
39. Yılmaz, B., Dağdeviren, M., "Comparative analysis of PROMETHEE and fuzzy PROMETHEE methods in equipment selection problem", J. Fac. Eng. Archit. Gazi Univ., Cilt 25, No 4, 811-826, 2010.
40. Arıkan, F., Küçükçe, Y.S, "Satın alma faaliyeti için bir tedarikçi seçimi-değerlendirme problemi ve çözümü", J. Fac. Eng. Archit. Gazi Univ., Cilt 27, No 2, 255-264, 2012.
41. Aydoğan, E.K., Soylu, M.Y., Gencer, C., Çetin, S., Soysal, M., Bektaş, O., Yüce, E., Öztürk, Y., Gökırmak, Y., Sağıroğlu, Ş., " IPv4den IPv6ya geçiş için AHP modeli", J. Fac. Eng. Archit. Gazi Univ., Cilt 26, No 3, 701-709, 2011.
42. DuBois D., Prade H., "Operations on fuzzy numbers", Int. J. Syst Sci., Cilt 9, 613 626, 1978.
43. Şenol, M.B. Dağdeviren, M. Kurt, M. and Çilingir, C., "Display panel design of a general utility helicopter by applying quantitative and qualitative approaches", Hum. Factors and Ergon. in Manuf., Cilt 20, No 1, 73-86, 2010.
44. Yager, R. R., "A prodecure for ordering fuzzy subsets of the unit interval", Inf. Sci., Cilt 24, 143-700, 1981.