A 9M
`
`LL WoL
`
`Z;-A
`
`Research Product 88-19
`
`D1
`
`Deign ~IGuidelines adFunctional
`Specifications f -r Simulation of the
`Battlefield Management System's (BMS)
`User Interface
`
`.ARI Field Unit at Fort Knox, Kentucky
`Training Research Laboratory
`
`As.
`
`July 1988
`
`DT0
`
`U. S. Army Research Institute fo~r the Behavioral and Social Sciences
`Approved for public releaso: distribution uwlaimted.
`
`

`

`U. S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
`FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
`
`A Field Operating Agency under the Jurisdiction of the
`Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel
`
`EDGAR M. JOHNSON
`Technical Director
`
`Technical review by
`
`Donald R. Lampton
`Joseph T. Saganowich
`
`WM. DARRYL HENDERSON
`COL, IN
`Commanding
`
`NOTICES(cid:127)
`
`Produact may 0 destroyeid when it 19 no IaEngr needed. Pelam do not
`00ari
`flNs This
`_ fIP'flSJ I
`FINtl
`r
`iehavSialI and Socli WcieinIu.
`return it to tne U.S. Army Research Instlitut for the
`
`Sgj
`This Resarch Product is not to be honltruel as an official Cepetfment of the Army docunent in Its
`p'swnt form.
`
`.
`
`
`
`.... ....
`
`.
`
`V
`".
`
`.
`
`.
`
`..
`
`

`

`UNCLASSIFIED
`
`REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE
`lb. RESTRICTIVE MARKINGS
`IA. REPORT SECMURTY CLASSIFICATION
`Unclassified
`2a. JECURITY CLASSIFICATION AUTHORITY
`
`Wb 01UOASS1FIATION1DOWNGRADING SCKEDULE
`
`3. DISTRIBUTIONI/AVAILABILITY OF REPORT
`Approved for public release;
`distribution unlimited.
`
`048 oum 070"1e
`
`4. PWOR9MWdG ORGANIatTION REPORT NUMBER(S)
`
`S. MONITOONG ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER(S)
`
`-
`
`SL RAME OF PERFORMING ORGANOICIIAN
`U.S. Army Research Institute
`field Unit - Fort Knox
`GL. ADDRIISS (0y, Staft, a'nd Z'IP'Cod.)'
`
`KY FortKnox 012156205001
`
`FortKnox
`01215620Alexandria,
`KY
`
`l.OFCESYMBOL
`(ofap~~k
`j
`PERI-IK
`
`Ce NAME OF FUNDNG ISPONSORING
`ORGANIZTK)td
`
`ftb OFFICE SYMBOL
`0 (VAPpIcable)
`
`ARI Research Product 88-19
`7a. NAME OF MONITORIG
`U.S. Army Research Lnaitute of the
`Behavioral and Social Sciences
`7b. ADDRESS (Chy. Stae. &Wd ZIP Code)
`Eisenhower Avenue
`VA 22333-5600
`
`9. PROCUREMENT
`
`INSTRUMENT IDENTIFICATION NUMBER
`
`&L ADRR(RSeto mzp¶*0.
`
`-ELIMINT
`
`SOURC OF FUNDING NUMBERS
`IPR~E
`PROGRAM
`NOT&Y62,L
`NO.
`17A790
`I62717A
`
`IWORK UNIT
`TASK
`No.
`ACCESSION NO.
`3.5.1 j.5. 1.H.1
`
`1t. TITLE ftkwde Secuity CW&Oatieeon)
`Design Guidelines and Functional Specifications for Simalation of the Battlefield
`Management System's (ENS) User Interface
`112. PERSONAL AUTHOR(S)
`Carl W. Lickteig
`OF 3 REPORT
`-13s
`Final
`16. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTATION
`
`113b. TIME COVERED
`4/87 TO_5/88
`FROM
`
`14. DATE OF REPORT (V.~o0Unffh~b0P
`1988, July
`
`1S.11PAGECOUNT
`7
`
`I I. SUBJECT TERMS (Conthwu on mewne N necemoy and Me~n*i~ by block number)
`
`Command, Control, and Coimmunication
`
`17.
`
`FIELD
`
`I
`
`COSATI CODES
`$SU-GROUP
`GOP
`L
`Human factors engineering
`~ ~ ~~a
`~
`~
`19~ ~ ~
`eee fMrrtadi~iI~
`ysbocenmbs
`AsTAT(otneo
`19 BTAThi report
`n provide sitemul ation networbkk nSumber) dsgeswt e fgieie
`Tdedsignerfaceito aste oattleideldne
`
`ordvlpna simulatinetok(
`* andhfunctioral specvifidtos
`* andgemnctioSylstemcB)wiheepificain o eesoin th veicule-ated itracetonted coBandlcontrld
`oe ceoso the veil-ae uatedcmandeve Fonrce.Th
`
`
`ant)wicxepicipaedso
`
`Mandacomeunitio SCystems
`grahic battlefield iForma.Tion
`interfaunctincue the) system's dnisplaye fof bothr textondo
`fetue andh contro fucinviable trathec battefor iutingoratind
`
`i ndtherfcnldstesse' display
`
`functional ailbetthuspeciforicautiong prsntd
`recteivn adiionlal fetrsadaa cothedsingidlln
`sporcinefiacedeign pentaen
`
`desig fguidyesblinshend guideliones
`rcinvting report are baase one
`curdelntesimt fofter interface dsg ae
`thlyestulsheds
`ande
`on'1)
`from thirepr huanfcosltrure
`freqirementsn forautomsaltedraytueman. T2the ousers'curisnto ieitimate ofthei deeointeof ac
`riooulyevalaed and modiifiaed wthe reselpmet tof sode
`C3S
`interface thtcahe
`seqirmulsfruoated
`* performance and training issues in the task-loaded environment provided by SIMNOET.
`
`20. DWSRISUP
`I/AVAILMILITY OF A0 RACT
`(3 UNCLASSIFIEOANUIMITEO 0__ SAQ E AS RPT.
`22s. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL
`Carl Wi. Lickteig
`DID Formi 1473. JUN 66
`
`V21. A"Y
`SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
`0 OTIC UShR*
`Unclassified
`22b. TELEPHONE (inlude Area Code) 22c. OFFICE SYMBOL
`1 PERI-IK
`1(502) 624-3450
`SECURITY CLASSIFICTION OF THIS PAGE
`Pr*W~ous edtjon ore obmoltr.
`UNCLASSIFIED
`
`

`

`Research Product 88-19
`
`Design Guidelines and Functional Specifications
`for Simulation of the Battlefield Management
`System's (BMS) User Interface
`
`Carl W. Lickteig
`
`ARI Field Unit at F-ort Knox, Kentucky
`Donald F. Haggard, Chief
`
`Training Research Laboratory
`Jack H. Hiller, Director
`
`U.S. ARMY RESEARCH INSTITUTE FOR THE BEHAVIORAL AND SOCIAL SCIENCES
`5001 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22333-5600
`
`Office, Deputy Chief of Staff for Personnel
`Department of the Army
`
`July 1988
`
`Army Project Number
`20162717A790
`
`Human Performance and Simulation
`
`Approved for public release: distribution unlimited.
`
`iii
`
`

`

`FOREWORD
`
`To ensure that the U.S. Army's future weapon systems are usable by
`soldiers, the U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social
`Sciences (ARI)
`investigates human performance issues related to prototype
`weapon systems. Simulation of weapon systems and particularly user interfaces
`to these systems provides ARI researchers with a medium for addressing human
`performance issues such as usability, training, and personnel requirements
`during the earliest stages of weapon system development.
`This report presents
`a set of design guidelines and specifications for developing a simulation-
`based prototype user interface to automated command, control, and communica-
`tion (C 3 ) systems for lower echelon forces.
`
`This report by the ARI Field Unit at Fort Knox was prepared under Science
`and Technology Task 3.5.1, "Training Requirements for NBC and the Future Inte-
`grated Battlefield." ARI's involvement in research on future battlefield
`conditions supports the Memorandum of Understanding between ARI and the U.S.
`Army Armor Center and School (USAARMC&S) on Land Battle Test Bed Research
`signed 9 January 1986.
`The Directorate of Combat Developments at Fort Knox
`has reviewed and approved these guidelines and specifications.
`The report has
`been provided to design engineers contracted by the Defense Advanced Research
`Projects Agency (DARPA)
`to initiate the development of a simulated Battlefield
`Management System (BMS)
`interface that can be rigorously evaluated and modi-
`fied with respect to soldier performance and training issues in the task-
`loaded environment provided by a simulation network (SIMNET).
`In addition,
`this product was provided to representatives of the Tank Automotive Command
`(TACOM) and the Communications Electronics Command
`(CECOM)
`for review by
`system hardware engineers.
`
`EDGAR RI. JOHNSON
`Technical Director
`
`I)r
`
`Acoession ?or
`NTIS GOR1I
`DTIC TAB
`Unannouneed
`Justiftiation
`
`Vr
`0
`1]
`
`By-
`Distribution/
`Availability Codes
`Avail and/or
`Spca
`
`Dif
`
`Preceding Page Blank
`
`

`

`DESIGN GUIDELINES AND FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR SIMULATION OF THE
`(BMS) USER INTERFACE
`BATTLEFIELD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM'S
`
`CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .................
`
`............................
`
`.!...1
`
`DISPLAY CONFIGURATION ............
`
`..........................
`
`DISPLAY GUIDELINES .............
`
`.............................
`
`Design Guidelines .......................
`User-Based Guidelines .....................
`Simulation Guidelines .....................
`........................
`Display Functions .............
`
`........................
`......................
`......................
`
`COMMUNICATION GUIDELINES ...........
`
`......................
`
`...
`
`...
`
`Simulation Guidelines ...........
`C3 Documentation ..............
`Guideline Applications ............
`
`......................
`........................
`.............
`
`...
`...
`... ........
`
`POSNAV GUIDELINES ........................
`
`.........................
`
`-.
`
`......................
`fi.icn.
`.. .
`..
`.................................
`L.;pasU kUr;:.._n........n
`...................
`Route Designation f=unction ......
`........................
`Driver's Display .......................
`
`.
`
`BMS KNHANCEMENTS ...............
`
`..........................
`
`REFERENCES .................
`
`.............................
`
`....
`
`....
`
`LIST OF TABLES
`
`Table 1. Screen layout guidelines ................
`
`.................
`
`2. Color coding guidelines .. ............... ... ..........
`
`3. Blinking code guidelines .......
`
`.................
`
`4. Highlighting code guidelines ..... ...............
`
`.I..
`
`...
`
`vii
`
`Preceding Page Blank
`
`Page
`
`2
`
`7
`
`7
`7
`8
`15
`
`32
`
`32
`38
`39
`
`48
`
`51
`51
`54
`7
`
`57
`
`60
`
`10
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`

`

`CONTENTS (Continued)
`
`___________
`
`LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
`
`Page
`
`Table 5. Rationale for menu dialogue mode. ...... ..................... 12
`
`6. Menu layout guidelines .. .................................... 13
`
`7. Data format guidelines .. .................................... 14
`
`8. Touch input guidelines .. .................................... 14
`
`Figure 1. BMS user interface. ........................................ 3
`
`LIST OF FIGURES
`
`2. IVIS user interface .. ...................................... 3
`
`3. BMS interface at approximate 9-inch
`diagonal size. .......................................... 6
`
`4. Map functions. .... ........................................17
`
`5. Distance .... ..............................................17
`
`6. Free draw. .. ..............................................19
`
`7. Terrain features ...... .................................... 19
`
`8. Line of sight. .. .......................................... 21
`
`9. Measures ...... ............................................21
`
`10. Lines, points. .... ........................................24
`
`11. Objectives, areas, positions. .............................. 24
`
`12. Overlays
`
`.
`
`....
`
`....
`
`..
`
`....
`
`..
`
`..
`
`..
`
`...
`
`.26
`
`13. Review/update. .. .......................................... 26
`
`14. Terrain relief .. .......................................... 28
`
`15. Scroll .... ................................................28
`
`16. Units. ...... ..............................................30
`
`viii
`
`

`

`CONTENTS (Continued)
`
`Figure 17.
`
`Zoom ................
`
`..........................
`
`...
`
`LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)
`
`18. Contact report .............. .....
`
`.....................
`
`19. Call for fire report ................
`
`..................
`
`20.
`
`NBC report ............
`
`.......................
`
`21. Status menu ...........
`
`.......................
`
`...
`
`....
`
`22. Vehicle status ............
`
`.....................
`
`23. Engine componeuts .........
`
`....................
`
`24. Drivetrain status .........
`
`....................
`
`25. Gunnery components ..........
`
`...................
`
`26. Personnel status ..........
`
`....................
`
`27. Communication types .........
`
`...................
`
`28. Report types ............
`
`......................
`
`29. Spot: Type, strength .......
`
`..................
`
`30. Spot: Activity, location .....
`
`................
`
`31. Spot: Speed, direction .......
`
`.................
`
`32. Spot report summary .........
`
`...................
`
`33.
`
`POSNAV functions ..........
`
`....................
`
`34. Digital update ..........
`
`.....................
`
`35. Map update ............
`
`.......................
`
`36. Designate route ...........
`
`.....................
`
`37. Label routes and waypoints ......
`
`...............
`
`38. Driver's display .............. ...
`
`....................
`
`ix
`
`...
`
`...
`
`...
`
`...
`
`...
`
`...
`
`...
`
`...
`
`...
`
`...
`
`..
`
`...
`
`...
`
`...
`
`...
`
`...
`
`Page
`
`30
`
`41
`
`41
`
`43
`
`43
`
`44
`
`44
`
`45
`
`45
`
`46
`
`46
`
`47
`
`47
`
`49
`
`49
`
`50
`
`52
`
`52
`
`55
`
`55
`
`58
`
`58
`
`

`

`DESIGN GUIDELINES AND FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR
`SIMULATION OF THE BATTLEFIELD MANAGEMENT SYSTEM'S
`(BMS) USER INTERFACE
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Army Research Institute (ARI) conducts applied research that focuses
`on meeting the people-related challenges facing the Army of today and tomor-
`rcw. As part of ARI's program to train the force,
`the objective of the Fu-
`ture Battlefield Conditions Team
`is
`to enhance soldier preparedness through
`identification of future battlefield conditions and the methods for training
`to meet those conditions (Science and Technology Task 3.5.1).
`Future ad-
`vances in weapons and equipment of the U.S. Army, however, can increase our
`combat effectiveness only if
`those systems are usable by our soldiers.
`To
`ensure that future weapon systems are useable, ARI investigates human per-
`formance issues related to prototype weapon systems.
`In addition, ARI pro-
`vides guidelines and specifications to initiate the development of
`soldier-machine interfaces that will support the empirical resolution of
`anticipated human performance issues. This ARI research product provides
`system designers with a set of design guidelines and specifications for de-
`veloping a simulated user interface to the new main battle tank's battlefield
`management system (BMS).
`BMS
`is an integrated complex of battlefield infor-
`mation acquisition and processing technologils intended to significantly
`enhance lower echelon command and control (C ).
`
`ARI's primary goal in this effort is
`to address the human performance
`issues-usability, training and personnel requirements--associated with th
`anticipated development of automated command, control and communication
`(C-)
`systems for lower echelon Armor units. The guidelines and specifications
`provided,
`therefore, foc s primarily on the design and utility of the user
`interface to automated CP systems, and not the engineering design issues
`related to the actual hardware and software components of these C systems.
`The immediate objective of this document is
`to formalize the requirements for
`simulating, not building, the user interface to automated C3 systems.
`
`s the soldiers' link to the capabilities and func-
`The user interface
`tions provided by the C' system. The interface includes the system's display
`of both text and graphic battlefield information, and the display features
`and controJ
`functions available to the user for inputLng ai1 :cceiving ad-
`ditional C3 data. The design guidelines and functional specifications pre-
`sented in this report are based on (1) formally established guidelines for
`interface design taken from the human factors literatnre, and (2
`the users'
`current estimate of their interface requirements for automated C systems.
`
`The development of automated C3 systems for lower echelon units is an
`iterative process that will include a series of Preplanned Product Improve-
`ments (P 3 1). This document has focused on the guidelines and specifications
`required for simulating the, operational capabilities currently anticipa~ed
`for BMS. But BMS,
`in fact, is not expected until after a starter-set C
`system, currently referred to as the Intervehicular Information System
`(IVIS), has been successfully fielded and testedt Distinctions between IVIS
`and BMS, which are discussed in a later section, might be summarized by !=
`scribing IVIS a a degraded version of BMS.
`
`

`

`By specifying the more advanced functions associated with BMS, rather
`than IVIS, a prototype automated C3 system will be developed using simulation
`that allows researchers to investigate related human performance issues in
`both the near and mid term.
`It
`is anticipated that human performance issues
`related to IVIS,
`in the near term, can be addressed by a graceful degradation
`of more advanced BMS capabilities.
`In addition,
`the development of a more
`capable prototype will allow the Army to conduct trade-off analyses directly
`comparing the utility of more advanced and automated C3 systems.
`
`The ultimate objective of this effort is
`to initiate the development of a
`simulated BMS interface that can be rigorously evaluated and modified in a
`task-loaded environment such as that provided by a simulation network
`(SIMNET) of combat weapon systems.
`SIMNET is a technological innovation
`sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency
`(DARPA)
`that sup-
`ports distributed, multi-player, real-time and continuous combat gaming.
`One
`version of SIMNET
`is called Developmental SIMNET, SIMNET-D,
`in which the
`simulator's characteristics are configured via rack mounted displays and
`controls that can be rapidly modified to emulate prototype weapon systems or
`subsystems along with their associated soldier-machine interfaces.
`
`The BMS interface described in this document will be developed for
`SIMNET-D.
`The reconfigurable nature cf simulated weapon systems in SIMNET-D
`will provide a medium for systematically testing and refining BMS design
`features and operating characteristics.
`In addition, this test bed will
`afford a medium for evaluating C systems that is sufficiently (1) objective,
`given the automated data capture capabilities of SIMNET and (2) valid, given
`SIMNET's potential for assessing force-on-force combat effectiveness as a
`function of lower echelon command, control and communication.
`The sol-
`dier-in-the-loop nature of the SIMNET battlefield is
`ideal for evaluating
`both soldier performance issues and BMS related training requirements.
`
`DISPLAY CONFIGURATION
`
`The prototype BMS user interface must provide the user access to all of
`the automated command, control, and communication functions anticipated for
`the system, and serves as a transparent link to the various subsystems
`interfaced to BMS.
`The overall layout and configuration of the proposed BMS
`interface are presented in Figure 1.
`
`As noted previously the focus of this document
`is BMS, an advanced proto-
`type for automated C3 , rather than a starter-set system such as IVIS.
`As a
`near term solution to automated C3 , IVIS, for example,
`is not expected to
`provide a digital terrain data base with its associated man-made and natural
`terrain features including terrain elevation data critical to tactical issues
`of cover, concealment, and avenues of approach.
`Instead, the IVIS interface
`is expected to display a grid reference matrix as depicted in Figure 2. Re-
`lated BMS enhancements not anticipated for IVIS include: color monitor;
`completely integrated vehicle subsystems (e.g., hull and turret network
`boxes, ballistics computer etc.); artificial
`intelligence functions for ter-
`rain analysis and mission planning; and advanced microprocessor capabilities
`
`2
`
`

`

`42
`
`43
`
`4S
`
`2
`
`8
`
`SWATER
`
`1
`
`2
`
`_1
`
`_
`
`22
`
`1230:30
`
`RESET
`
`- ALERT/REPORT
`
`RECEIVE
`
`-
`
`-
`
`TERRAIN FEATURES
`SELECT ANY COMBINATION*
`
`CONTOURS
`GRIDS
`BORDERS
`ROADS
`\ EGETATION NAMES
`RAILROADS
`POL
`
`TOWNS
`
`-TOUCH AGAIN TO DELETE-
`ENTER
`
`435 232 HOG 360
`
`458 250
`
`b
`Figure 1. BMS user Interface,
`
`c
`
`d
`
`25s,,
`
`2 4
`
`a
`
`23
`
`22
`
`21
`
`42
`
`43
`
`4
`
`5
`
`4
`
`22
`
`1230:30
`
`RESET
`
`ALERT/REPORT
`
`RECEIUE
`
`zoom
`
`MAP SCALE - 1: 50,000
`
`"*TOUCH SCALE NEEDED,
`
`THEN "ENTER"
`
`I : 25,000
`
`I : 125,000
`
`g
`f
`
`e
`
`q
`
`f
`
`e
`e
`
`435 232 HOG 3600
`
`EEEF-HEI
`
`I CONTACT
`;
`
`CFF
`-- --
`
`I
`
`458 250
`
`...
`E]E]MAESTTUS
`
`RE1OE AD¢
`
`A
`
`b
`
`Figure 2. IVIS user interface.
`
`c
`
`3
`
`ENTER
`
`SEWq
`-.----I
`
`d
`
`

`

`for more efficient and integrated storage, processing and transmission of
`command and control informaticn across all elements of the Maneuver Force.
`
`Similarities between IVIS and BMS, however, with respect to more funda-
`mental design guidelines and specifications are reflected by a comparison of
`their respective figures. The reconfigurable nature of SIMNET-D prototypes
`will support tle graceful degradation of the more advanced BMS features and
`functions to evaluate IVIS specific issues when required. With this under-
`standing, the remainder of this document will address BMS guidelines and
`specifications and IVIS will no longer be discussed.
`
`As depicted in Fignre 1, the EMS display is partitioned into seven dis-
`tinct sections. Beginning in the upper left hand corner,
`the map section (a)
`of the display depicts a bird's-eye view of the battlefield as provided by a
`digital terrain date map of the area. The three sections depicted at the
`bottom of the display represent a series of dedicated soft switches by
`which the user initiates the various BMS command, control, and communication
`functions or annotates the map display. The three switches on the left of
`this row (b) are dedicated report and alert keys that allow the user to make
`easy, rapid inputs for each of the following critical battlefield data:
`contact reports; calls for indirect artillery fires; and nuclear, biological,
`and chemical (NBC)
`reports.
`
`In the next section (c), and to the right of the dedicated report keys,
`are a series of controls that serve as main menu keys. Activation of these
`keys provides the user access to a series of submenus for the following dis-
`play and control functions: map annotations or "tools" for controlling the
`information displayed in
`the map section; status menus for monitoring and
`reporting vehicle, subsystem, personnel and logistic data; report functions
`for communicating both textual and map-based battlefield data central to
`command and control; a radio interface for selecting and monitoring communi-
`cation netuorks and automating call signs and authentication procedures; and
`a menu for updating the vehicle's position and navigation data.
`
`The final section (d)
`in this row is
`the SEND key which provides the user
`the ability to transmit digitally BMS related command and control informa-
`tion.
`To prevent accidental transmissions the activation of this key should
`require a unique type of user input such as a one or two second continuous
`entry.
`
`The relatively large section (e) on the right side of the BMS display is
`the variable menu area.
`In this region the submenus, selected by the user's
`activation of the main menu switches, are presented. Depending on the sub-
`menu selected,
`the user is provided a series of options for monitoring,
`updating or reporting command and control data.
`In addition,
`the variable
`menu area provides access t6 a variety of map functions that allow the user
`to (1) tailor his own map display or (2) prepare graphic command and control
`measures (i.e., operational overlays) for subsequent communications.
`
`The section (f)
`sage/alert section,
`
`immediately above this variable menu area,
`the mes-
`informs the user that incoming reports, orders, warnings
`
`4
`
`

`

`or other information are waiting to be received.
`The actual contents of
`these messages will be presented in
`the variable menu and map sections of the
`BMS display once the user has requested receipt of the message by touching
`the RECEIVE key. To prevent disruptions and ensure reception, users have
`requested that incoming messages should not be automatically presented
`(Lickteig, 1986a).
`The RECEIVE key is
`included in
`this section to provide
`the user discrete and immediate access to incoming transmissions upon re-
`quest.
`
`The section (g)
`the upper left hand corner of the display, date/time,
`in
`provides the user a continuous display of this information.
`The RESET key
`provides the user access to a manual update function and a menu for selecting
`other time related functions upon reque!.. such as alpha or zulu time codes
`and backward planning functions.
`
`In addition to these seven primary subsections of the BMS display,
`two
`location windows are required.
`The first
`is an Own Location/Heading window
`that displays the current location of the user in six-digit coordinates
`(8-and 10-digit options included) and his heading in three-digit degrees (mil
`option included). This information is continuously updated by the Position
`Navigation (POSNAV)
`system and corresponds to the position of the vehicle as
`depicted on the BMS display (See POSNAV Functions). This window is
`located in
`the lower left corner of the map display. The second Ic -.ion window
`is a
`Point Location that displays the six-digit location of d,..
`'screte
`touch
`entry made on the map display.
`For example, with the enti,
`of any waypoint,
`control measure, or touch contact with the map display,
`the six-digit coordi-
`nates of that entry should be displayed in
`the Point Location window which
`is
`located in
`lower right corner of the BMS map display. The Point Location
`window might only appear when the user is designating a location (e.g., unit,
`measure, point) on the map display.
`In Figures 1 and 2
`it
`is designating the
`location of the enemy tank unit. Finally, Figure 3
`is
`included to provide
`the reader an example of the proposed BMS interface at the currently
`projected size, 9-inch diagonal.
`
`The overall configuration of the BMS display partitioned into a number of
`sections suggests that these are dedicated partitions which are permanently
`assigned in support of the functions described.
`A more optimal display con-
`figuration, however, might provide the option to temporarily repartition the
`display depending upon current activity (Brown, Burkelo, Mangelsdorf, Olsen,
`& Williams, 1981; Galitz, 1981) and to automatically remove interim data from
`the display when
`it
`is no longer needed (Martin, 1973; Newman & Sproull,
`1979). For example, during lulls in
`the battle such as preoperation checks,
`initialization, or consolidation,
`the map area might be reduced or temporar-
`ily exchanged for an extended reporting area in
`the variable menu section
`(see Map Functions). This would reduce the layers of submenus and user in-
`puts required for more extensive reports. Again,
`the soldier-in-the-loop
`nature of SIMNET should provide an excellent medium for exploring this and
`other interface issues and refining this prototype display.
`
`5
`
`

`

`o
`Cl)
`ow w<)
`C.) ZOC)9
`ý- >-
`/)J
`mC
`w~ W
`04 w
`U-
`04
`
`
`
`m_>_m0mmmw6<wmms=mhmw4<
`.8cm2:.«83E.mmzmooh.z_<o<.1"!—
`mmmanm
` 3aEEPZEcE85.82:«In.m959...EE99:.E95:2.25Ega55200 .mflw3552:55:9
`
`.ZO_._.<z_ms_Ou>z<Pom—4mm.
`5:.E2E5E5
`
`
`
`E;éellifi—VLIEI.E:i‘.“£
`
`
`
`
`mmm3h<mm23.5mm...
`
`m w~j
`W C)
`
`w>
`
` -
`C .)
`
`w
`
`..
`
`'~
`
`C/)
`
`z
`
`c
`
`z
`
`0
`
`D0
`
`wfia©hz©©
`
`(D a'
`
`2K
`
`0<
`
`c4
`
`<
`m(
`
`w
`00I
`aw w w
`>
`m
`
`w
`W
`0
`
`-j
`
`l
`
`z
`
`0
`
`0
`C
`
`cm LL
`
`
`
`
`
`C.)
`
`SKYHAWKE EX. 1019, page 14
`
`00
`
`(M
`
`U.
`
`6t
`
`
`

`

`DISPLAY GUIDELINES
`
`Design Guidelines
`
`The design of automated information management systems has received a
`great deal of attention during the past decade, an interest directly related
`to exponential increases in
`the availability and applicability of personal,
`mini, and microcomputers. This attention has resulted in numerous guide-
`lines for the design and development of user-computer, man-machine,
`inter-
`faces (Engel & Granada, 1975; Galitz, 1981; Pew & Rollins, 1975; Ramsey &
`Atwood, 1979; Smith, 1981; Smith & Mosier, 1984).
`A recent edition of Human
`Factors Review (Huckler, 1984), for example,
`includes a collection of reviews
`on various aspects of interface design such as visual display terminals,
`input media including voice technologies, dialogue modes and computer as-
`sisted instruction. These design guidelines provide a valuabie base of in-
`formation when designers are confronted with the need for a unique interface
`such as BMS which entails multiple, complex, and conflicting design require-
`ments.
`
`Guidelines, however, are generic--a collection of recommendations and
`caveats abstracted from research and experience with various, and at times
`differing, interface requirements. The designer must adapt these
`prescriptions to the unique functions, tasks, users,
`technologies, costs,
`systems, and operational environments associated with the interface being
`designed.
`In addition, utilization of design guidelines generally involves a
`multidisciplinary collaboration between the users who define the
`requirements, human factors specialists who specify an interface design that
`effectively integrates those requirements, and the hardware and software
`engineers who actually develop the interface.
`
`Uzer-'Basid4 Guidelines
`
`While the specification of user interface designs and supporting func-
`tions accounts for 30-35% of all applications software (Smith & Mosier,
`1984),
`interface designers rely on formally developed design guidelines in
`less than 10% of their applications (Klein & Brezovic, 1986; Tijernia,
`1986). The designers interviewed by Klein and Brezovic stated that relevant
`design guidelines were too difficult to locate in
`the technical literature
`and the extrapolation of relevant guidelines from irrelevant data,
`too ques-
`tionable. The work of Klein and Brezovic, Tijernia, and others demonstrates
`that most designs are based on mock-up or prototype interfaces and informal
`assessments (e.g., n = 1) or quasi-experimentation.
`The designer's prefer-
`ence for hands-on tests, given the difficulty of translating basic research
`into design applications,
`is not only defended--but forcefully advocated by
`many designers-as in Schell's (1986)
`recent paper: "Usability Testing of
`Screen Design: Beyond Standards, Principles, and Guidelines."
`
`Similarly, the display and control features of the proposed BMS prototype
`are based on the user interface requirements for BMS that have been previ-
`ously identified by a series of evaluations conducted by the Directorate of
`
`7
`
`

`

`Combat Developments (DCD) at Fort Knox and the Army Research Institute of
`Fort Knox. Prior user evaluations of prototype BMS displays have attempted
`preliminary identification of the BMS informational requirements (Jobe,
`1986), functional requirements (Lickteig, 1986a),
`training requirements
`(Lickteig, 1986b), and operational requirements (Blasche and Lickteig, 1984).
`The BMS interface design specified in this document has incorporated the
`user-based requirements of this earlier work.
`
`Simulation Guidelines
`
`The following set of guidelines specify the design guidelines and func-
`tional specifications of the BMS interface, and particularly the BMS display
`and control requirements. Later sections are organized around the major
`functions of BMS and specify the menu structure, data formats, and instruc-
`tional prompts required for users to execute these functions via the BMS
`interface. This section documents for the developers the formal guidelines
`employed in design of the BMS interface, and reference to the technical docu-
`mentation on which these guidelines are based.
`In addition, these guidelines
`serve as a designer's template for addressing any BMS interface functions not
`directly discussed in this document (e.g., new or unanticipated BMS func-
`tions).
`
`In general, the design of the BMS interface has attempted to incorporate
`the general human factors that apply to all man-machine interfaces including
`computers: consistency, brevity, flexibility, immediate feedback, and re-
`duced operator workload (Williges & Williges, 1984).
`In their article on
`dialogue modes, Williges and Williges (1984) provide a comprehensive review
`of the guidelines currently available to interface designers.
`To extend the
`standardization of interface design, and afford the developers ready access
`to the supporting documentation,
`the following guidelines and specifications
`for simulation of a ES prototype are organized around the content areas and
`guidelines provided by Villiges and Williges.
`
`Display Size
`
`The size of the MS display panel is constrained by the limited space
`available in an armored vehicle and particularly the tank. Prior work on BMS
`interfaces has focused on a 7- to 9-inch diagonal display. User evaluations,
`dependent upon the contrast and resolution of display prototypes tested, have
`favored the 8-
`to 9-inch display.
`It
`is anticipated that initially SIMNET's
`BMS display screen will have a minimum 12-inch screen due to the high cost of
`providing a smaller screen with sufficient resolution. By windowing this
`12-inch display into smaller display areas, however, a reconfigurable BMS
`interface must allow for the assessment of alternative display sizes (e.g.,
`8-, 9-, or 10-inch diagonal display surfaces).
`
`Specific guidelines are not readily available with respect to variable
`display sizes, and particularly, the limitations inherent to small screen
`displays. An assessment clearly echoed by the title
`of a recent review by
`Shannon and Stewart (1986),
`-Human Performance Aspects of Small Screen Dis-
`
`8
`
`

`

`The
`plays: A Literature Review Revealing the Lack of Specific Research."
`is a driving design factor, however, and so the
`limited display size of BMS
`following general guidelines are Rrovided. Minimize the information density
`by presenting only information essential to the user at that time (Brown et
`al., 1981), and by automatically removing interim data from the display when
`is no longer needed (Martin, 1973; Newman & Sproull, 1979). Users must
`it
`have the capability to remove irrelevant items from the display and to re-
`verse these decisions (e.g., selected deletion and call-up of terrain fe