Interacting with Computers vol 7 no 2 (1995) 145-149

Harmony through working together: Editorial to the Australasian special issue

Steve Howard and Ying K. Leung

Welcome to the Australasian special issue of Interacting with Computers. The seven papers included in this special issue (split over two numbers, four papers included in volume 7 number 2 and a further three to follow in number 3) were selected from 44 papers presented at OZCHI’94, the annual Australian HCI conference.

Australasia and HCI

Interest in human-computer interaction in Australia and its region has in- creased markedly over the last few years as evidenced by increasing participa- tion in OZCHI conferences. The decision to host INTERACT’97 in Sydney will no doubt help accelerate such interest.

Like its region, Australasian HCI is large and enormously varied. Though it is difficult to identify unifying themes or movements, some regional signposts do mark the way.

HCI in Australia and New Zealand has been heavily influenced by UK and European traditions and emphasises theoretical (eg. user psychology) and process issues (eg. design, evaluation, task analysis) over product issues. Working within such traditions has given Australians and New Zealanders ready access to the learned journals of Europe and America, but has yielded little in the way of innovative interfaces. HCI in the neighbouring countries of Singapore, Malaysia and Japan on the other hand has a long tradition of product-centred R&D, a long tradition of interface innovation.

Little funding for HCI research in Australia and New Zealand has been forthcoming from industry. Whilst there are no major industry funded HCI R&D laboratories in Australia/New Zealand, many exist in South-East Asia and provide the product focus for much of the research in this area. These two sub-regions (South-East Asia and Australia/New Zealand) do not overlap or interact greatly. Each possesses its own special interest groups, conferences, journals and the like. The future challenge for Australasian HCI will be one of integration, one of recognising the interdependence and inter-relatedness of

Swinbume Computer-Human Interaction Laboratory, School of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Swinbume University of Technology, PO Box 218, Hawthorn, Vie 3122, Australia

0953-5438/95/02/01454?5 0 1995 Elsevier Science Ltd 145

the different parts of HCI, and of the different countries within the Asia-Pacific region.

Harmony and HCI

The theme of OZCHI’94 was Harmony through working together. Harmony stresses the importance of striving for compatibility; compatibility between the components of the design artefact and related interactions and compatibility between the agents involved in the development process.

The system to which Harmony is referring is the human-machine-environment system which is a particularisation of the concept of ‘ergonomic system’ (Karkowski, 1991). The notation, in adapted form, derived by Karkowski serves usefully to describe this system:

HMES = {H,M,E,I,t}

Where:

HMES = human-machine-environment system H = human subsystem M = machine subsystem E = environmental subsystem I = interactions between subsystems t = time, across which all interactions occur

Each interaction has historically been treated by HCI as an isolated compatibil- ity relationship, as exemplified by context independent guidelines and stan- dards. Harmony is the integrated functioning of all the relevant elements of the HMES. Harmony is the aggregate of all of the compatibility relations in a given system.

Adapting the above, Harmony can be described as follows:

h = {H,M,E,C,t}

Where:

/; = Harmony H = human subsystem M = machine subsystem E = environmental subsystem C = compatibility relations between subsystems t = time, across which all interactions occur

Replacing I with C in the above equation means that system Harmony is no longer based on the quantity but the quality of the interactions (in terms of subsystem compatibility) between the subsystems. This innovation is impor- tant as without it, a Harmony space could be made ‘simpler’ by simply

146 Interacting with Computers vol 7 no 2 (1995)

removing nodes, even though those nodes may be critical to system usability, eg. help and support nodes.

Unpacking the above equation then, Harmony is a function of the quality of the interactions between all subsystem elements. All systems possess a degree of Harmony (although theoretically for some systems this could be zero, equal to maximum dissonance). Harmony then is an emergent quality that sets the direction for design and innovation rather than establishing the destination.

In principle the degree of Harmony displayed by a system (or subsystem) can be controlled by manipulating the compatibility relations. The goal of develop- ment now becomes the optimisation of Harmony. This is achieved by manipu- lating the individual compatibility relations that exist in the H/M/E system. Thus, for example, systems are developed whose psychological representations possess the lowest level of system-wide dissonance for the designer, though the incompatibility between any two subsystems may in fact be rather large.

Harmony and Australasian HCI

Harmony reminds us that the software user interface is one (albeit important) component amongst many that go to form the human-computer system. In order for HCI to provide development utility, the following requirements must be met:

l The elements that comprise the Harmony space must be able to be identified. l The relations between the elements for any given Harmony space must be

able to be established. 0 The relations between the elements composing the Harmony space must be

able to be manipulated in such a way that subsystem compatibility relations contribute, in an optimal way, to achieving system level Harmony.

Each of the papers presented in this special issue can be seen as addressing one or more of the above issues in one or both of two domains.:

l Development: some papers are concerned with the development context of HCI, the Harmony between developers and development tools and techni- ques. For this research, agents are developers, artefacts are development methodologies and tools.

l Use: some papers are concerned with the use context of HCI, the Harmony between users and the artefacts of design. For this research, agents are end users, artefacts are applications and associated interfaces.

The seven papers that compose this special issue each stress a particular aspect of Harmony.

Walter Smith et al. (Colour in map displays: issues for task-specific display design) stress the Harmony between the task context and colour perception and colour map displays in the context of graphical information systems (GIS). While colour is confirmed as an important display characteristic, Smith et al. caution that the task match is critical. Colour may help in some contexts (e.g. when

Howard and Leung 147

task-relevant colour-coding is used to support a monitoring task) but hinder in others (e.g. when task-irrelevant colour-coding interferes with coding along other dimensions, e.g., form coding).

In the second paper, Geraldine Fitzpatrick and Jim Welsh (Process support:

inflexible imposition OY chaotic composition?) turn their attention to the support of co-operative work processes. Fitzpatrick and Welsh stress the Harmony between the process design and the individual players within the process. They argue that the structure of group processes can be defined from within (rather than imposed from without) using a select few basic constructs. Such an approach allows the ‘situated reality’ of the group processes to be recognised and supported by allowing participants to compose their processes dynamically.

Ron Henderson et al. (Computer anxiety: correlates, norms, problem definition in health care and banking employees using the Computer Attitude Scale) are in- terested in ‘computer anxiety’. Henderson et al. stress the Harmony between computer use and perception and the user’s attitudinal systems. While, taken as a whole, the samples tested demonstrated little evidence of high levels of computer anxiety, one interesting finding was that 16% of the subjects from one sample were experiencing ‘psychological distress’ (and had high levels of computer anxiety) at levels similar to a clinical sample actually seeking psychological help.

Andy Cockburn and Steve Jones (Four principles for groupware design) reflect on the major causes of groupware failure and abstract four key principles for avoiding such failure. In stressing the Harmony between, on the one hand CSCW systems and their users, and on the other hand developers and their tools (ie. design principles), Cockburn and Jones are working in both the domains of development and use. The paper highlights the importance of maximising personal acceptance of groupware systems on behalf of their users; reducing the disparity between the costs and benefits of groupware systems; avoiding inflexibles and constraining systems; and maximising the integration between the groupware system and its working environment. Cockbum and Jones propose the principles as a framework and look forward to the develop- ment of associated strategies and techniques.

In the first paper to appear in the next part of this special issue, Craig Standing and Geoffrey Roy (A functional visual programming interface to geog- raphical information systems) draw on innovations in the development domain (ie. functional languages) in order to solve problems in the use domain (ie. GIS’s). They illustrate how the ideas of functional programming can be employed in solving some basic usability problems in graphical information systems. They propose a functional language with a direct manipulation front end as a solution to the problems faced by naive GE users.

Masood Masoodian et al. (Video support for shared work-space interaction: an empirical study) look at the different channels used for communication in CSCW systems. They compare four different communication modes (full face-to-face, full motion video, slow motion video and audio only) in the context of single CSCW application. Their results suggest that adequate group interactions may not need sophisticated technology; the audio link was critical, but little was gained by adding video.

148 Interacting with Computers vol 7 no 2 (1995)

In the final paper of the special issue, Gitte Lindgaard (Human performance in fault diagnosis: can expert systems help?) argues that although the diagnostic processes involved in medicine and process control are very similar, the nature of computer support required varies considerably between the domains. This provides an interesting caution to those who would seek to apply our current knowledge in simplistic and uncritical ways, and adds to our knowledge in both the domains of use and development.

Readers looking for research that directly addresses system level Harmony will be disappointed. The reasons for this are unclear and likely to be complex. It might be that manipulating subsystem compatibility in order to achieve Harmony is problematic. What is clear is that achieving Harmony presupposes an understanding of both the elements and their relations in any given Harmony space. At present HCI, and related development disciplines, are working and succeeding at the elemental level. Achieving system level Har- mony is a challenge to the future of our discipline and a necessity for our users.

Each paper included here emphasises a subset of all of the trade-offs and balances necessary in achieving Harmony. Taken as a whole they capture the vigour and variety of HCI in the Australasian region of the mid 1990s.

Note

This editorial is based upon the opening comments given at OZCH194 and published in the related proceedings.

References

Howard, S. and Leung, Y. (1994) ‘Harmony through working together - opening comments’ in Howard, S. and Leung, Y. teds) Harmony Through Working Together: Proc. OZCH194 CHISIG

Karkowski, W. (1991) ‘Complexity, fuzziness and ergonomic incompatibility issues in the control of dynamic work environments’ Ergonomics 34, 6, 671-686

Howard and Leung 149