The document summarizes three studies on designing an interactive map interface to control an automated bridge crane. The first study involved interviews with crane operators to understand their experience goals related to increased automation. The second was a field study testing a prototype map interface with operators. It found the map helped understanding automated features but some remained invisible. The third tested "orientation aids" to address operators moving around while the crane orientation stays fixed. It concluded the prototype supported operators' feelings of competence by making automated features visible and reduced anxiety by clearly showing automation in relation to their goals. However, anxiety remained when some automated features were invisible and from removing the physical controller entirely.

1. Interactive Map Interface for Controlling Bridge
Crane
Automation: A Cognitive-Affective Approach
Jussi P.P. Jokinen & Johanna Silvennoinen
(with Rebekah Rousi presenting)
Academic Mindtrek 2016 (Tampere, Finland)
October 17, 2016.

3. Study questions
●What are the experience goals of crane operators,
especially related to increased automation?
●How can we support these goals with user interface
design?
●Can we design a user interface, which is both usable and
has acceptable user experience?

4. Emotional experience goals
●competence: good task performance & an
awareness that this is due to the user's abilities
●anxiety: fear of something unexpected (low
awareness & control potential)
●(Jokinen, 2015; Saariluoma & Jokinen, 2014)

5. Method
●Study 1: User-centred design
–interviews of crane operators
–N = 11
●Study 2: Field study of the prototype design
–thinking aloud
–N = 5
●Study 3: Quasi-experimental study of “orientation
aids”.
–mental rotation tasks
–N = 5

8. Results (prototype field test)
●The concept was usable by all participants, and
the map helped them to understand the otherwise
invisible automated features.
●However, some of the features were still left
invisible.
–e.g., how to remove or bypass a working limit?
●Also, the participants were suspicious of
completely removing the physical controller.

9. Study 3 (orientation aids)
●Operators move around, but the crane's
operating directions stay the same.
●Can a map-based interface become confusing?
●possible solution: orientation aids

10. landmark highlighting
symbols matching the crane
showing the crane's posi

12. Conclusion
●Feeling of competence
–the operator needs to mentally represent the
automated features in the crane's operating space
–the operator must be able to understand the
relation of the automation to own goals
–these design goals were attained with the
prototype

13. Conclusion
●Feeling of anxiety:
–the operators felt anxiety whenever the
automated features were not clearly visible
–also, anxiety might be a problem if the whole
physical controller is removed
–using the prototype, the operators were able to
relate the map to the environment, and thus not
feel anxious

14. Thank you!
jussi.jokinen@aalto.fi
johanna.silvennoinen@jyu.fi