=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-2539/paper5
|storemode=property
|title=A Manifesto for Cognitive Ergonomics: Re-evaluating Technology Usability for the 21st Century
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2539/paper5.pdf
|volume=Vol-2539
|authors=Harry J. Witchel,Carina E. I. Westling
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/ecce/WitchelW19
}}
==A Manifesto for Cognitive Ergonomics: Re-evaluating Technology Usability for the 21st Century==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-2539/paper5.pdf
A Manifesto for Cognitive Ergonomics:
Re-evaluating Technology Usability for the 21st
Century?
Harry J. Witchel1[0000−0001−8404−3494] and
Carina E. I. Westling2[0000−0002−6549−0974]
1
Brighton and Sussex Medical School, University of Sussex, Brighton BN1 9RY, UK
h.witchel@bsms.ac.uk
2
Department of Media and Communication, Bournemouth University, Bournemouth
BH12 5BB, UK cwestling@bournemouth.ac.uk
Abstract. Computer infiltration into the workplace and society has
been extensive, yet the ideals of efficacy, efficiency and satisfaction re-
main unattained. We propose an ambitious framework to take forward
Cognitive Ergonomics and Human Factors. Increasing the visibility of
the field while linking and nurturing the practitioners is essential. We
define Cognitive Ergonomics as an interdisciplinary field of research and
practice dedicated towards:
– Understanding and supporting human cognition and performance
– At work or when performing other goal-directed tasks
– With computers and other engineered artefacts
– To improve human well-being and our relationship with our environ-
ment.
This revitalising programme will be based on:
– Interdisciplinary Research
– Research-based Policy
– Education
The proposed interdisciplinary framework will refocus on the classical
facets of usability and include work-relevant emotions as well as under-
standing the minimal requirements for successful interactions (including
understanding agency). The research-based policy will focus on efficacy
in terms of human cognitive ergonomics in a holistic perspective (i.e.
producing the effects we want without adverse effects). This will include
complex questions about interface design in the context of the organisa-
tional and business models that influence its development (e.g. moneti-
zation). The educational courses will spotlight how end-users should not
have their time wasted, as well as the consequences of digital mediation in
learning generally. This framework will differentiate cognitive ergonomics
from its affiliated fields of Human-Computer Interaction and Psychology,
?
Supported by BSMS IRP Programme
Copyright c 2019 for this paper by its authors. Use permitted under Creative Com-
mons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
A Manifesto for Cognitive Ergonomics 27
and address a gap between the social sciences and engineering that has
become more urgent in the past 5-10 years. It is ideally suited to be
carried forward by the European Association of Cognitive Ergonomics.
This framework is specifically a collaborative effort grounded in Euro-
pean intellectual and scientific tradition — a perspective that offers a
much-needed contrast and complement to Anglosphere research and de-
velopment agendas in interactive technologies.
Keywords: cognitive ergonomics · human factors · sociotechnical sys-
tems · work-related emotions.
1 Where We Are Now
1.1 People Serving Machines
The use of computers and data processing in the workplace is an unmitigated
technological success — if you judge success by ubiquity. Thomas Watson, then
President of IBM, predicted in 1943, “I think there is a world market for maybe
five computers.” Now they are everywhere, but that does not seem to have solved
all of humanity’s problems.
In fact, that seems to be part of what is contributing to our current prob-
lems [11]. What seems to have gone wrong is the way we are using computers.
They were imagined to be a tool that would reduce workloads and make us
happier, but in many cases the opposite has happened [16]. Where computers
are typically limited and rely on narrow parameters, humans are extraordinarily
versatile, such that work processes have outsourced many of finicky bits of the
data processing burden (e.g. data gathering, data input and so-called ’Wizard
of Oz’ sleights of hand) to human users — whose time is often exploited as a
free or low-cost resource.
There are many reasonable questions that could be raised by users of digital
systems, including “Why am I constantly filling in forms and checking tick boxes
that I don’t understand and don’t agree with?”; “Why is it one second to click
yes and five minutes to ‘adjust privacy settings’ ?” and perhaps even “When I
waste an hour filling in an online form to get a refund from a company that
has plainly let me down, can I charge the company for my time to fill in their
form?”.
We see a disproportionate burden of processing outsourced to human users.
We need to ask ourselves, “What is interaction, and what do we need to know for
it to be functional?” To design successful interfaces and interactions, we really
only need to know what the rules and expectations of the interaction should be,
yet much research and practice seems obsessed on knowing or finding out who
the end-user is.
1.2 Privacy and Personal Autonomy
The GDRP recognises the assault on privacy and dignity by unregulated data
harvesting and brokering. It seems as though we cannot fix the privacy problems
28 H. J. Witchel and C. E. I. Westling
at source because current internet design and practice allows for anonymity and
disguise [8]. Is there such a stark choice that you can have either privacy or
the internet, but not both? Might there be ways to improve best practice or
regulate systems that would greatly reduce these problems without completely
eviscerating the benefits of the computer and the internet as a tool?
1.3 The Role of Cognitive Ergonomics
Can cognitive ergonomics address these thorny issues? We define Cognitive Er-
gonomics and Human Factors as research and practice dedicated towards:
– Understanding and supporting human cognition and performance
– At work or when performing other goal-directed tasks
– With computers and other engineered artefacts
– To improve human well-being and our relationship with our environment.
Success in computing and technology will be when we stop thinking that the
only solution to our pressing problems is for mankind to go to Mars.
1.4 Whose cognitive ergonomics matter?
Who should be the beneficiary of cognitive ergonomics research? Mark Zucker-
berg? Jeff Bezos? The computer? In cognitive ergonomics the human user is
paramount. In our opinion, the cognition of the human user in interaction with
technology of primarily functional design should be re-evaluated for the 21st
century. It should incorporate developments since the laudable inception of the
field, and readjust the course for the present era.
We are not short of challenges; if anything, a clearly defined, inspiring, useful
and achievable focus in a sea of research problems is the first and foremost chal-
lenge. We argue that the existing work of the European Association of Cognitive
Ergonomics, its community of committed researchers, and its body of literature
to date provide an ideal basis for this reassessment of the problem space in
the present times. Questions our colleagues have addressed include the safety
and efficiency of processes, the design of interfaces to support human users, and
sufficient and appropriate engagement with adjacent fields of research.
2 Interdisciplinary Research
2.1 Research over Theory
We propose a grounded perspective on usability in the 21st century, based on
integrated research within meaningful theoretical frameworks. A increased focus
on producing primary research will enable EACE to support the development
of government policy in and across Europe. Theory naturally will also play a
part in understanding interaction, but research and data gathering will breathe
new life into these reconfigured efforts. Currently the knowledge gap in how
A Manifesto for Cognitive Ergonomics 29
human cognition fares in the present technological moment is mostly focused
on the failures of either the computational system or the human agent. We
wish to promote a focus on the nature and articulation of interaction itself, to
augment applicable knowledge of how human cognition, understood rigorously
and broadly, can be supported by technology. We do not need computation to
teach us how to be human in the present moment — we need to create technology
that does not fetishise the subservience of human users, and (as outlined in
the previous section) which is created with respect for human cognition and
creativity. Below, we outline some more appropriate aims and definitions for the
fields of usability and UX, now grown up.
2.2 UX at Work
User experience has cast its net so wide that the issues for the human user at
the workplace may be overlooked. For example, much user experience is focused
on beauty [10]. While visually attractive design is admirable and pleasant, we do
not necessarily need our systems to be superficially beautiful. Beauty changes
rapidly in response to taste and innovation. The problems people have at work
are not a matter of taste, nor are they vague. The problem at work is that there
is a lot of verification, encumbered by time-wasting and repetitive tasks. Much
of the verification is not part of the value creation, it is simple oversight. We
should be researching how sociotechnical systems can contribute to oversight —
but the computer’s role should be as a responsible tool, not as an authority.
2.3 Work-related Emotions
Satisfaction is a key issue at work, and it is plainly dependent on emotions. We
need to open the box and look at how emotions contribute to work [14] (and
learning [20]) and work satisfaction, and how that has allowed for some of the
more obvious ethical decay that has occurred [7]. When people feel constant
anxiety in the workplace or about the future, we know it has an effect on per-
formance [12]. While we are all familiar with exquisite boredom and how it can
lead to disengagement [32], there are other more complicated relationships with
emotion that need to be unpacked.
For example, the mild anxiety associated with uncertainty (popularly known
as confusion) is an essential waypoint in the acquisition of conceptual break-
throughs, yet only some individuals find its presence acceptable [30] — others
find it unbearable [18]. In a similar way, many assume that frustration is fun-
damentally demotivating, yet it is recognised as a key emotional component
of games and gamification [15]. Disappointment is also a fruitful area for re-
search [27], as it leads to powerful disincentives and negative emotions. The
status-seeking need for competition is almost certainly a contributor to runaway
problems with unethical work environments, and this is patently a fruitful area
for research. Fatigue is not simply a physical state, but it is a motivational state
that is driven centrally [3]. We should be investing in neuroergonomics [17] and
30 H. J. Witchel and C. E. I. Westling
physiological ergonomics [1], where we determine fatigue on site using sensors,
physiology and geolocation in real workplaces.
3 Research-based Policy
3.1 Regulation of Platform Providers
Who should be held accountable when platforms benefit themselves at the ex-
penses of their users, or their environment? We like to blame the humans for
losing situational awareness, but in a sociotechnical system the entire system
needs to be held accountable [23]. Like a public utility, platforms “live” (and
underpin debate and participation) in the public sphere, and they benefit from
sharing our environment and infrastructures [5]. Nobody thinks energy providers
should be allowed to organise the world in a way to indulge their most self-serving
whims. We need to research how regulation might work for sociotechnical sys-
tems, and produce research that informs policies that steer development towards
not just future-proofing technology, but future-proofing our future relationship
with technology.
As a part of this ongoing debate, we need research into technological policies
to support and protect discourse and dissent as free speech in sociotechnical sys-
tems. However, wide-spread but personalised lies are not the same as free speech.
Nor can such untruths be categorised simply as “false advertising” or libel: the
regulations or laws required to address networks of lies are plainly different. The
computer should “grow up”; with increasingly ubiquitous computation, users are
the “constituents of technology” and need to hold it accountable, as part of the
sociotechnical system [2]. There are norms that people are subject to [22], which
prevent crime and chaos; sociotechical systems also need to be regulated in such
a way that no one can accept a large scale plan to “move fast and break things”
[26]. Given that sociotechnical systems are neither saintly nor neutral, should
there be limits on what data is being gathered and kept? We need a mature
relationship to technology where the computer lives up to its responsibilities.
3.2 Diversity and Inclusivity
Issues of representation are no longer discrete; they intersect with how we work,
how money is made, and how progress is thought of, realised and measured. The
European research community across the social sciences and engineering stand on
an intellectual legacy that afford us the latitude to meaningfully address models
and metaphors of agency, its translation and implementation in computational
systems, and the consequences at scale.
Human users are critical components of computational systems, but typically
modelled as data objects, as if they were moving mechanical parts conceived to
aid the completion of the interaction with a weighting towards the computer’s
terms. Social injustice is compounded by its reliance on demographic stereotypes,
which we see at scale and in action on social media platforms, and which are often
A Manifesto for Cognitive Ergonomics 31
unknowingly reconstructed like Frankenstein’s monster by machine learning [29].
The platforms may have given more people a voice, but — like an echo-chamber
— they remain guided by existing hegemonies of visibility and influence. You
can shout, but the important question is who will listen. If platform-driven iden-
titarianism continues unabated, public discourse will be increasingly siloed, and
the centre ground undermined.
3.3 Redressing Power Inequalities
We are seeing a rise in populism and polarised demographics both politically
and in popular culture, which correlate with the focus on demographic fine-
slicing and targeted messaging that is at the core of the business models of dig-
ital platforms for mass participation. Any challenge to this polarising targeted
marketing is unlikely to come from within commercial software engineering or
through self-regulation, as there is a direct conflict of interest. More empirically
grounded models for digital representation need to address our capacity for dy-
namic change, and model us as such. The development of alternative models
will require interdisciplinary empirical research to inform policy makers, who
typically have little expert knowledge and rely on the research community for
data and other types of evidence to guide policy.
Redressing the existing imbalances of representation and access will not orig-
inate in Silicon Valley. Dominant business objectives are likely to continue to
disincentivize solutions that move away from data predation and identitarian-
ism; the European Union is presently the most likely milieu for the development
of policies that steer infrastructure development towards better protections for
privacy, public discourse and democracy. Interdisciplinary research on digital
representation could bring together physicists, political scientists and critical
infrastructure researchers with interaction designers, media philosophers and
computer scientists to develop models for online mass communication based on
observations of crowd behaviour at scale that utilise only such information about
system users that is necessary for function and form. These models might incor-
porate, for example, short-term local access to data [13], fluid dynamics [31] and
regulated schemes for protected identities online [28].
4 Education
There are three groups of stakeholders where Cognitive Ergonomicists can con-
tribute to education: computer scientists, students in general, and educators.
4.1 Students
The current computer driver license is heavily focused on the Microsoft Office
suite (and the free alternatives), but these are not the only key issues facing
learners. All learners need to know about how to use the digital technologies
and online resources for learning [21, 25]. As scales of efficiencies are increasingly
32 H. J. Witchel and C. E. I. Westling
demanded of educators, time spent with individual pupils has become less com-
monplace for average students. However, educational technologies for learning
have sprouted up in many fields, especially in maths, physics and engineering
[4].
4.2 Computer Science, Engineering and Design
The simplest basics of usability should not be a specialism for researchers. Every
interactive system and web designer should be asking themselves, “How long will
it take to fill in my form?”, and “Do we really need all this information to provide
basic service?”, and “Given that I am asking for this data, what would it cost if
I actually paid for this information and data entry?” Every computer scientist
should do it, and it should be easy enough for every designer to do. This kind of
thinking should be a part of every computer form out there. It is already a part
of the publication process for for online questionnaires (CHERRIES)[6].
4.3 Research into Digital Education
For young people, going to full time education is like work. Learning is its own
occupation, and it has aspects that are similar to cognitive ergonomics. The op-
portunities for digital education have been considered for some time within the
education/sociology literature [19, 9]. However, the quantification and the con-
sequences of Digital Education have been left largely unexplored. For example,
only recently computer-interactive behaviours have come to light that learners
can perform in order to improve their memory for facts [24]; research may reveal
that there are more of these.
5 A Unique Gap for Research
We propose that cognitive ergonomics, particularly in a European context, is
ideally placed to address the gap between:
– HCI and engineering
– psychology and the human sciences.
The field incorporates “interaction” in its broader consideration of communi-
cation, meaning and human behaviour in relation to technology. Compared to
engineering and computer science, we are more interested in the consequences of
technological profusion than in the process for its own sake. Compared to psy-
chology, we have a specific role for understanding the consequences of making
computers ubiquitous — both to the person, and to society. Finally, to the study
of business and enterprise, we can add a scientific basis, as well a liaison point
between workers, their tools, and organisational psychology.
The key to all of this is that the human user remains the centre of our
focus — with technology always there to help. Just as the technology should
help us to link together and nurture ourselves. Seeing these opportunities in the
A Manifesto for Cognitive Ergonomics 33
current technological landscape suggests that we have much stimulating work to
do, and a community to do it with. To succeed this will require increasing the
visibility of the field, which starts with a shared collective vision. Questions for
the proposed research may include what policies do we need to deal with bad-
faith actors? What type and nature of information is needed — and not needed
— for optimal interaction? What are viable models for supportive technology
in occupational fields where errors present exceptional risks, including aviation
and the broader field of logistics? And we should also take an active interest in
online banking, democratic processes, refugee and climate research to address
present crises. Researchers in these fields now incorporate digital technologies,
crowd platforms, and multi-national collaboration using online platforms, and
have to find innovative approaches to organisational structure and research. The
field of cognitive ergonomics was designed to address questions around human
consciousness in relation to occupational technologies of the future, and that
future is now here.
References
1. Aryal, A., Ghahramani, A., Becerik-Gerber, B.: Monitoring fatigue in construction
workers using physiological measurements. Automation in Construction 82, 154–
165 (2017)
2. Baxter, G., Sommerville, I.: Socio-technical systems: From design methods to sys-
tems engineering. Interacting with Computers 23(1), 4–17 (2011)
3. Chaudhuri, A., Behan, P.O.: Fatigue in neurological disorders. The Lancet
363(9413), 978–988 (2004)
4. Craig, S.D., Graesser, A.C., Perez, R.S.: Advances from the office of naval research
stem grand challenge: expanding the boundaries of intelligent tutoring systems.
International Journal of STEM Education 5(1), 11 (2018)
5. Culpepper, P.D., Thelen, K.: Are we all amazon primed? consumers
and the politics of platform power. Comparative Political Studies (2019).
https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414019852687
6. Eysenbach, G.: Improving the quality of web surveys: the checklist for reporting
results of internet e-surveys (cherries). Journal of Medical Internet Research 6(3),
e34 (2004)
7. Fida, R., Paciello, M., Tramontano, C., Fontaine, R.G., Barbaranelli, C., Farnese,
M.L.: An integrative approach to understanding counterproductive work behavior:
The roles of stressors, negative emotions, and moral disengagement. Journal of
Business Ethics 130(1), 131–144 (2015)
8. Gostin, L.O., Halabi, S.F., Wilson, K.: Health data and privacy in the digital era.
Journal of the American Medical Association 320(3), 233–234 (2018)
9. Greene, J.C.: Mixed methods in social inquiry, vol. 9. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken,
NJ (2007)
10. Hassenzahl, M., Tractinsky, N.: User experience: a research agenda. Behaviour &
Information Technology 25(2), 91–97 (2006)
11. Howard, P.N., Kollanyi, B., Woolley, S.: Bots and automation over twitter during
the US election. Computational Propaganda Project: Working Paper Series (2016)
12. Jones, M.K., Latreille, P.L., Sloane, P.J.: Job anxiety, work-related psychological
illness and workplace performance. British Journal of Industrial Relations 54(4),
742–767 (2016)
34 H. J. Witchel and C. E. I. Westling
13. Kant, T.: Making it personal: web users and algorithmic personalisation. Ph.D.
thesis, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK (2016)
14. Kelly, J.R., Barsade, S.G.: Mood and emotions in small groups and work teams.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 86(1), 99–130 (2001)
15. Lazzaro, N.: Why we play games: Four keys to more emotion
without story. Tech. rep., Xeo Design Inc, Oakland, CA (2004),
http://www.xeodesign.com/xeodesign whyweplaygames.pdf
16. Lepp, A., Li, J., Barkley, J.E., Salehi-Esfahani, S.: Exploring the relationships
between college students’ cell phone use, personality and leisure. Computers in
Human Behavior 43, 210–219 (2015)
17. Mehta, R.K., Parasuraman, R.: Neuroergonomics: a review of applications to phys-
ical and cognitive work. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 7, 889 (2013)
18. Minkov, M., Hofstede, G.: A replication of hofstede’s uncertainty avoidance dimen-
sion across nationally representative samples from europe. International Journal
of Cross Cultural Management 14(2), 161–171 (2014)
19. Mumtaz, S.: Factors affecting teachers’ use of information and communications
technology: a review of the literature. Journal of Information Technology for
Teacher Education 9(3), 319–342 (2000)
20. Pekrun, R.: Academic emotions. In: Handbook of Motivation at School. vol. 2, pp.
120–144. Routledge, New York (2016)
21. Pennebaker, J.W., Gosling, S.D., Ferrell, J.D.: Daily online testing in large classes:
Boosting college performance while reducing achievement gaps. PloS one 8(11),
e79774 (2013)
22. Singh, M.P.: Norms as a basis for governing sociotechnical systems. ACM Trans-
actions on Intelligent Systems and Technology (TIST) 5(1), 21 (2013)
23. Stanton, N.A., Salmon, P.M., Walker, G.H.: Let the reader decide: A paradigm shift
for situation awareness in sociotechnical systems. Journal of Cognitive Engineering
and Decision Making 9(1), 44–50 (2015)
24. Storm, B.C., Stone, S.M.: Saving-enhanced memory: The benefits of saving on
the learning and remembering of new information. Psychological Science 26(2),
182–188 (2015)
25. Szpunar, K.K., Khan, N.Y., Schacter, D.L.: Interpolated memory tests reduce mind
wandering and improve learning of online lectures. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 110(16), 6313–6317 (2013)
26. Taplin, J.: Move fast and break things: How Facebook, Google, and Amazon have
cornered culture and what it means for all of us. Pan Macmillan, New York (2017)
27. Van Dijk, W.W.: Not having what you want versus having what you do not want:
The impact of type of negative outcome on the experience of disappointment and
related emotions. Cognition & Emotion 13(2), 129–148 (1999)
28. Véliz, C.: Online masquerade: Redesigning the internet for free speech through the
use of pseudonyms. Journal of Applied Philosophy 36(4), 643–658 (2018)
29. Wattenberg, M., Viégas, F., Hardt, M.: Attacking discrimination
with smarter machine learning. Tech. rep., Google Research (2016),
https://research.google.com/bigpicture/attacking-discrimination-in-ml/
30. Westling, C.E.I.: Immersion and confusion. In: Proceedings of the 2013 Inputs-
Outputs Conference: An Interdisciplinary Conference on Engagement in HCI and
Performance. p. 3. ACM, New York, NY (2013)
31. Westling, C.E.I.: Immersion and Participation. Bloomsbury, London (2020)
32. Witchel, H.J., Westling, C.E., Tee, J., Healy, A., Needham, R., Chockalingam,
N.: What does not happen: Quantifying embodied engagement using nimi and
A Manifesto for Cognitive Ergonomics 35
self-adaptors. Participations: International Journal of Audience Research 11(1),
304–331 (2014), http://www.participations.org/Volume 11/Issue 1/18.pdf