Preface

Although still unfinished, has this script experienced many changes in the organization of the different aspects of HMI. This is in a large part due to the fact that the discipline of human-computer interaction (to which there are several synonymous terms) since the 80s of the 20th century has undergone many transformations. In 1992 there was the the first time a conference which used the words 'Usability Testing' as main subject (see Dumas et al. (2008)[38]).

Although the position of this script is not yet completely consolidated there are some main topics which perhaps can represent the cornerstones of the discipline for the near future.

Dumas and Fox argue in their overview (see [38]) that HMI as Human Machine Interaction / Human Machine Interface started from the classic paradigm of psychology and has now more and more moved its natural focus in the context of the engineering process, here especially witin the design phase (see Figure 1.1 , left half). The primary target is to find out possible flaws in the intended interface by testing the ideas with only a few users.

Figure 1.1: HMI as part of the engineering process

Distinguished from that is the question of validation of a prototype, when the implemented system is present at some time (see Figure 1.1, right half). Here is the interface complete, connected to a fully implemented system function. Now, larger numbers of subjects are invited for tests to substantiate the validity. Here are also comparative studies possible.

Figure 1.2: HMI in the use of psychological principles

The increasing importance of the engineering process as the main application context for HMI does not make the psychological experiments obsolete. The contrary is true. While intensifying the practical applications this is a strong source of deep questions regarding the general underlying cognitive mechanisms of the user (see Figure 1.2). Questions of perception, memory, the response behavior, and emotions - to name only some - play in almost every concrete application a central role. Thus HMI 'drives' psychology to generate more useful models and theories.

Figure 1.3: HMI in the context of learning

The growing complexity of an application requires more and more the usage of adequate scenarios to model not only simple classical tests but also more complex dynamic interactions. The transition to so-called learning scenarios - or even game situations - is here a new and promising option (see Figure 1.3 ).

With such a final simulation-based approach to enhanced interactive multi-player contexts are then the boundaries between real and virtual world blurred. With one and the same interface in the same environment, both human actors and computer-based artificial agents can interact with each other. This can include very realistic tests of whether an artificial agent is able to to cooperate with a human.

This variety of aspects is for the construction of theories a tough challenge (cf. Barnard and colleagues (1999, 2000)[8], [7]). They call for a hierarchical model of components with elementary functions at the lowest level. As a basic unit they assume 'interactors'. From a systems theoretical point of view, can the 'interactors' simply be interpreted as input-output systems, which finally are nothing else than functions, which can be combined to larger functions. Structural analogies are there also to the scientific theoretical investigations of the Munich school of philosophy of science in the 80's and 90's of the 20th century, which was strongly influenced from the Bourbaki program in mathematics (see, Stegmüller (1979) [142]) and and the physicist Ludwig (see Ludwig (1978) [95]).

For teaching with limited time one has to answer the question of what the students can do with such a complex subject.

According to the main dimensions of teaching (see Figure 1.4 ) References, theory and experiment, each student should do his own minimal reading, he should run at least one real experiment and should play around with at least one model or theory, which had to be checked.

Figure 1.4: Structure of the module

A set of minimal framework could be the following one:

LITERATURE	THEORY	EXPERIMENT
MMI within Design	Model	Usability
MMI and Validation	Model	Validation
Psychology	Model	Perception, Memory
Psychology	Model	Mental models, Learning

Of all the possible relevant articles and books (hundreds!) here a possible minimal list:

1. MMI within design: overview Dumas and Fox (2008)[38]; Dix et al.(2003)[31]:Chap.17; Usability tests: Lauesen (2005)[89]:Chap.1,13,
2. MMI and Validation: Dix et. al. (2003)[31]:Chap.9
3. Psychology - Perception: Zimbardo et al. (2002)[162]:chap.4+5
4. Psychology - Memory: Ebbinghaus (1885)[41], Arbinger (1984)[6]
5. Psychology - mental Models : Dix et al.(2003)[31]:Chap.1+12; Barnard et. (1999, 2000)[8], [7], Payne (2008)[115].

It is optional for the students to make alternative proposals. However, the above topics shall be be served.

The theme of learning is especially addressed in the context of a separate course called 'Dynamical Knowledge'