Expert Review for the Pilot of a Large-scale Industrial Hypermedia Application.

Wills GB, Heath I, Crowder RM, Hall W.


This report covers the second part of the structured expert review evaluation of a pilot hypermedia application for the Factory Information Resource Management (FIRM) project. The evaluation process used experts from the industrial environment. The evaluation focuses on the usability of the proposed application in the industrial environment. This report presents the rational behind the evaluation and the design criteria to be evaluated. In addition the procedure used and the results of the evaluation are present along with the lessons learnt.

Technical Report No. 98-3 June 1998.
ISBN 0854326723
Copyright © 1998, University of Southampton. All rights reserved.


1. Introduction
1.1 Systematic User Evaluation (SUE).
1.2 Defining the evaluation tasks.
1.3 Choice of usability criteria.
1.4 Defining Evaluation Tasks.
2. The Pilot Study Evaluation .
2.1 The Expert Reviewers
2.2 The procedure.
2.3 Comments on procedure.
2.4 Results
2.5 Comments on the Results.
3 Evaluation of the Input Device.
4. Conclusions.
Appendix A Comments By Expert Reviewers

1. Introduction.

This report covers the second part of the structured expert review evaluation of a pilot hypermedia application for the Factory Information Resource Management (FIRM) project. The first part of the expert review was undertaken to establish the Human Computer Interaction (HCI) aspects on industrial hypermedia system, focusing on the general graphical user interface aspects. The results and process used in the first part of the evaluation are reported in a previous technical report on 'Evaluation of a User Interface Developed for Industrial Applications' [Wills 97a]. The first part of the review was carried out using experienced specialists in the field of hypermedia. While the structures expert review report here was conduct used experts reviewers from the industrial environment and was conducted on site at Pirelli Cables. The lessons learnt from the first review were applied to the review process reported here. The pilot application under evaluation was design and authored using the methodologies described in previous technical reports on Industrial Hypermedia Authoring [Wills 97b] and Industrial Hypermedia Design [Wills 98]. This report presents the rational behind the evaluation, the process used, the results and lessons learnt from the evaluation.

1.1 Systematic User Evaluation (SUE).

Garzotto et al [Garzotto 97] have proposed a Systematic Evaluation of Hypermedia (SUE) that basically combines inspection with empirical testing. It aims to reduce the disadvantages of the inspection and empirical testing, to produce a reliable cost effective solution. The system can be divided into two phases:

Sue process

Figure 1 Systematic User Evaluation of a hypermedia application suggested by Garzotto.

SUE was originally designed with Hypermedia Design Methodology (HDM) and museums applications in mind. The details of the evaluation process as given in the literature [Garzotto 97] cannot be directly applied to an industrial environment. There are several reasons for this: -

Hence, the actual abstract task and evaluation methods in the execution phase are not applicable to the industrial Environment. The principles that can be distilled from the preparatory phase of the SUE approach and used to provide a general framework from which a systematic evaluation of a large-scale industrial hypermedia application can be developed are: -

Even these principles need to be modified before they can be used in the evaluation process. The modifications are necessary to ensure that the evaluation methods used will evaluate the issues involved in large-scale industrial applications and that the language used is appropriate to an industrial environment.













Structural Links












Menu (figures)




Menu (text)








Results Box




Guided Tours




Table 1 The Design model primitives for FIRM.

Back to Contents List.

1.2 Defining the evaluation tasks.

The choice of a model is to guide the analysis of the pilot application and provide a common language/set of definitions for the abstract tasks. In this research a new design methodology is used for the industrial environment [Wills 98]. The main primitives or design concepts that describe the essential features of the methodology are shown in Table 1

. The usability evaluation of a hypermedia application can generally be divided into three main areas.

  1. The general look and feel of the user interface. This will include dialogue styles, menus, shape of buttons, usage of colours, window design and the actions the operators have to perform i.e. click on the button with mouse.
  2. Evaluation of the representation of the information structure. That is, the Mini-hypermedia Applications (MHAs) structure, change control, access methods, general navigation features including any active media control, for example guided tours, video segments or animations.
  3. Evaluation of the application specific information. That is, does it make sense, can the users follow a train of thought, contents of MHA, is information appropriately clustered, are the drawings clear, etc.

The majority of the issues to evaluate in the area of the general look and feel are a function of the propriety software, while information structure and information content are a function of the application domain. Therefore, the latter areas need be specifically evaluated. However intrinsic to the evaluation will be the look and feel of the application as a whole, with special attention being given to those areas of the interface specifically designed for the application, such as is the toolbars and menus.

Back to Contents List.

1.3 Choice of usability criteria.

The usability criteria applicable to the industrial hypermedia environment and to be evaluated are:

  1. Retrievability: How easily can a user find the relevant information this is commonly called accessibility, yet this can be confused with the access control in the industrial environment hence the change of name.
  2. Orientation: The ability of the user to know their navigational position, the information context and the ability to return to a position if required.
  3. Reuse: the design and authoring methodology encourages reuse. However, inappropriate reuse, not reusing enough (or too much) information to make sense in the new context, can cause the user to become disorientated
  4. Intuitive. The system will allow the user to grasp the meaning and purpose of the information, dialogue box, window etc. that is being presented.
  5. Consistency. Conceptually similar elements are treated in a similar fashion, while conceptually different elements are treated differently.
  6. Accessibility. How accessible with/without the correct permissions is the information.

1.4 Defining Evaluation Tasks.

The task definition can be divided into two sections, those for the expert review and those for the general users of the system. The structured expert review tasks (ETs) use the terminology of the model to provide a general description of each task the expert reviews are to try to perform. The defining of the tasks also provided uniformity in the evaluation process, especially when different evaluators are involved. Hence, the evaluation process will depend, more on the procedure used and less on the evaluator's ability. In addition, the task description will identify critical areas and the appropriate usability criteria for evaluation.

The abstract tasks were defined using the following headings:
Tile of Task: - General heading.
Activity Description: - What the user is required to do.
Design Criteria: - Primitives the primitives that are under evaluation.
Usability Criteria: - Those usability criteria that are applicable to the task.
Additional Comments. Here the designer of the evaluation comments on the rational behind evaluating the task.

Back to Contents List.

2. The Pilot Study Evaluation.

This structured expert review was conduct at Pirelli Cables. The industrial expert reviews were all from the management team of the Supertension line. In the evaluation the management team was mainly there to review the information structure and the content of the specific information. However general comments on the look and feel of the pilot application were encouraged.

2.1 The Expert Reviewers

The expert reviewers were all from the management team of the Supertension sheathing line.

ER 1 Manufacturing Manager (Supertension Cables).
ER 2 Maintenance Engineer (Supertension Cables).
ER 3 Principal Process Engineer.
ER 4 Process owner (Supertension Cables).

The expert reviewers were chosen because of their experience in the field of manufacturing cables and not computer science. The age ranged of the experts was between 30 and 55 years old, and they had work in the industry for between 12 and 35 years. All of the reviewers use computers daily and e-mail in the course of their work. In response to questions on their experience of using computer packages such as word processing, spreadsheets and presentation packages:

Figure 2 Expert Reviewers self-assessment of experience with software packages.

Back to Contents List.

2.2 The procedure.

The Expert Reviews were carried out over two session. The first was with ER 4, the second with ER 2 and ER 3. The expert review was given four scenarios recorded as expert tasks (ET) 1 to 4. The experts were asked to make comments whilst carrying out the scenarios, in accordance with the principles set out in section 1.2. The observer took notes and occasionally prompted the reviewer for comments.


Activity Description

Design Criteria:

Usability Criteria

Additional Comments

ET 1 General Introduction

Switch on and log into the system. Use General help to find information on operator overview.

Structural Links, Clusters, Menu (text), Toolbar

Retrievability: Orientation: Intuitive. Accessibility

The experts are to examine from switch on if the navigation of the system is intuitive

ET 2

Examining the presentation of a Manual

From the main menu, under the main heading of on-line manual select the Eurotherm Manual. Navigate around the manual check drawings

MHA, Nodes, Structural links, SHEP.

Retrievability, Orientation, Intuitive, Consistency.

The Experts will be using SHEP and examining text and diagrams

ET 3

Navigation using the guided tour and history Box.

From Select-a-Document window select the guided tour. Follow the guide tour. Check the links out of the tour. Retrace some of your steps using the history list. Return back to the main menu

MHAs, Nodes, Structural Links, SHEP, Menu (text), Results Box, Guided Tours.

Orientation. Intuitive. Consistency.

The task is designed to test the system when the user move through and out of a predefine tour. Can they also revisit items of interest later?

ET 4 Navigate information that has been reused.

From the main menu, select the line diagram and either of the caterpullers. Examine the documentation for that machine.

MHAs, Nodes, Structural Links, SHEP, Menu (figures) Menu (text), Guided Tours.

Retrievability: Orientation: Reuse: Intuitive. Consistency Accessibility.

The MHA contains information that is reused. That is there are documents common to both caterpullers.

Table 2 A list of the Expert Tasks.

The activity descriptions for the scenarios were slightly modified between the first and second group of reviewers. That is the manual that the reviews were asked to comment on were swapped between tasks 2 and 4. This did not effect the design or usability criteria under examination. The reasons for the slight change, being that not all of the recommendation suggested from the first session had been implemented in time for the second review, that is the diagrams were not included. Hence, to encourage comments on the different method use to represent diagrams within the manuals the reviewers were asked to examine a different set of manuals.

Back to Contents List.

2.3 Comments on procedure.

The length of time taken to carry out the first review was 46 minutes, this was about the right length of time for an expert reviewer working alone. The length of time taken to complete the second session with two expert reviews was just over 60 minutes. The sessions were initial planned to take 90 minutes based on 3-4 expert reviewers. This time of 90 minutes for 3-4 reviewers was based on the experienced gained while conducting a previous structured expert reviews reported by the authors [Wills 97a]. That is discussion of each scenario naturally generates more discussion and hence would take longer the more reviewers in a session.

The sound recording of the comments was necessary as the reviewer was working along and unless people are used to speaking their thoughts aloud, it can be intimidating to do so, especially as the comments are recorded. The sound recording acts as an aide-mémoire for the observer in writing the report only, therefore all sound recordings are erased once the report is completed. The sound recording of the comments proved useful although there was only one reviewer. The usefulness of the sound recordings was in part due to the observer needed to encourage the reviewer to think aloud. Therefore, the observer found it both difficult to engage the reviewer and write detailed notes on the reviewer's comments especially once the evaluation was near the end of the session. Towards the end of a session the expert reviewer's ideas flowed more easily and hence the notes taken were not detailed enough to obtain the full recommendation of the reviewer. Hence, listening to the sound recordings helped in compiling the evaluation report.

All comments and observations are accurately and factually recorded. However, what is not recorded is the weighting giving to the observation made by the expert reviewer. Hence, time could be spent on correcting some of the less crucial issues, that is the observations that are the easiest to fix or at least the more interesting to the designers. Therefore, a system of classifying the observation is required to ensure that the important issues of usability are identified. Ideally, this should be carried out during the review.

There is always a danger with classification of observations using terms such as, major and minor, or important and not important is that the observations with the lower rating are ignored out of hand. It is however, always a designers/project manager choice as to which observations they will allocate resources to.

A method is required whereby topics the reviewers discuss in passing or between scenarios that are of a general nature and cannot be attributed to any particular scenario, are given full consideration. For example, the comments made about the usability of the touch pad and the drawing issues. These are much bigger issues than the usability of certain scenarios. What at first might appear to be a minor or a not important observation can have wider significance if repeated by different groups of reviewers in different sessions. Therefore, the observer or evaluation team needs to be aware of trends and the significance of comments made by expert reviewers. Hence, it essential the observers must record all comments, especially those that on the surface do not appear to be important. This requirement is in addition to the weighting of observations made by the expert reviewers.

Each of the scenarios was designed to evaluate aspects of the design and usability criteria. As stated earlier the expert reviewers were not computer scientists or usability experts. Hence, the language used to describe to observations could not be mapped directly to the criteria under evaluation. However, the purpose of the review was to assess the suitability of the system for the factory environment and in particular the factory-floor. Hence, their observations made were focused purely from the user's point of view. Therefore, the observation were grouped as below, yet by examining the observation closely and especially the lack of criticism showed that much of the system was transparent to the users.

There were also some positive comments, for example the 'close button' on the toolbar to close all the pages of the manual pages and the thumb nail sketch approach for ensuring large diagrams do not interfere with the reading text.

One of the advantages of carrying out these types of reviews is that they allow the user to get involved in the development process. This was especially relevant in the case of Pirelli Cables, where the original senior manager who endorsed the project were promoted and moved to a different site. Hence the review proved to be a successful mechanism in which the line management could be involved in the development and begin to become owners of the project concepts.

Back to Contents List.

2.4 Results

The observations made by the reviewer were grouped into 3 categories, those referring to: -

In the categorisation of the observation, some of the observation can clearly be place in a number of categories. Hence, the observations are placed in the different category that best represents the main point of the observation. A full list of the comments is included in Appendix A. However, the observations that most concerned the expert review can be summarised as follows:



The other observations were to do with the presentation of the material using SHEP or the size of the documentation. For example how to control the page turn so that drawings that are represent by thumbnails are included.


Back to Contents List.

2.5 Comments on the Results.

To correct some of these observations require various tools, and this review has proved help in identify some of the tools needed. There are several of the critical observations that could not be rectified, as they would involve change the source code to Microcosm or Window's NT. For example when the reviewer zoomed into a diagram using the bitmap viewer, the window would resize itself. In doing so, the task bar was not fully displayed. Only the first few icons could be seen and used, i.e. tool bar does not wrap. This is a function of the bitmap viewer and is comment to many Windows' applications (i.e. Microsoft office).

The problem where the tables and figures that are embedded into the text document and could not be read as the viewer is made smaller due to no horizontal scrollbars is a 'bug' or design flaw of the RTF viewer. Multicosm are due to release a new multipurpose viewer in 1998, this will be able to display over 50 different file formats. The author of this thesis has evaluated the viewer during its beta phase, the viewer did manage to display text and RTF formats adequately, but at that stage did have problems with Word documents. In addition it did not have the same functionality as the current DXF viewer for vector based drawings. While it solves the problem of embedded figures and tables, it looses the advantages of the present RTF hypertext viewer, that is, it follows the paper paradigm, with page breaks and headers/footers. Hence more time is spent ensuring that the layout of embedded figures, diagrams and paragraphs do not stretching across page breaks rather than in the most appropriate place to give them meaning.

The guided tours in the pilot application were used to maintain the original structure of the manuals and procedures. Guided tours were not effectively supported in the administrative layer. However a method was developed where by the information from the guided tours was used within the FIRM authoring environment to enable the user to step through the original structure as thought they were pages in a manual. This method is better than the guided tour as it allow the user to step back as well as forward and the user can jump into any part of the tour. Predefined tours are part of the wider issue of how the user navigates a large industrial application and associates nodes of information, again braking the confines of the paper paradigm.

The observation that ideally the system needs to be taken to the point of use, is a very valid point and is mainly an issue of the choice of technology. The issues raised about the point of use and the ability to view all the information has far wider implications and requires further work. Although a maintainer may have opened in front of them a number of diagrams and books, they will only be reading one at a time. However, they are able to glance from one to the other. This is essentially a combination of the issues of navigation and HCI for technical information. Hence, there needs to be some form of virtual 'bench top' in which all the information can be laid out. This problem will be partly solved by very near future technology. For example the release of operating system like Microsoft Office 98™ with it ability to display information on two screens. In addition TFT (Thin Film Transistor) and LCD screens are becoming cheaper. These have the advantage of being slim line (1 cm thick) very light compared to the weight of a CRT screen with the same viewing area of a CRT without the need for the 40 mm surround that is required to hold the CRT in place. Hence it is very feasible to have two TFT screens fed from a single lightweight PC. Research into how this can be practically achieved and the navigational paradigm to achieve it is required.

Back to Contents List.

3 Evaluation of the Input Device.

The ability to use the touch pad effectively could just have been a matter of practice. However, all three expert reviewers found it cumbersome, and were concerned about how the factory floor users would cope with using the touch pad. Pirelli insist that computers on the factory-floor be housed in a purpose built enclosure, hence the touch sensitive pad (called a Glide pad) was initially chosen for the pilot application, as space on the tray holding the keyboard was limited. In addition a conventional desktop mouse would soon become unusable on the factory-floor due to the ingress of dirt, grease bitumen etc. Hence, the different options were evaluated. The options immediately available were:

The conventional mouse was used as a base-line device, as all the reviewers had experience of using the device. Each of the reviews attending the session (ER1, ER3, and ER4) tried to use the devices to move the cursor, follow links and select text. The reviewers were then asked to fill in a questionnaire consisting of the following questions for each device. A score was then given to each of the answers as shown in Table 3.

How did the device feel to use


Awkward (1)

Awkward (2)

Natural (3)

Very Natural (4)

Using the device to move the cursor to an area on the screen was:

Very Easy (4)

Easy (3)

Difficult (2)

Very Difficult (1)

How well were you able to select a link

Very Easily(4)

With Ease (3)

With some Difficulty (2)

Very Difficult (1)

How difficult was it to select a piece of text

Very Difficult (1)

Sometimes Difficult (2)


Difficult (3)

Easily (4)

How quickly were you able to use the device effectively

Straight away (4)

Requires some practice (3)

Requires a Lot of Practice. (2)

Never able to use it probably. (1)

Table 3 Question asked to review the input devices, score in brackets.

The questions were asked in such a way that the reviewer had to make a choice. In addition the question were structured so that not all the favourable choice were in either the extreme right or left box. The results of the scores given by the reviewers are shown in Table 4.

The reviewers were also asked to rate the devices in accordance to their preference for use on the factory-floor. The first choice of all the reviewers was the TrackMan. To use a TrackMan and keyboard requires an extension of the width of the tray that holds the keyboard. A previous visit to the factory-floor revealed that it was common practice to leave the keyboard tray extended. Hence any modification to the width of the keyboard tray would not effect the common work practice, although it would stop the tray from being places back into the enclosure.


Devices in order of numerical score given by expert reviewers:

Highest on the Left, Least on the right

The feel of the device to use.

Mouse (11)

TrackMan (9)

Glide Pad (8)

Touch Screen (6)

Pen and Pad (5)

Ability to move the cursor:

Mouse (12)

TrackMan or Touch Screen (both 10)

Glide Pad (9)

Pen and Pad (7)

Ability to select a link

TrackMan or Mouse (10)

Glide Pad or Touch Screen (7)

Pen and Pad (6)

Ability to select a piece of text

TrackMan (11)

Mouse or Glide Pad (9)

Touch Screen (7)

Pen and Pad (6)

Ability to use the device effectively

TrackMan (11)

Mouse or Glide Pad (10)

Touch Screen (7)

Pen and Pad (6)

Table 4 Results of answers to the questionnaire.

Some of the other general points raised by the reviewers were:


Back to Contents List.

4. Conclusions.

The evaluation of the Eastleigh application used experts from the industrial environment rather than HCI specialist. Hence the observation made were more on the general feel and the content of the information. It was found that the analysis of the results must include a weighting categorisation of the observation and not just a factual recording. In addition the observer of the reviews had to pay close attention to general comments, that could not be assigned to a specific scenario and comments although seemingly insignificant, but when repeated several times by the reviewer increase their importance. An example of this was the comments on the unsuitability of the glided-pad as an input device for the factory floor. Therefore an evaluation of a number of input devices was undertaken. In the opinion of the reviewers the TrackMan was the best solution. In addition the observations of taking the information to the point of use and how best to view large detailed drawings and manual at the same time, require further work.

Back to Contents List.


The authors acknowledge the EPSRC (Engineering and Physical Science Research Council) for funding the work under grant number GR/L/10482.


[Garzotto 95


[Garzotto 97]

Garzotto F, Paolini P. Systematic Evaluation of Hypermedia Applications. Tutorial at The Eighth ACM conference on Hypertext, HT’97, Southampton UK, 9-11 April 1997



[Wills 97a]

Wills G.B, Heath I, Crowder R.M, Hall W. Evaluation of a User Interface Developed for Industrial Applications. University of Southampton Technical report No M97-4 ISBN-0854326499

[Wills 97b]

Wills G.B, Heath I, Crowder R.M, Hall W. Hypermedia Authoring in an Industrial Environment.. University of Southampton Technical report No M97-5 ISBN- 085432655-3

[Wills 98]

Wills G.B, Heath I, Crowder R.M, Hall W. Industrial Hypermedia Design University of Southampton Technical report No. M98-2 ISBN:- 0-585432-668-5


Back to Contents List.

Appendix A Comments By Expert Reviewers

The observation made by the reviewer fall into 3 categories, those referring to:-


The system showed links to a number of bitmaps and documents for example the Siemen's motor, yet the reviewer was unable to follow them. The error message was no document found. However, the system still open a blank viewer, which could not be closed until the reviewer exited the FIRM system and the toolbar went behind the taskbar.

Import links and documents


The reviewer naturally went to a subject heading (heading level 1) and tried to follow links. The only links were on the sub-headings. Hence, it may be worth linking the subject heading to the first of the sub-headings.

Link page


The header of the contents page is too long hence to see the contents list the reviewer needs to scroll down the node.

Rewrite page.


Selecting Eurotherm manual from the menu did not take the reviewer to the main contents page of the Eurotherm Manual

Link page


The links to the bitmaps and DXF drawings where missing and hence the reviewer could not evaluate their effect at this stage of the evaluation.

Re-import Links


The header of the contents page is too long hence to see the contents list the user needs to scroll down the node. Therefore, this node needs to be split into two separate ones.

Rewrite page.


The line diagram was not included, however the main menu did distinguish between the two machines.

Re-import links and documents



The displaying of a bitmap from the thumb nail sketch was cumbersome, that is, the bitmap was wider and deeper than the screen. The figure needs to be about a third of it present size, otherwise, this will confuse the operator as it is difficult to resize the window, due to it being so large.

Re-sample images


When bitmaps where displayed, the initial position was such that the top boarder was off the screen. Hence, it became difficult to move the windows.

Re-Set Default


When the reviewer zoomed into a diagram using the bitmap viewer, the window would resize itself. In doing so, the task bar was not fully displayed. Only the first few icons could be seen and used, i.e. tool bar does not wrap.

Multicosm Fault, unable to solve,


When using the Eurotherm manual if the right hand window was closed, the display did not revert to the main contents on left pane and chapter contents on the right pane.

Rewrite SHEP


The table and figures that are imbedded into the document could not be read, as only part of the table or figure could be seen as no horizontal scroll bars where available and the SHEP system would not allow the reviewer to adjust the size of the two panels

Investigated different viewers.


The toolbar blocked the bottom of the RTF viewer. Hence, it was not possible to scroll down to see all the information. As the windows were SHEP controlled it was not possible to resize them as a user, this was a major problem.

Increase height of taskbar.


The DXF drawings come to the front then disappear, this happened the first time that the reviewer opened a drawing. However on the second occasion it remained open.

Investigate SHEP


When the expert reviewer zooms into a DXF drawing they can zoom-in by stages. However they can only zoom out by using the centre drawing and fit to window button.

Check new DXF viewer.


The use of the DXF viewer raised a number of issues.

How will a set of drawings be viewed by the user? Many larger A0 drawings are dissected in smaller drawings often containing a lot of detail.

Drawings are often used in conjunction with manuals. How will we display both?

Drawings often flow from one to another. How will we facilitate that?

If we use a large electronic drawing rather than dissect the drawing, will the birds eye view be legible.

The user will often put diagrams side by side to see the complete system, can this be achieved with the real-estate of a 17 inch monitor.

Investigate delivery method.


Could the welcome screen become full size on switch on as half the options could not be seen without scrolling down the page?.

change size of welcome screen


Next page button only displayed the chapter contents in sequence and not the individual pages. However the expert review could see what was trying to be done and thought it would be a useful tool when it was working.

Rewrite SHEP


The displaying of a bitmap from the thumb nail sketch was cumbersome. In that the size of the viewer was so large that, it would not fit on the screen. Some form of size control is needed, either by the author or by SHEP (which the author sets). However the expert review liked the thumb nail approach as it did not interfere with the reading the text, yet the user can see the diagram in more detail if required.

Resample Image


A designation between clusters and actual documents. Could we prioritise them so that the documents are on top of the clusters, or give an option?

Change Icon



The reviewer is presented with a choice of operating systems, which version do they choice? If there is only one option can the PC just boot straight into the appropriate operating system.

Set system options


The reviewer is required to log on twice. Once for the operating system and again for the FIRM system. Hence, could we set the system so that the reviewer logs in once and the system logs the reviewer into FIRM?

Set auto log-in requires script.


At the FIRM log in, the reviewer name is highlighted and not the password box. The danger is that the reviewer starts to type the password and in doing so deletes the reviewer name.

Set auto log-in requires script


Once logged on the reviewer is presented with only the one option of Supertension Sheathing Line. It is not obvious that they are required to press return could the application autostart?

Set autostart.


A general comment is that it would be very useful, especially for the novice users to have one button that will clear all viewers and display a default menu.

Write program


When navigating documents that are not contained within a manual, it does not take long before the screen get confusing, as previous windows are left open and remain displayed, when a document is select. Therefore, could the factory floor operator only see one document at a time?

Consider the Interface.


No guide tour available.

Not compatible requires new program or method of setting Page turning


The information is actually required at the point of use, away from the proposed PC. Is it possible to have a print command or some other method of providing the shop-floor reviewer with the information? This is especially important if the system is to replace the paper copies.

Investigation required.


The touch sensitive pad was awkward to use. The reviewers found it difficult to select the text that they required. The system would often highlight several lines of text. It appeared as if the first touch was interrupted as a tap and subsequent movement as a command to highlight the lines of text. While in reality the reviewer was simply trying to move the cursor.

Investigate new input device.


There are two similar looking buttons on the front of the computer. It is not clear which one is the power button.

Mark the correct button with black ink


The system displays the choice of operating system for a count of 30 seconds. Could this be changed to just a few seconds as the operators will never require to change the default setting.

Reset timer


The blue screen that appears as the system is booting into Windows NT does not display any useful messages to the users. Could a message be displayed to tell the use it is booting up and to wait?

Part of NT unable to change


Additional comment by David Humpreys can we stop shop floor operators loading games etc onto the machine at night by password protecting the floppy and CD drives.

Disconnect the drives physically.


The follow single link was turned back on, as the reviewer realised that a result box to follow single links was a waste of time and made navigating between nodes difficult.

Set as standard.


Although the system showed links to the Siemen's motor and the Gearbox, the reviewer was unable to follow them. The error message was no document found. However the system still open a blank viewer, which could not be closed until the user exited the FIRM system.

Import documents and links.


The only way to access the history filter is through the filter manager. Could a button be added to the tool bar.

Requires a change to the system


The history filter gives a list of all documents visited. Is it possible while navigating to mark a document as of interest and display a symbol to that effect in the history list?

Requires a change to the system


The control of bitmaps was out side SHEP although they form part of the document set. Hence, these appear in the middle of the screen and obscure the text. In addition, when you close the manual these still remain display.

Update shepherd.


The DXF drawing come to the front then disappeared, this happened a couple of times. This could have been due to the sensitivity of the touch pad mouse.

Investigate SHEP


Copyright © 1998, University of Southampton. All rights reserved.
Back to Contents List.